Serena's Fierce Broadway Blog

"I Believe In You?"

2011-06-10T10:35:00.003-04:00

Welcome back to the returning of Serena's Fierce Broadway Blog committed to theater articles every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. It has been a little over a year since I graduated and moved to New York City. Pretty crazy and a hard year it has been in many ways.

The good things?
-doing another season of Tony N' Tina's Wedding
-establishing an extremely flexible day job whilst I audition
-really pursuing dancing. I qualified for an unlimited dance card at a New York studio and am taking usually about 8 classes a week. Finally getting kept from dance callbacks. A super cool place to be.
-finding a really awesome voice teacher and taking a great acting class where I got to work on the role of Mandy, a role I would love to play, in Time Stands Still.
-taking a really helpful audition technique class that completely changed how I think about auditioning. Now if only there were more auditions to go to!
-stage managing an improv show called Properties of Play that I worked on till the end of February. It was a great group of people and it reminded me of the power of creating your own work and how there are tons of stories we have out there to tell
-seeing theater. Recently I saw The Importance of Being Earnest, Arcadia, Catch Me If You Can, and How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying all on Broadway. I also saw The School for Lies at Classic Stage Company and the Cy Coleman revue The Best is Yet to Come at 59e59 Theaters.

So busy busy busy and trying to keep art thriving around me.

This article focuses on my experiences seeing How To Succeed about two months ago.

I will preface this with that I am a huge Harry Potter fan. I have read all the books and seen all the movies many many times. However, when I heard Daniel Radcliffe was coming to Broadway to do a musical, I was very very confused. As far as I was aware (and I was right) he didn't have any musical theater experience and had very minimal stage experience (understandable since he was a bit preoccupied with the potter movies the last ten years). Why on earth then was he going to be starring in a Broadway musical? Could they not find anyone better?

Of course they could, but Daniel Radcliffe was guaranteed to sell lots of tickets,and in thtis economy where theater has lost its value, producers have to go with the ticket that will sell.

And he sells. My dance studio is right next door to the Al Hirschfeld theater where How to Succeed plays and everyday I see tons of people waiting on line hoping to get tickets. In attending the show, I literally felt like I was at a rock concert. There were a lot of teenage girls in front of me who were giddy at anything Mr. Radcliffe did. At intermission, one turned to the other and said, "I am having the most amazing time. I don't even care that the story sucks!" I, on the other hand, was rolling my eyes at his occasionally average singing and his minimal dancing. I laughed when the audience went nuts over his leap frog and any time he sort of danced around legit dancers. All I kept thinking was how embarrassing this was to people like me, who spend everyday in dance class and voice lessons and such, who have been striving for this for as long as we can remember, and to see someone up there who basically skipped all the BFA training and sleepless nights and instantly got promoted to Broadway musical stardom. Getting into a Broadway musical is really hard. First you need all the abilities, which takes a lifetime in itself to get. Dance classes, voice lessons, acting class, theater history, movement, speech, etc etc. And once you are good, there are still no guarantees. You can have the look and the skills and just not be what they want at that given moment. And there are a lot of really good people right now who can't even get a decent regional role, let alone a Broadway role. But apparently it isn't so hard. Someone like Daniel can get up there with no prior experience and not make a total fool of himself.

Of course I felt he made a fool of himself. As I watched it, I heard my be.over professors' voices in my ears. "no objective." "no specificity" "too presentational" "not truly hitting the positions in the dance." "over breathing. No projection." "out of tune." It goes on and on. Any performance of this caliber at my college would have been shamed endlessly because the person wouldn't have been applying anything we were taught from day one. But he can get away with it because he is Harry Potter.

In theater we talk a lot about risk-taking and pushing yourself further. I believe that we all have more in ourselves than we let on and that there are many roles we can push ourselves to be right for with the right guidance and nurturing. Some parts and songs we work on in classes are for that very reason and not because we are actually right for the roles. There are many roles that I learned a lot from in classes, but they are not roles I would actually play in a full performance where people are paying at least 100 dollars a pop. It is always really exciting in classes to see someone stretch themselves and work on something you wouldn't normally see them as. Good for Daniel Racliffe for stretching himself to try to do a musical, something you normally wouldn't imagine him in.

But when we're paying 100 bucks, I'm don't want to say, "Good for you." I want to say, in the words of the Harry Potter characters, "That was bloody brilliant!"

"Something's coming. I don't know what it is, but it is gonna be great."

2011-01-23T15:55:00.002-05:00

So I have had the recent opportunity to see three Broadway shows: West Side Story, Driving Miss Daisy, and Time Stands Still. I loved Driving Miss Daisy and Time Stands Still. I felt inspired to watch Laura Linney, Brian D'Arcy James, James Earl Jones, and Vanessa Redgrave work live. Their performances made me want to sit down and write the great American play (or musical) that would tell an equally profound story. I felt proud to be an actor. West Side Story, not so much.

West Side Story is a musical I have loved for quite some time and I was very much looking forward to seeing it. So many people think it might be outdated because gang violence does not exist in quite the same way it did when the show was originally written, but I disagree. The show is extremely relevant today and I wish I had felt that way during the production. The dancing was technically very strong, but did not tell the story. The dancers were too focused on making perfect turns and jumps instead of showing the characters and the fear and anger they were experiencing.

Not only that, but I was so disappointed in the vocal ability of the bulk of the cast. It is always frustrating to go to a musical when the singing is not good, but if the actors are at least communicating the story, they can make up a little for bad musicality. But that was not the case. If I see one more cliche grabbing the air movement on the line "Catch the moon, one-handed catch" in "Something's Coming," I don't even know what I will do. There is nothing worse than stock gestures and generic choices.

The most effective line of the play said by Maria at the end meant nothing, "You all killed him. And my brother. And Riff. Not with bullets and guns. With hate! Well I can kill too because now I have hate!"

It was pretty disappointing to see a musical that is so brilliantly written truly butchered. It was one of the worst musicals I had seen on Broadway....and this was something I actually WANTED to see. It is really unfortunate how there hasn't been much else I wanted to see. And if there is, chances are it is a play, not a musical. All the musicals seem to be revivals (and not even revivals of fabulous musicals) or juke-box musicals with no real plot. Or they are just shows like Spiderman that are a death sentence for the actors. Considering musical theater is my degree and my passion, it is frustrating. Are there going to be any new musicals that tell great stories?

I have been trying to take charge of this by brainstorming ideas for a musical or play, but it is so dificult to come up with ideas. And of course even if I come up with a brilliant idea, how to get it produced? New York City is a huge city and the arts are not financially supported.....or emotionally supported even.

There are very few shows that I have seen in recent years that I have loved that have had the success they deserve. In the Next Room, Superior Donuts, August: Osage County, The Drowsy Chaperone, Grey Gardens, and Ragtime were all shows that I did love, and none of them lasted long at all.

I'm not trying to just vent about theater is underappreciated these days, but I do wonder why there aren't unique stories being told anymore. It can't be that everything has been overdone since theater has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years.

But you know what I really think it is? I think all of our brains are so fried from technology so no one is coming up with any innovative ideas. I am a victim of this too. After a busy day, I come home and basically just go on facebook and surf the web for nothing. I do force myself to read The New York Times online everyday, and I know I am in the minority with my generation for doing even that. Humans aren't having real relationships anymore. We are afraid to be vulnerable and we use technology as a barrier.

Maybe THAT is what my musical will be about.

"Sometimes you have to take the initiative."

2010-11-14T23:22:00.004-05:00

I know I am so terrible at updating this! I have now been out of college for six months and have been in New York for almost five. Here's what I've been up to (artistically):

-rehearsing for a production of The Taming of the Shrew that is performing at the Producer's Club and the Lookinglass Theater Company in January 2011

-continuing to perform in Tony N' Tina's Wedding throughout the Philadelphia area. We have a show scheduled to perform in Baltimore in December, which is very exciting. It's the first time I will get paid to stay in a hotel. I'll feel like a touring actor for 24 hours. Baby steps to success.

-stage managing an improv show called Properties of Play that opens November 29th at the Canal Park Playhouse

-teaching private voice and piano lessons to children and adults

-seeing shows. Most recently, I saw Mrs. Warren's Profession and Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson within this last week.

-reading some memoirs. My roommate got me Patti LuPone's memoir for my birthday and my brother got me Stephen Sondheim's. Both have been awesome reads. With Sondheim's, I am taking the opportunity to go show-by-show to really listen to the music and watch the recording of it (if one exists). I'm pretty early in his book, but it's good to see that the first musical he ever wrote wasn't as brilliant as his later works. It all really is a process. The issue is just finding the awesome and inspiring people who can help guide my own process.

-brainstorming some ideas for writing plays, webseries, etc.

So I have been very busy, but at the same time, not busy enough. The lack of structure that I had when I was in school is very liberating, but also very terrifying. No one is forcing me to do what I don't want to do. But at the same time, it's hard to find the energy to do things I need to do and even want to do. It's a challenge fitting theater into my life. In college, theater naturally fit into my life because it was my major. Now that I'm out of school, I have to balance. It's not paying my bills (yet), but it's my calling and my passion. So I have no choice but to fit it into my busy schedule, but it's hard and very frustrating.

American theater is one of the many things being impacted by the lousy economy. There is so little coming out that is fresh and exciting. I mean, they just announced a few days ago that Rent is coming back to Off-Broadway. Seriously? How boring! As Sondheim says, "Anything you do, let it come from you. Then it will be new. Give us more to see." Re-producing Rent isn't REALLY giving us something more to see.

But I digress. The state of American theater will be another entry, as I am determined to update more regularly.

It's so easy to let the state of things impact how I feel and act. No auditions leads to no jobs, which leads to being unhappy and bored and simply not creative, right???

This quote from Mrs. Warren's Profession really resonated with me on Friday night.

"Everybody has some choice, mother. The poorest girl alive may not be able to choose between being Queen of England or Principal of Newnham; but she can choose between ragpicking and flower selling, according to her taste. People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they can't find them, make them."

The most inspiring art is that which is created in times of struggle because everyone can relate to struggle on all different levels. I need to use all the frustration and pain I have been feeling adjusting to this "city of strangers." Also, the most incredible artists created things for themselves. I have to find my own creative impulses to not have to wait for other people to discover me. It's so hard, though. New York City is a huge city, and getting noticed isn't always the easiest thing. I am hopeful with the right perseverance, things will start to change for the better! But Vivie (the character who says the above quote) is correct. Anything can happen if you go out there and do your thing. I can't blame the lack of auditions. I just need to find the right group of people and just create art.

Ready, set, go!

"My great adventure has begun."

2010-05-24T20:05:00.005-04:00

I am aware that I have been remiss about updating this blog. My final semester at the University of the Arts was pretty nutty. On top of preparing to be a superstar, I performed in 2 shows in Philadelphia: How I Became a Pirate at the Walnut Street Theatre and Tony N' Tina's Wedding, which I am still performing in, plus two cabarets in NYC: one at the Laurie Beechman Theatre and one at Don't Tell Mama. It was busy, but great to get some experience and credentials.

I graduated on Thursday and moved back to New York on Friday. Between unpacking and cleaning, I have managed to go to two theater-related events in New York City. On Saturday, I attended A Six Pack + One at Friends Always Creating Theatre. I have begun a job with theateronline.com where I am getting paid to critique shows! Hooray. Then last night I volunteered to usher at the Drama Desk Awards and I got to watch the event after the ushering was over. Super fun and I met and saw a lot of really cool people. And tomorrow the audition lifestyle begins with two auditions and dance classes. I am trying to follow my teacher's advice to always try to have a gift certificate to spend after an audition and I am lucky that I have a couple thanks to graduation!

The Drama Desks were insanely fun. I got there around 6 PM and we were shown around. At about 7 PM, people started arriving for the reception that was before the events. This was not the same reception that the "stars" went to. There was a separate VIP red carpet area. I stood around and made sure people had their tickets and people-watched. Many people in really fancy clothing. Some people looked insanely excited to be at the event and others didn't seem too thrilled. All different kinds of people.

At 8:30, we started telling people to get into their seats and then we got to sit down and watch at 9 PM. I was seated next to a woman wearing a jogging suit and sneakers. I was a little surprised that someone was wearing that clothing. Little did I know that it was TWYLA THARP! I didn't know it was until they announced the winner for Best Choreography and she stood up. It was so crazy. I had just read her book My Creative Habit. Unfortunately, she did not come back to her seat after winning for me to tell her I had just read her book. I never would have recognized her.

The most important thing I learned from the Drama Desk awards is that cliche lines aren't cliche if they are said with true emotion. Plenty of people said "dream-come-true," but it came from a truthful place, so it wasn't as silly as it sounds. The most heartfelt speeches were the ones that were said in the moment of shock, happiness, etc. I know we all have practiced our Tony speeches in the shower at some point, but you can't practice these things because you have no idea how you are going to react in the moment. It is a good reminder as an actor that you have to find ways to react that makes it seem like this is your first time experiencing these feelings, even if it is really your 1000th performance reacting that way. Listening and responding is the most important thing. Don't force emotion. If it is meant to come, it will come. That has definitely been a challenge for me as an actor because I always try to force emotions and feelings to come and then it just looks like desperation. And that's definitely one of the most uncomfortable things to observe as an audience member. So I can't ever seem desperate. I just gotta do the work.

All right, show biz. No more preparing. Here I go.

"The Internet is really really great!"

2010-01-15T15:25:00.003-05:00

As my lazy winter break is finishing its last couple of days, the television has been on constantly and I've been devouring play after play. The majority of the plays I have been reading have been plays written before 1900 and most of the television has been re-runs of Friends, a show that of course did not end that long ago.

As I have been reading these plays and watching episodes, it reminds me how technology has truly changed so much, not just in our day-to-day lives. Think how many plots of plays would be so different if people could just pick up their cell phones and call someone or check out their Facebook to find out information. I laugh on episodes of Friends when they make a big deal about caller-ID and all these other technological innovations that we use every single day.

Of course the first example that immediately comes to my head is She Loves Me, a musical about two people who are romantic penpals. As far as they know, they have not met their penpal, but it turns out that these two characters are enemies at work. If this musical were written today, they would immediately friend each other on Facebook and instantly realize that they are not interested in continuing this penpal relationship. Amalia certainly wouldn't sing, "I don't know his name or what he looks like" because she most definitely would know his name and what he looked like. Oh well, there goes a delightful musical.

An American in Paris would not work either. Jerry (Gene Kelly's character) would immediately friend Lise (Leslie Caron's character) on Facebook and would see that her relationship status would be "engaged to Henri Baurel." He wouldn't continue to pursue her and a lot of the beautiful dance numbers wouldn't happen.

In Annie, I'm sure Annie would be able to sneak into Miss Hannigan's office to get on the Internet and do as much as searching about her family as possible.

In Bye Bye Birdie, "The Telephone Hour" would be re-named "The Texting Hour." Kim would send out a mass text to everyone saying that she and Hugo got pinned. All the other friends would text back and forth about the gossip. Kim also would have tweeted about it and changed her relationship status on Facebook to "In a Relationship with Hugo Peabody."

In Grey Gardens, Joe Kennedy would probably already know that Edie Beale was not as innocent as she appeared to be because she would have lots of Facebook pictures tagged of her drinking and smoking scandalous things and dressing in scandalous ways.

Just something as simple as everyone trying to find Claude in Hair would be a lot easier because they could just call his cell phone.

There probably would be television and radio stations after John Valjean in Les Miserables. There could also be blogs spotting locations of where Valjean might be.

In Oklahoma!, Jud and Curly would probably just send each other mean text messages while in the presence of Laurey.

In West Side Story, Tony and Maria would be able to get in touch through cell phones, so Maria wouldn't have to depend on Anita to deliver (or not deliver) the message. If cell phones existed, perhaps Tony would survive.

It's not just musicals that are affected by this as well.

I have a strong feeling Viola wouldn't be able to get away with pretending to be a boy named Cesario in Twelfth Night since Orsino would just stalk his/her Facebook page and see that Cesario was not a real person.

Would Jack Worthing be able to get away with his double identity in The Importance of Being Earnest? Cecily would certainly be Facebook friends with him and would discover that his name was not actually Ernest.

In A Doll's House, Krogstad wouldn't come all the way to Nora's house to remind her of the debt. He would just send her threatening text messages.

The examples go on and on.

So....while technology is absolutely fabulous and convenient, it certainly has ruined some really great plots. For 2010 and the next decade of the world, I hope to see some great plots with the influence of technology since clearly technology isn't going anywhere.

"I have sailed the world, beheld its wonders from the Dardanelles to the mountains of Peru, but there's no place like London! I feel home again!"

2010-01-06T14:27:00.006-05:00

I have been pretty horrible about updating this blog because of the insanity of my fall semester of senior year. Being involved in two productions (Major Barbara by George Bernard Shaw and my senior cabaret) was very rewarding and time-consuming at the same time. However, one thing that got me through the crazy semester was knowing that I was going on a trip to LONDON with University of the Arts over winter break! Not only was it a London trip, it was a London THEATER trip where we would see four shows, have three backstage tours, and spend New Year's at Grim's Dyke, the home that Gilbert of Gilbert and Sullivan lived in! What more could a Broadway baby who yearns to travel ask for?

I went on the trip with fourteen other theater students and our teacher David, who is originally from England and had a full theater career in London. We stayed in a wonderful part of London on Glouster Road, which was a block away from the tube (aka the subway) that was minutes away from all the theaters and the center of London life.

I had a lot of specific expectations about London and my trip, some of which were fulfilled more than I ever could have imagined, and some that were not. One of my hopes was that London would be filled with tons and tons of productions of classical texts. This past semester, my acting studio was entirely classical texts and I fell in love with it all, from Shakespeare to Shaw to Wilde. As I fell in love with these texts, it saddened me that the New York theater scene does not tend to do these classical pieces. It always seems that the Shakespeare plays that come to Broadway are only scheduled for a limited run and seem to have a star vehicle (such as Jude Law in the production of Hamlet this past fall). I was very hopeful that it would be different in London. After all, Shakespeare's plays were first performed in England and people tend to say that British are much better at these heightened texts than Americans are.

While there is the Royal Shakespeare Company and Shakespeare's Globe Theater that both perform Shakespearean plays on a regular basis, I was overall very disappointed that there wasn't even MORE of this classical theater. I went to London's TKTS booth and saw listings for shows such as The Lion King, Wicked, and Mamma Mia, all of which are currently playing in New York City. Now, I am not knocking shows such as those because there most certainly NEEDS to be a place for these musicals in the theater world, but I don't want those mass audience appeal shows to be the only ones that are playing in London or New York City.

I saw four shows on the trip: War Horse, Twelfth Night, Billy Elliot, and 39 Steps. The first three were plays that David had arranged for the group to see together. We were required to see a fourth show of our choice and I picked 39 Steps. I was a bit reluctant to pick 39 Steps because I wanted to pick something that I could not see in NYC, but my first choice (Moliere's The Misanthrope, the one other classical piece playing in London) was unfortunately not at the London TKTS booth.

War Horse was the first show we saw on the trip. It originally performed at the Royal National Theatre in 2007 and was revived at the New London Theatre in March 2009. It is based on a book by Michael Morpurgo and was adapted into a play by Nick Stafford. It takes place during the outbreak of World War One and is based around a young man named Albert and his horse Joey. Albert's father sells Joey to the army and the play tells the story of Albert and Joey throughout all of this. As you can see from the picture, War Horse is very innovative because they have life-size horse puppets controlled by three people. These puppets are made out of a type of wood. The horses need to be light enough for these three people to run around with them throughout the show, but strong enough for a full-size men to ride them. There are no words to describe the genius of these horses. Handspring Puppet Company, who created these horses, made every single little gesture and twitch that horses have so incredibly specific. I literally felt like I was watching actual horses. Even though I could see the people controlling the horses, I didn't even notice them. I was so engaged and impressed by these horses. If only the rest of the show had been that way. At intermission, I asked David what he thought and he said, "If the actors were as good as the horses, we'd have a great show." I couldn't have agreed more. The acting was very unspecific and the man playing Albert couldn't carry the show. At the end of play, I was very touched, but more by the subject matter of war, and less by the acting. As weird as it is to say, it almost didn't matter that the acting wasn't fabulous because the stars were the two horses. I don't know how a show like this would do in the United States. It's certainly a spectacle, but it has a lot of Britishness to it that maybe wouldn't carry over in the USA. However, plenty of British shows, such as Billy Elliot, do extremely well in the States. More on that later.

Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare was the second show we saw. It was performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company. This was my favorite show of the trip, partly because it is my favorite piece of text of the bunch and partly because it was the most well-acted of all the shows. The Viola and Olivia were especially strong, which was inspiring as I would love to play either of those roles. The Viola was the most convincing "boy" I have ever seen when she had to disguise herself as Cesario. Also, it was the one show where I had the clearest sense of "the world of the play." In my acting classes at UArts, the idea of the world of the play is emphasized. In a play, it is important that every member of the cast live in the same world. Part of the burden to make sure that happens falls on the director because the director establishes the world he wants presented in his interpretation. It would be pretty awful if one cast member was living in a world of the 1800s and another was living in a world of 2010. That is an extreme (and humiliating) way of a world not being consistent among all the actors, but there are of course many more subtle ways for casts not to all be in sync with each other. It is especially crucial that Twelfth Night have a clear world because it takes place in Illyria, a ficticious place. What is Illyria? That is up to interpretation. This production had a clear world, using inspiration from the days of the Ottomon Empire. Even the servants who had only a couple of lines were a part of this world. A few days later, Richard Wilson who plays Malvolio came and talked to us and told us how the director made sure everyone was living in this world. He explained that all these servants are the understudies for the major roles, but the director wanted them living in this world, even when they were playing their less major roles. Theater is a collaborative art form and this world was effective because the design team also was living in the same world.

The next show I saw was 39 Steps, which was very entertaining and fun. It does have a lot of British humor, so I did like seeing the show in England, instead of the USA. Based on the Alfred Hitchcock film of the same name, the production is very different from the film, but is still loyal to the film. I really appreciated that because so often the adaptations of movies either completely butcher the movie or are too identical. The play has a cast of only four people, who play all the different roles. The transitions of the scenes and the characters were incredibly impressive. I found the sound design the most innovative of it all. It was a small show, but very amusing. I would have wanted my choice show to be another classical play, but this was a really good choice (and not too expensive for a really good seat!).

The final show we saw was Billy Elliot. I was very excited to see this show because it's most certainly the hot ticket in New York City. Almost everyone I know who has seen this show has raved and raved about it. It started in London and then the production expanded to Broadway, so I figured if it's great in NYC, it's got to be great in London. All I will say is, I haven't the slightest idea why this show is doing so well on Broadway. It was by far my least favorite of the four shows. In fact, I actually hated it! Even though I thought the young boy who played Billy was an extremely talented dancer (especially considering the fact that he is only 12!), I could not stand the show. I thought the music and script were awful and I did not care about the characters the least bit. David had seen the show in NY and really liked it there. He felt that the execution in this production was not up to the Broadway standard and that was why almost everyone in our group hated it. However, I just couldn't see how that would be the case because it wasn't really the performing that bothered me. Yes, I would have liked some of the performances to be more full, but I don't see how the best performers could have made that show significantly better. Part of Billy Elliot's plot deals with the UK Miner's Strike in 1984. Having not lived through that strike, I could not relate to it. However, I think it is a show's responsibility to help people who did not live through historical events still connect to the plot. I did not live through the Vietnam War and the draft, but I still connect to Hair. Clearly the United States audiences have not found the Miner's Strike distracting to their enjoyment of it, so I don't think that was why I hated it so much. But I'll put it this way. I couldn't come out of the show humming one song from the show. It was an absolutely horrendous score. So overall, Billy Elliot was extremely disappointing.

In addition to the shows we saw, we got backstage tours of three theaters: The National Theatre, Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, and Theatre Royal Drury Lane. I loved all three of these tours for different reasons. I loved the National Theatre because it has three theatres in it and I really appreciate the mission and values of the National. According to its mission statement, it aims "to re-energize the great traditions of the British stage and to expand the horizons of audiences and artists alike. It aspires to reflect in its repertoire the diversity of our culture." While I did not get to see a show there, I certainly got a sense that they achieve their mission because they do a wide variety of shows from Shakespeare to contemporary pieces. Their facilities were beautiful. Unlike the Royal Shakespeare Company, they hire actors for each play individually as opposed to having a company that performs in every show. Their designers tend to work on every show, which must be such a wonderful opportunity to work on such different styles with costumes, lighting, sound, and scenery.

Shakespeare's Globe Theater was also a great experience. While it is not the original Globe Theater where Shakespeare's plays were performed because that theater was destroyed in a fire, it is an exact replica to what it is believed that the theater looked like. In fact, when this modern theater was built, they did not use any modern tools to build it because they wanted to keep it as authentic as possible. In their current productions, they do not use microphones because obviously they didn't use microphones back in Shakespeare's day. I loved that theater because of all the history about Shakespeare. There was a huge exhibition that had a lot of history about Shakespeare and his plays that I loved looking through.

Theatre Royal Drury Lane is the oldest theatre in London, even though it also was destroyed by fires. The reason they are able to say that it is the oldest theater is because they still performed plays outside the theater as Theatre Royal Drury Lane when the theater was being re-built. This tour was probably the most entertaining because the tour guides were playing historical figures such as Richard Brinsley Sheridan and David Garrick who were involved in the early days of the theater. Currently at the theater Oliver! is playing, which probably would have been a better choice than Billy Elliot. Similarly to how the 2007 Broadway production of Grease was cast, the Nancy was cast through a reality television show. During our backstage tour, we got to see a few minutes of a rehearsal for the replacement cast. This theater was enormous. I could understand why some people would bring binoculars.

New Year's Eve was also a very unique and fun experience. The home of W.S. Gilbert was about an hour outside of London in a much more rural and isolated location. It is approximately 40 acres and has beautiful gardens and buildings. Even in the winter, I could see how gorgeous the landscape was. Our dinner was a black-tie event and a several course meal. In between meals, various singers would perform these Gilbert and Sullivan songs. While some of the performances were fairly average, it was all part of the experience. And it showed how I know a lot more than I give myself credit for. We spent about a month on Gilbert and Sullivan in my musical theater performance classes last year and some of the performers were struggling with some of the exact same things that my teachers guided me and my classmates away from. The funnier part about New Year's was that the UArts students were by far the youngest people at this event. The next youngest person was probably 65. It was amusing, but of course also disappointing to know that Gilbert and Sullivan are another team of composers who are losing audience members as that older generation continues to get older and not introduce this style of music to my generation. The UArts musical theater majors got ambushed by one of the performers to sing back-up to one of the Gilbert and Sullivan songs, which was a lot of fun.

In addition to all these tours and shows, our very informative tour guide took us around London and gave us a ton of general history and theater history about London. It was a very good balance of history that I had retained from my theater history classes in college and stuff that I didn't already know. So much of theater as we know it today began in England because they expanded so much of what the Greeks initially created. Musical theater has a very American feel to it, but it's thanks to England's creation of theater that I can love all the musicals I do now. I left London yearning to read, see, and write plays. I also left yearning to make sure classical theater doesn't die in the USA or England. There is so much theater history that is fascinating and is important that it doesn't die. So much of the history of England is reflected in these plays and it is very informative to know the history and read these important plays.

So I am back in the USA, 2 weeks away from starting my final semester of college and filled with new inspiration to knock the real world dead. Long live the theater!

As Expected, "Superior Donuts" Was Indeed Superior

2009-10-03T22:04:00.003-04:00

The new Tracy Letts play, "Superior Donuts," which opened on Broadway about a week and a half ago, does not disappoint at all. And it had a lot to live up to. It plays in the same theater as Letts's last play, "August: Osage County," which reminds everyone of the hype that play got last year, winning the Tony Award and the Pulitzer Prize. "Superior Donuts" has an extremely different tone from "August: Osage County," but it was still excellent, having a very appropriate balance of laughs and tears, showing how there is a very fine line between comedy and drama.

I was also extremely anxious to see "Superior Donuts" once I found out it was to be directed by Tina Landau. Tina Landau adapted the Viewpoints acting theory for the stage and wrote "The Viewpoints Book," which we read in my viewpoints class last year. Viewpoints are points of awareness used to create movement and are all about forming stronger character relationships using architecture, spacial relationships, topography, shape, gesture, tempo, duration, kinesthetic response, and repetition. While I believe that character relationships are crucial to the success of any show, "Superior Donuts" was a play that really needed strong character relationships. While there are several supporting characters, the basis of the play is about the relationship between two men: Arthur, the middle-age white man who owns a donut shop, and Franco, the twentysomething black guy who wants to get a job at the donut shop and modernize it.

Immediately, the contrast between these two characters is huge. The strong work of Michael McKean as Arthur and Jon Michael Hill as Franco made the contrast humorous and profound at the same time. I laughed quite a lot, but I also felt myself tearing up. When "Superior Donuts" gets deeper and more intense in Act II, I really believed the actors had earned it because they had established such a strong relationship. I saw them playing off one another really well. The use of comedy in Act I allowed the audience to care for the characters and laugh with them. In Act II, I was really able to feel for these characters.

I was especially impressed with Jon Michael Hill's work as Franco. It fascinated me to read his bio and see that he has mostly a Shakespeare and opera background when this part was such an immature goofy black guy in a contemporary dark comedy. I found it inspiring to see that if you really commit to what you are doing and focus, you don't have to limit yourself to just contemporary or just classical or just musicals. Yes, it's important to know what your "type" is and how to market yourself as a performer, but it also is really important to figure out who you are and be comfortable enough with yourself so that you can do any role you want to do. Probably the most disappointing part about "Superior Donuts" is that there isn't a role for me in that play for many years. There are two female characters in it, but both of them are are at least 50. It's frustrating when you see such a great piece of art that you will be unable to be in, but I loved sitting and watching it and wouldn't mind doing that again.

"To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong." -Joseph Chilton Pearce

2009-09-01T18:15:00.003-04:00

For the past eleven weeks, I have been extraordinarily busy with art. Considering I am a musical theater major, you would assume that this art has been theater-related. While I have been busy with some theater activities this summer, I have been culturally enriching my mind in a way mostly separate from musical theater and drama. I am back at school now where I eat, sleep, and breath theater and I'm delighted to be back, but it has been amazing to find that there are other types of art that interest and fulfill me. Per the suggestion of Kevin Gray, Broadway actor and family friend, I started The Artist's Way by Julia Cameron. I thought that it would be a silly self-help book that would talk about how we can all be creative, but it has turned out to be so much more and a life-changing experience.

The Artist's Way is a 12-week self-course in "rediscovering and recovering your creative self." At the beginning of each week, you read a chapter and then you do a series of exercises throughout the week focused on the topic. Topics include: Recovering a Sense of Safety, Recovering a Sense of Possibility, and Recovering a Sense of Identity, to name a few. The exercises this book has are as diverse as can be. Some are written and some are physical. Some are imagination-based and others are reflective. But through this book, I have picked up lots of random things that I never thought I would do.

In addition to the exercises, you are required to take yourself on an "artist date" each week, which is a date to go on just with your artist (aka you!). I sewed a skirt, painted a mug, made a video, saw a foreign film, went to an exhibit at the Fashion Institute of Technology, drew, decorated, and more. I found that focusing my energy on other art forms made me more passionate and refreshed to work on my own art. I didn't find that I had as much of an ability for any of these other art forms as I do for theater, but it reminded me that I can create my own art and not just wait for auditions to cast me.

You are also required to do "morning pages," which are three page stream-of-consciousness pages that you write as soon as you are awake to get out all the negative and extraneous energy that stands between you and your art. Morning pages have become a part of my routine now and I will continue to do them for a very long time. Before I'm even 100% awake, I feel so much better getting off my chest all the silly things about life that keep me blocked as an artist. You wouldn't think that all the laundry I have to do or the cold I have or the homework that awaits me would affect my art, but it's a lot of those little things that keep me (and all artists) from creating the kind of work we want. Suddenly it's all out of my mind and the day has only just begun.

However, the most important lesson the book gives is to stop standing in your own way. I am so incredibly hard on myself always. If I'm not perfect, I feel like I failed as a human being and take it completely to heart. I psyche myself out and my work ends up being much worse than it has the potential to be. I am indeed my own worst enemy. This book has reminded me that there are so many other outlets to take all this energy instead of wallowing in my artistic blues. Suddenly, the possibilities seem endless. I can write plays and books. I can compose. I can choreograph. I just need to focus on something and there are so many opportunities. It is so easy to feel that theater today has all been done before, but as this book has taught me, no one else can be you and have your own unique take on something.

Of course this is all easier said than done. It doesn't mean that now because I've read this book I will suddenly always be positive to myself because I'm sure I will still have my moments of hating myself and my work. But if I've become 5% less blocked, that's 5% closer than I was when summer began. And it's a process that I can't worry about being wrong. I'm finally starting to learn that.

I now begin my fourth and final year at the University of the Arts with a wide range of feelings, but a lot of them are very excited. I am excited for the possibilities because I have re-discovered myself and a lot of the abilities I have. I'm not perfect. There are a lot of things I don't know and I don't understand, but I certainly feel much less "blocked" artistically.

I recommend this book to anyone who considers themselves an artist of any kind. It is innovative and remarkable. Thank goodness Julia Cameron has a sequel that is en-route to my apartment as we speak. This book has become such a staple of my life. I'm so glad I found it.

Julia Cameron says, "What we really want to do is what we are really meant to do. When we do what we are meant to do, money comes to us, doors open for us, we feel useful, and the work we do feels like play to us."

Baseball and Theater: "When the odds are saying you'll never win, that's when the grin should start!"

2009-06-17T02:14:00.002-04:00

There really isn't much of a similarity between baseball and theater, except that I love them both. Well, I love them both when things go my way. I love baseball when the Yankees are winning and it's exciting. And I love theater when I feel like I'm making progress. However, when the Yankees go on a losing streak and and I hit an obstacle in a scene or a song, suddenly I hate them. I turn off the Yankee games and sulk over why I can't manage to pull through whatever artistic challenges I am facing. Then the Yankees start to win and I come through artistically and life is good. Until the next time. It's a crazy cycle of love and hate.

One similarity baseball and theater have is that the participant must take risks and put himself out there in order to achieve maximum success. A few days ago, the Yankees had a miraculous win through a horrible play that the Mets made. It seemed clear that the Mets would win because this was a simple pop-up to the 2nd baseman. It was dropped and the score was tied. However, the only reason the Yankees won was because Mark Teixeira was running hard all the way from first base and managed to score. Had he just assumed that the Mets would catch that ball and jogged carelessly, the game would have been tied, but they wouldn't have won then. It was because he ran hard just in case because you never know what rare time someone else is going to drop the ball and things are going to go in your favor.

The only way to win is to run hard, but it sucks because 99% of the time that you run hard, the Mets will catch the ball and you'll look like the idiot who ran hard. If you never run hard, you'll never win, but you'll also never have to face the humiliation of putting yourself out there either.

It's the exact same way for artists trying to get themselves and their work out there. It is such an amazing feeling to take a risk and be vulnerable, but the feeling is just as awful when your work is not validated, be it in a scene, a song, or god forbid, an audition.

If only we knew which times the Mets or another team would drop the ball so that we didn't have to face that horrible feeling of having our raw selves out there and then being turned down. I don't mind putting myself out there when I know I'm going to succeed. That's the easy part. Taking risks in class are easier because school is so much safer. My teachers and classmates might not love my work, but usually it is safe, but even then it doesn't always feel safe. Obviously Mark Teixeira will run hard with no problem if it's obvious he is going to score. But how does he find the courage and strength, emotional and physical, to run when the odds are very against him?

It always hurts more to fail at something you invested in. It hurt more in high school when I did poorly on a test that I studied really hard for than when I did poorly on a test I didn't care about. And as important as it was to me to do well in school, it hurts a million times more when I feel like I failed in something artistic because it is my favorite thing in the world. After I put myself out there and things don't go as planned, I feel so horrible and exposed. I feel worthless and confused with my self-identity. Re-discovering myself is so hard. Putting myself out there seems to get a little easier each time, but handling it after seems to get a little harder each time. I don't know how much longer my wall can hold up. It keeps getting bumped into. It's bound to break soon unless it gets a nice boost.

I'm having a really hard time finding the strength to allow my raw self to consistently come through, even though chances are nothing will work out as planned. As I grow closer and closer to graduation and the real world, I worry about my endurance to show my true self. I do not audition very much right now as I am a full-time student, but the little auditioning I do does suck out my soul, and the rejection sucks out my soul even more. There are more auditions to come, which also means more opportunities for success, but also more opportunities for embarrassment and self-destruction.

But every now and then, we get lucky. It's not often, but I guess I just have to remember that the one time the other team drops the ball will make all the times they caught the ball and embarrassed me seem unimportant. The other team will drop the ball. Every now and then the Yankees get lucky. Other times bad calls are made against them. But the bottom line is, for every rejection and bad call you get, you're one time closer to luck and a dropped ball. You can only go so long before the other team makes an error, right?

Parody Tonight!

2009-06-15T14:56:00.005-04:00

I absolutely love parody and satire. I love Forbidden Broadway because it is filled with just that. The lyrics are witty and totally mock (lovingly) some of the ridiculous people and characters on Broadway. Of course satire is only funny when one is familiar with the thing being mocked. I have a playlist on my iTunes of a song and then the Forbidden Broadway version of it.

The Tony Awards last week felt like a parody of bad theater. From all the bad sound to the highly commercial performance numbers, it was not nearly the kind of awards show it should have been. Everything was so campy and did not make me want to see very many of the shows being represented. There were so few performances that I was impressed with.

But there was one. Neil Patrick Harris, who hosted the awards, had his own brilliant 11:00 number at the end of the awards where he did a re-cap of the night to "Tonight" from West Side Story and "Luck Be a Lady" from Guys and Dolls. Here is my very own Forbidden Broadway parody of his song. Enjoy!

(to the tune of "Tonight")

Tonight, tonight, Neil Patrick sang "Tonight,"
And everyone freaked out that he sang.

What class, what drive
I was asleep in five
Because Neil Patrick's singing was the only good part!

The show was really not surprising,
just mostly horrifying
because the sound all sucked.
Tonight, Billy
was popular, almost like Glee!

(to the tune of "Luck Be a Lady")

So Billy won 10 Tony's Tonight
That was not shocking in spite
of Next To Normal pretending that they'd have a happy ending
They only won 3 Tony's Tonight!

(to the tune of "Tonight")

Theater wing, please
I'm begging on my knees
'Dude, please make the Tony's better next year!'

I wished tonight I was high as a kite
because Alice Ripley scared me to a fright!

This show could not be any gayer
if Neil Patrick was named mayor
and Elphaba took flight.

The curtain falls.
I hit all the nearest hard walls!
Good night!

"You're feeling it, you silly bitch! Your business is to make THEM feel it."

2009-06-11T14:15:00.003-04:00

Tyrone Guthrie, famous director, said that line to an actor when the actor was getting too self-indulgent and emotional in his acting. Just as in life, when an actor is self-indulgent, the people watching do not generally feel much. They simply feel uncomfortable. I have learned that crying my eyes out does not mean I'm acting. Being intense just for the sake of being intense does not mean I'm acting.

My brilliant acting teacher I had this year did not let us feel. Ever. And even more, when we were watching the scenes of our classmates, we were only allowed to give objective observations as to what we saw. If anyone ever said anything such as, "When you said that line, I felt heartbroken," my teacher told us that was not an objective observation. We had to say, "I saw you making active choices on that line." At first, it was so annoying to not let how I felt influence what I saw from my classmates' scenes, but after a while, I realized how much I was able to learn by just watching.

However, this "wisdom" has resulted in a problem now when I go to see live theater. I have a very difficult time getting out of school mode when I see a show. Even if my acting teacher forbid us to feel, it is important that the audience feel. They are the ones who want to be entertained and taken away from their lives for a couple of hours. In the last 3 weeks, I have seen Happiness, Hair, Next to Normal, Shrek, August: Osage County, Exit the King, and 9-5, and at each show I have had a very hard time letting myself get taken away to the world of the play because I have been so focused on being objective. Instead of enjoying the moment, I have been so critical. Instead of feeling Claude's death in Hair, I observed how active the cast was when they were looking for him.

I suppose it's hard for anyone who is learning something to witness others pursuing the same thing. A top musician must die when watching an okay orchestra concert. A great writer must hate reading a book that is lacking. A star athlete must not be able to watch another athlete unless the other athlete is practically perfect.

Ignorance is bliss. When I was less informed of the fine art of theater, mostly anything a Broadway actor did impressed me and delighted me. Going to a show was so exciting and there wasn't much that I hated. Now, I am just too critical and I don't enjoy being an audience member as much. There's a lot of mediocrity in the theater scene right now, but 99% of the world still thinks the actors are really good because they are not informed. I'm the same way with a very average painting. I think some paintings are fabulous, yet a painter might just be dying inside because they notice everything in the painting that isn't as good as it should be.

I wish I could turn off this switch sometimes and let myself escape in the play. I have learned so much from the mediocrity I have seen on the stage recently, but I too want to be entertained and taken away from my life for a couple of hours.

Tallulah Bankhead said, "If you want to help the American theater, don't be an actress, be an audience." She was refering to the fact that there are so many aspiring actors, yet so many shows constantly close because attending the theater is not as common an activity as it once was. I do help the American theater as much as I can that way, but I don't know if I am letting the actors do their job.

It is hard to be a good audience member. It's completely unfair for me to nitpick at every little thing these actors do because obviously they are not perfect. I know how frustrating it is in school when my teachers and classmates are very objective towards my work. However, I do have a right as an unemployed actor to figure out why they are employed and I'm not and criticize that fact if they do not live up to a standard I am expecting. And also, Broadway tickets are expensive. I'd like to know there is a good reason why I'm spending money for that and not a Yankee game.

The good news is that there will always be some uninformed people who will think anything I do is great. The people who know nothing about theater and singing will feel something. I just have to watch out for the audience members who know a thing or two.

"I don't wanna talk small talk."

2009-05-29T20:24:00.005-04:00

What is the obligation of a star to his or her fans?

That has been the question I have been pondering the last couple of days. On Wednesday, I saw Exit the King on Broadway and waited at the stage door with my friend to meet Andrea Martin and Susan Sarandon. They were both extremely gracious and nice. I got pictures with both of them, which will be nice to add to my collection of pictures I have with other stars. However, I am at the point that I would like to start meeting these stars in a professional setting as opposed to in a fan setting. But I can dream, can't I?

While we were waiting at the stage door, a HUGE Broadway star (who was not in the show and will go anonymous) randomly walked out of the stage door. My friend, who is also a big Broadway geek, and I both immediately recognized her and said her name more in shock and surprise since she was not in this show and is currently in a Broadway show that theoretically had a performance that night. The star heard us say that, mumbled "Oh, hey guys" in a rushed and rude way, and immediately continued walking towards her destination, leaving me and my friend stunned as to what just happened.

I am not going to lie. I felt hurt. This has been a star who's work I have admired for many years, a star who I have wanted to see so badly that I exchanged my tickets one time when she was out of a show. I have seen many interviews with her and she always came across very nice and down-to-earth. I wasn't expecting us to become best friends, but I didn't think I would be totally brushed aside by her either.

Maybe she was in a rush. Maybe she was having a bad day. Maybe she's actually not nice in real life. Who knows? Even if she's actually lovely in real life, this two-second encounter with her left me with a bad vibe. How unfortunate if we literally just caught her on a bad second. And she has so many seconds like this. This was one random moment in her life that means nothing, yet it meant so much to me. When you don't know someone and you have one quick impression of them, for better or for worse, that first impression stays in you and it's hard to accept that your brief encounter might not accurately represent this person.

That might be really unfair because we all have bad days. Obviously I try to be as nice and pleasant as possible to people I meet, but there's no way I can be 100% polite every single moment of every single day. We are human beings after all and we're not perfect. However, a star should get in the habit of being more polite. A star should know that their one second of meeting a fan means the world to the fan even if it means next to nothing to them. I have had enough encounters with stars over the years that I still talk about because they mean so much to me. But I'm sure Bernadette Peters doesn't remember when she signed my copy of her book at the Free Library of Philadelphia and Audra McDonald doesn't remember when I waited in the freezing cold outside the Kimmel Center in Philadelphia to meet her after her concert with Barbara Cook. They might not remember, but I do since it meant so much to me that they took the time to talk to me and pose for pictures.

I don't know how this star should have acted towards us. Stars are still people and deserve to have their own lives. If she were actually in a rush, she should not have stopped and talked to us for a while and sacrificed her own plans, but she still could have been more pleasant. I think it's the obligation to being famous. It doesn't mean your life has to go on hold to please your fans, but it's because of fans like me that this person has a career! Maintaing a good public image is one of the prices of fame. Be polite because you never know who you could be dealing with.

Obviously not everyone is nice in real life. I like to believe that Broadway is perfect and everyone is nice and loves each other, but who am I kidding? Like any job, I'm sure there is off-stage drama and not everyone is best friends. I just have to accept this. Not everyone is nice.

I know one thing, if I ever meet this star again (hopefully in a professional setting because I'm on the road to stardom!), it will be hard for me to erase this negative memory. She'll have to work hard to prove that I caught her on some fluke moment.

And I know that if I'm lucky enough to have a career anything like her's, I will remember how hurt I felt when she brushed me aside and I will treat my fans with respect.

"I am more than the average no one...Let me sing for you now, more than just 16 bars. If you give me a chance, you'll discover a star!"

2009-05-24T23:28:00.007-04:00

When I was little and wanted to be an actress, it was not because I wanted to create innovative art. It was because I wanted to be a star. I was attracted to the idea of big lights and lots of applause. As I began to grow up, I realized that a star's life might seem perfect from the outside, but they are still normal people and Broadway is still just a job. It's more fulfilling and exciting than a lot of other jobs, but it's still a job, and no job is perfect. There's a lot that goes on behind-the-scenes, no pun intended.

It's no secret that the life of an actor is not easy, even when one has "made it." It's a career with a lot of late nights and long hours that don't exactly correlate with other careers. It can have a lot of travel, which could be very exciting, but also very lonesome, especially if you have a significant other and family that you are leaving behind while you tour the world. Eight shows a week is extremely physically and emotionally demanding.

I know this. I am well aware that I did not pick a career that will ever be easy. I can't even imagine the physical and mental strain professional actors must have. Doing four shows a week of Bat Boy for 2 weeks was extremely physically demanding, and that wasn't even a particularly dance-heavy show. I can't imagine doing eight shows a week of a show that actually has a lot of dance. I can't imagine touring across the country for a year and not seeing so many of the people who are important to me. I can't imagine having one day off a week where I barely talk in order to save my voice for the eight shows I have in the upcoming week.

Yet, I still want to be a star.

But what is a star? Are you born a star? Do you develop into a star?

I thought about this because I saw Shrek this evening, and unfortunately Sutton Foster was sick and not performing. We saw Sarah Jane Everman as Fiona, who did a competent job. Other than that she mixes too much and doesn't really belt enough, I don't have any major criticsms of her. She was fine. But she wasn't a star. That special "it" wasn't there. She sings, acts, and dance better than plenty of people I have seen perform on Broadway, but that special something was missing. I felt the show needed a star like Sutton Foster.

Sutton Foster is a star now. She knows how to dominate any space that she is. She has wonderful presence and has a great deal of talent. I have been a fan of her work from when I saw her in Little Women and The Drowsy Chaperone.

Obviously all this experience Sutton Foster brings has helped make her the pro that she is. She knows how to handle herself because of all her past shows. However, the question is was she star quality before she became a star? There are so many aspiring actors out there, just like me, who want to be stars, but what I don't know is if there are are other people out there who could have been as good as Sutton Foster if only they had been given the chance.

Maybe. Maybe not. It would be encouraging to know that there aren't as many stars out there and that if someone really has "it," then they really will make it to the top. I'd like to believe that, but I don't know because I have seen plenty of shows where I hated the leads and could name plenty of non-working actors I know who could have done a far better job.

I don't think that there are that many of the natural stars out there, but there are a lot of really good people who could be a star when given the chance. I fit into this category, along with ever other BFA musical theater major in America. We're all waiting for the chance for someone to discover us and make us a star. Maybe Sutton Foster fit into that category and got her break from the randomness of life. Or maybe she really had something unique and star-like when she got her first break.

I don't think you can teach someone to be a star. As Momma Rose in Gypsy says, "You either got it, or you ain't." It's not something you can explain or truly understand. You just are one and you know when you see a star. However, certainly one thrives more as a star when given the opportunity to truly showcase oneself.

It is exciting and daunting to know that you can't teach someone to have that "it" factor. Obviously, it's important to continue to train and solidify my acting, vocal, and dance technique, but at the end of the day, I just have to show who I am. And all the training can't change that. I can grow more confident and grounded in myself, but I can't change who I am. And that's hopefully a good thing since I want to be a star! It's so hard to findi the balance, especially in musical theater, of being uniquely you, but also being conventional enough to fit into a type and category.

As Scott Alan says in his song "I'm a Star" quoted above, "All I need is a break so that the real dream can start 'cause I've worked way too hard to be brushed off just yet. Time to prove to the world I'm someone not to forget. I can't let all my dreams go nowhere. I won't stop till the day I finally get there to see my name up in lights up there on the marquee. All I need from you now is to wake up and see I'm a star, a STAR!"

"Is anybody there? Does anybody care?"

2009-05-20T14:26:00.003-04:00

Sunday night, I watched the painful Drama Desk Awards broadcast live from theatermania.com I'm not really sure why I bother watching these awards. The last couple of years were mildly entertaining, but nothing sensational. The host this year was Harvey Fierstein, who hosted them three years ago. I didn't really have plans on my Sunday night, so I figured they couldn't be that bad. Wrong.

Let's just say, thank goodness Mozilla Firefox is high-tech enough that I can have several tabs open at the same time. If it weren't for facebook and various other websites to keep me occupied and entertained, I don't think I would have gotten through the night. The 2009 Drama Desk Awards were so incredibly painful.

One of the reasons they were so painful and pathetic was because so many of the winners of awards were not in attendance. It started to get pretty funny when five or six awards had been given and not a single winner was present. Eventually, a couple of winners began to emerge onto the stage, but sometimes that was annoying. At least if the winner wasn't present, the ceremony started to go by even more quickly.

Why was no one there? Did they know that the event would be painful with truly no form of entertainment through performances or jokes? Were they lazy? Did they think the Drama Desk Award was have little significance in comparison to the Tony Awards?

There are so many different possibilities. The Drama Desks obviously do not have the same excitement and allure as the Tony Awards do, but they are still prestigious enough. Believe me, I'm at the point in my career that I would be at any award ceremony for anything that I was being nominated for. I'm not at the point that I can pick and choose which award ceremonies are worthy of my attendance. But that's also because I'm a college senior who hasn't had her big break yet.

But I care! People have stopped caring about the arts and awards ceremonies, but I still care. I still check broadway.com, playbill.com, and others various times a day because this what I love. I know that I am in a small network of people who share this passion (although it seems big when I go to auditions!) . Artists are always going to be a small portion of the world who want to make a difference through art. It is so easy to feel as though there is no outlet to create art.

Last night I got to see the Broadway revival of Hair. I wanted to see it because it had gotten good reviews and because my musical theater class has been on a Hair kick. In December, John Moauro of the ensemble came to one of our dance classes and taught us the choreography to "Aquarius" and for our ballet final, we all did "Let The Sunshine In." But I have never been a huge Hair person. I am the furthest thing from a hippie, so I can't always relate to the free love ideas. I am a huge liberal and anti-war person, but I am way too uptight to ever be a hippie.

However, despite all that, I absolutely loved Hair. Even though there is not a currently a draft going on in the United States, we are still at war and so many of the themes are still relevant. Hair was written in the late 1960s during the Vietnam War. The United States has come a long way since then, but we certainly still have a long way to go when we are still fighting a major war where people die everyday. Hair isn't really the kind of show I ever expect to be in. Hair wouldn't really showcase my abilities, but I love the fact that it is theater with a purpose. I can only imagine what it was like when Hair first opened in the 60s. Gavin Creel as Claude was wonderful, as were Will Swenson as Berger and Caissie Levy as Shelia. The song that resonated with me the most was "Easy To Be Hard," a song that is universal, no matter what is going on in the world at the time. There will always be people struggling in the world and there will always be people who fight to help the poor and the opressed, but can't even stand up for their friends. So anyone who thinks Hair is irrelevant now because we're not in the hippie and Vietnam era is iwrong.

Even though the economy has been so awful and so many Broadway shows closed in January, theater is hopefully picking up. I didn't seen an empty seat in the audience last night, and while I'm sure a lot of people got their tickets half-price from TKTS like I did, that's better than having no one in the audience.

And I'm glad that people picked a show like Hair and didn't just settle for The Little Mermaid. When I was picking what I wanted to see yesterday, I was trying to decide what kind of mood I was in. And to join in with my theme of having a proactive and productive summer, I figured I'd pick a show that seeks to have an impact on people.

So people might not care about the Drama Desk Awards, but I don't really care as long as people care about the future of the arts and the world. The Drama Desk Awards were pretty bland. Next year I won't care about them either. I'll spend all my energy on the Tony Awards!

A Broadway Spin-Off?

2009-05-11T20:14:00.003-04:00

In my History of Television class this semester, we studied a lot of spin-offs from successful television shows. Most spin-offs generally don't do well, although the concept is interesting to take a minor character from the show and created a whole series around them. Sitcoms, in particular, have a lot of random characters that make random appearances. Their lives are so mysterious. There's so little we know about them, but we like what we know. Every now and then, a successful spin-off comes along, and it's so successful that one forgets it was a spin-off. Some people don't even know that Frasier is a spin-off from Cheers. However, most spin-offs are pretty bad. I'm still sad how awful the Joey sitcom was since I'm a huge Friends fan.

I was thinking about spin-offs today as I finished my junior year at UArts and had my voice jury. For my choice song, I did "The Miller's Son" from A Little Night Music. The song is sung by Petra, a fairly small part in the show. Other than her big spotlight number of "The Miller's Son," she does not do a lot in the show and does not play a major role in the plot. We really do not know a lot about her. "The Miller's Son" is her few minutes to suddenly enlighten the audience into her life. A Little Night Music focuses around many characters who are very rich and live sophisticated lifestyles. Petra is the opposite. She is a maid and sleeps around in a very lower-class life. For much of the show, she seems like a stereotype. However, "The Miller's Son" tells all about her fantasies and how she would love to marry a "business man" or the "Prince of Wales," but knows deep down that she will marry "the miller's son" instead. She goes through a journey in the song and we get a snapshot of who she is. It's a good reminder how so many lives are going on while we are living ours. Everyone has desires and hopes and regrets. The song is so heartbreaking and touching that I would love a spin-off about Petra. I would love to play the part and create a whole back story for her because her life is so fascinating since we know just a little bit. Wouldn't it be cool, though, if there was a whole show that focused around her? Or maybe not. Maybe I like the mysteriousness of Petra and wouldn't want a show that told me everything about her. I guess it depends on what the show would be.

There are other supporting characters in other shows who have mysterious lives that fascinate me.

Amy in Company is one of the most intriguing characters to me. All of the characters that Bobby meets in this show are crazy and strange, but she is the strangest and most ridiculous, in my opinion. How did she get so nuts? "Not Getting Married Today" and the scene that follows tell a little about her story. She is freaking out about getting married and shares, "I'm just so glad we're not having a Catholic wedding because next year, when I get a divorce, I won't be a sinner. Whoever would have thought I would marry someone Jewish? Jewish! I didn't even know anybody who was Jewish! You see, Robert, that was probably my main attraction. Look what a little Catholic rebellion will lead to. The very first moment I met Paul, I said to myself, that's what I really like, that Jew!" She completely pushes away Paul because she is so terrified of getting married. Her fear of marriage is a mystery and all the things she says make no sense. She rambles about therapy and orange juice and Jews. I think she would be so much fun to play because she tells just a little that would give enough to create a really interesting character.

Another interesting and mysterious character is Carrie in Carousel. She has her big moments in "Mister Snow" and "When The Children Are Asleep," but we don't really know who she is. We know that she wants to marry Mr. Snow and have lots of babies, but there is is much that is implied, but not known. Why does she talk all about this good man, Mr. Snow? Is she maybe jealous of Julie Jordan who is with a rebel because all the good girls fall for a bad boy at some point? How does she feel when she marries Mr. Snow? Is it what she thought it would be? Did her life live up to her dreams and expectations? Her life is pretty unexplored.

Ivy Smith in On the Town also has so much that we don't know about. Towards the end of the musical, she shares how her "glamorous" Miss Turnstiles life isn't what Gabey envisions it to be. She is a nice and innocent girl, but in the night is a provocative dancer because that is the only way she can pay for her ballet lessons. She can't let her parents know about it because she's so ashamed. Her whole back story would be pretty interesting. She has been living a lie, and there are so many lies that the audience doesn't know about.

Anybodys in West Side Story also fascinates me. How did she get involved in the Jets? Why did she tag along the boys, and not the girls? We just did the number "Cool" in my dance repertory class and we all had to come up with our own back story as to why we joined the Jets and who we were. Anybodys is really interesting because she is the only girl who tries to be one of the guys. We know nothing about her, but what a great part!

Not all musicals have that random supporting character that you want to know more about, but that's too bad. Sometimes those characters that aren't the star are the most interesting and fun because you have so many choices and possibilities available to you. Maybe spin-offs of these characters wouldn't be great. It's kind of cool to have the unknown and mysterious. I don't want to play a character where I can't find any artistic freedom in what I do. A good playwright gives just enough information for an actor to work with, but not so much that they have no room to make the character their own.

"Now, I wish you would tell me---why didn't it happen between us? Why did I fail? Why did you come close enough--and no closer?"

2009-05-10T14:45:00.004-04:00

The quote above is from Tennesse Williams's play Summer and Smoke. The other really exciting piece of material I got to work on at the end of the semester was a very sexy and incredibly touching scene from this play in my acting class. This was probably my favorite scene I have ever worked on because it was such a vulnerable character named Alma who is just so uncomfortable and insecure about herself. The plays takes place in 1916 Mississippi where she is 22 years-old and the daughter of the minister. She is a very pure girl who runs a rectory. She is in love with John, the boy next door, who is a young doctor, and quite a bit of a player who always has a new girl. He is in love with her also, but in a different way. He wants to possess her and love her body, whereas she wants to love his soul. She goes to his house at 2 in the morning because she is having a panic attack (of course regarding her love for John) and can't sleep. She wants to see John's father, who is also a doctor, but she instead has to have John examine her as she knows that in the next room is the woman that he is having a current affair with. It's such a good scene, and it's such a great play!

The play is a constant conflict of the two wanting to love and be with each other, but knowing that they can never be together because they are not right for each other. I guess that is life, though. So many musicals and movies consist of the nice girl managing to change the tough guy and make him good, but is that really life? Yes, we can change elements of ourselves and certainly compromise qualities for people we love, but we never really change who we are. John can't get Alma to become a provocative girl who sleeps around with men and Alma can't get John to be a pure man who wants to love someone's soul. They are who they are.

I am always amazed how early our character traits are developed and then they never change. I was thinking about this because it was our last day of junior acting studio on Friday and we had to talk about our growth and what we learned. I started talking about the birthday parties I would go to when I was seven or eight that were at craft and ceramic places and you got to paint a mug or do something artistic. I was always the first person finished and it was not because I was this amazing visual artist. It was because I couldn't accept the creative process and just wanted immediate results and instant gratification. As a result, my mugs were sloppy, unspecific, and not very unique.

I'm 20 now and I'm still dealing with the same problem. My life has moved away from mug-painting and ceramics classes, but creating a character and a meaningful scene or song demands the same creative process that takes time, and I find it very hard to be in the moment and stop focusing on what the final product will be. While I have gotten better at this, it is most definitely a problem I will always face as a person and an artist.

Of course it's all connected. And it is an issue that everyone deals with, trying to live in the moment and not worry about the future. I'm currently singing Georgia Stitt's song "This Ordinary Thursday," where this woman is so happy because she is in love with someone and can just live in the moment of her love and not think about what tomorrow might bring. I love theater and art that deals with problems such as that which everyone can relate to. That's the kind of theater I want to do. And that is why I love theater and want to spend the rest of my life dealing with all issues regarding humanity and insecurities. We all want to change ourselves and deal with the struggle as we realize we can't really ever change who we are.

So living in the moment in a scene might be my issue, but it's a life issue for anyone and everyone at some point in their life. It is a universal theme and as they say in Monty Python's Spamalot, "in a thousand years, this will still be controversial." Summer and Smoke still affects me in 2009 because of the themes of lust, love, and attempting to change oneself. Those will never leave society, but that's what makes good art so incredibly cool.

On that note, here's one of my new favorite songs by contemporary musical theater composer Scott Alan about just being in the moment and owning what you're doing
right now.

Is there a little bit of Broadway in everyone?

2009-05-07T15:59:00.002-04:00

Another project I have been involved in this semester is through a class I took called History of Television. The final assignment for this class was to create our very own television network. We had to present two ideas and then our teacher picked one of them. I had to write a paper proposing the network, mentioning who would watch the show and giving a fuller description of the network and the shows. Then we had to make a 30-60 second commercial of some sort pitching the network to Comcast, Verizon, etc.

Of course my network is a network devoted to theater. It is called Backstage Gaze. It is a network filled with a variety of types of theater-related entertainment. Highlights include: behind-the-scenes of shows, interviews, highlights of theater around the world, reality television shows, sitcoms about aspiring actors, and more. The goal of the network is to get people who aren't necessarily theater buffs to watch. I had to come up with enough types of entertainment that didn't center 100% around theater so that people who weren't theater fans would watch it. However, there are plenty of theater fans out there, so if the network only were to get people like me, that would be okay too. There are more theater fans out there than people think. I went to some of the theater message boards to try and get a sense of how many people post on these websites each day. The numbers were too out of control for me to get a true sense, but one thing I do know, theater geeks are dedicated. We may not make up a huge population of this world, but we are committed!

I used as my inspiration for the commercial a snippet of Heidi Klum during the Tony Awards in 2007 when she said that she thinks there is "a little bit of Broadway in everyone." While it is true that the majority of the population doesn't really care about theater and Broadway, I think many people have a teeny bit of an interest and might watch a little bit on a Broadway-based network. They wouldn't be religious viewers the way someone like I might be, but they would still watch a little, especially if there were enough variety of types of entertainment that weren't all screaming theater.

One of my shows is a sitcom called "Hi-Ho, The Glamorous Life" that centers around working actors and aspiring actors living in New York City. All of them go in waves of haviing success with their careers and the show is about how they deal wiith it, and the challenges they have even when they are working. However, the show does not focus only on the theater, so it can become a show that non-theatrical people can hopefully watch and grow interested in. The show will center around several characters: Susan, a 50 year-old woman who has had an extensive Broadway career, but is now struggling to get work; Jonathan and Kelsey, two 22 year-olds fresh out of college trying to break into show business; Chester, a 30 year-old man who has consistently been getting work on Broadway and on soap operas, yet worries if he is making the right chocies because has so many options; Madison, a 9 year-old girl with Broaway dreams. The show will focus on how they deal with this rejection and move on with their lives.

My other show is a show called "Around the World." The show will have documentaries and spotlights on what goes on in other countries as far as their theater and performing arts. Every week will be a different country and style of theater. For instance, one week will be a focus on Natyanjali, the theater in South Indiai, and another week will focus on the kabuki theater in Japan. The show will consist of a documentary of the history of the this type of theater, interviews with actors and designers, discussions with how this style affects American theater, and a large sample of performances in this style.

Of course I am naturally very disappointed that this network does not actually exist. Fortunately, theater websiites like broadway.com and broadwayworld.com are filled with tons of pictures, videos, interviews, samples, etc, but it really would be so great to have a network entirely devoted to the theater. I could stay entertained for hours. Even though I get a theater overload with my insane BFA lifestyle, somehow I would still like this network to exist. I don't know how I haven't gotten sick of theater after all these years, but somehow I haven't really. And there are many people who are like me.

Who knows if this network would sell? I feel like it could. One thing I learned in this class is that there are too many networks on television (there is seriously a network for EVERYTHING!), so no one individual network can get the amazing ratings that NBC, CBS, and ABC got when those three networks were the only ones that existed. So maybe this network could someday happen. Check out my commercial, and ignore the fact that the quality is pretty horendous. I am not a video-editing major.

"He has suffered and now it's your turn. You are here not to laugh, but to learn."

2009-05-06T22:56:00.009-04:00

I am one musical theater presentation, one jazz final, one voice jury, one ballet final, and one presentation of "Cool" from West Side Story away from completely my junior year at the University of the Arts. This semester has by far been the most demanding semester for so many reasons.

One of the big things that made my semester so incredibly exhausting was rehearsing and performing for a production of Bat Boy: The Musical at UArts. We closed this past Saturday after 8 wonderful performances and audiences, but here is a lovely trailer with samples of the production.

It was a long and frustrating process to get to the lovely final product that the show turned out to be. One of the many things that made this piece so challenging was that so many styles of musical theater were being represented in this piece. The opening number is very Brechtian, yet there's another number that is more a cliche musical theater number with hats and kick lines. Another song is a gospel church song and there's another song where we were all animals participating in a multi-specie orgy. Bat Boy is a crazy show! Fortunately, my musical theater performance class this entire year has been focusing on different styles of musical theater, so I had a sense of how to approach these different styles, but it was still quite a challenge.

The other challenge of this piece was to be funny, but not at the expense of getting the point of the show across. There are a lot of extremely funny lines and bits in Bat Boy, but the show has a purpose beyond being entertaining. At our first rehearsal, our director told us why he picked this show. He quoted a line in the opening number that the cast sings to the audience. "He has suffered and now it's your turn. You are here not to laugh, but to learn."

As I finish my third year, I am reflecting on how I have changed as a person and an artist throughout my time in college. The biggest artistic change that has happened to me is the realization that I don't have to limit myself. I used to think that I could only do fun musical theater shows that were silly and were simply around to entertain. While I have no objection to doing light and fun musical theater (and believe me, I'll do anything that pays the bills), I have realized that is not only or exactly what I want to do anymore. When I think about big dreams, one of my big dreams is to create innovative art that makes people think and that does some good to the world. Now, I realize that musical theater does not usually change the world, but I still want to be original and insightful. It isn't enough for me to just sing and be cute and have a smile on my face. I want to do something. I want to have a purpose. If I entertain and make people laugh, I want there to be something else behind it.

Before we started Bat Boy rehearsals, I thought it just seemed like a cute show that was supposed to be kind of funny, but I didn't quite get it. Once we started rehearsals, I saw that the show was incredibly entertaining, but still managed to have a lot of poignant moments despite all the comedy. Maybe that's the kind of art I want to create. I'm glad that Bat Boy makes people think, even if doesn't change the world. But that's not to say that shows that just make people laugh are bad. Sometimes people don't want to think and need to be entertained, and that's okay too. And that's why I don't want to limit myself because there are so many possibilities of types of theater.

This semester has been emotionally challenging because I have felt such an impulse and desire to create original art, but I haven't had the time or the ideas. I'm hoping this summer, as I am away from the chaotic lifestyle of UArts, I will have both.

"In Other Words, Just From Having No Energy and Being Completely Miscast, a Person Can Be In A Horrible Broadway Show!"

2009-03-14T23:16:00.004-04:00

Adelaide in Guys and Dolls reads her psychology book as she tries to understand why her cold won't go away. She realizes that her symptoms are psychosomatic because she is so miserable waiting for Nathan to settle down and marry her.

I was equally as miserable as Adelaide when I sat through the new Broadway revival of Guys and Dolls on Wednesday night. Probably even more miserable. Especially since there was no explanation for why this production was so horrific. How can a show like this be bad? Guys and Dolls is a fun and charming show with great songs and dialogue. It does not seem like a show that should get butchered so easily. I feel like one would have to go out of one's way to make Guys and Dolls an unbearable experience.

However they did it, they did it. This production of Guys and Dolls was in my top five of worst Broadway shows I have ever seen. And so disappointing since I love Guys and Dolls so much.

I really do love it so much. Last year in my musical theater history class, I did a huge research paper on the piece. I focused my paper on the charm and personality of the piece, how every single character, from the leads to the ensemble, has their own individuality. Guys and Dolls takes place in 1950s New York City where there are all different types of people living life in a bustling city. What makes Guys and Dolls so great is all these larger-than-life characters with big personalities. It is touching and funny.

This Broadway revival completely missed the boat on the charm that Guys and Dolls demands. It seemed as though all the money for the show went towards unnecessarily huge scenery and not to good actors. Three of the four leads in this production: Lauren Graham (Adelaide), Kate Jennings Grant (Sarah Brown), and Oliver Platt (Nathan) were truly horrific in their portrayals. Craig Bierko as Sky was okay, but he had such horrible people to play opposite that even he was not so wonderful. I felt badly for him, especially as the only legitimate musical theater performer of the bunch (Graham and Platt have mostly television backgrounds and Grant has mostly a straight acting background, although you would never know that since her acting was worse than her singing). He had no one good to work off of.

I think the most disappointing of the three trainwreck performers was Lauren Graham. I do not just say that because I am a Gilmore Girls fan, but more because I am an Adelaide fan. That is a show-stealing part that has been on my Dream Roles list basically ever since I became interested in musical theater. It is a great part filled with funny line after funny line. Lauren Graham had no timing for any of her lines and maybe got four laughs the entire show. She was so dull and did not make any character choices, other than having the typical Adelaide voice. Even "Adelaide's Lament" was unbearable.

Kate Jennings Grant was extremely disappointing also, especially since Sarah Brown is not a very dramatically demanding role. She played the part as this mean young woman and never made it clear that she was falling in love with Sky. I never got the sense that she was trying to ignore her feelings for Sky or that she had any feelings whatsover. Her singing was also very mediocre, which is pretty unacceptable for a part like Sarah that does demand high vocal ability. She missed the boat and every single line that came out of her mouth seemed forced and fake.

Oliver Platt was also awful. First of all, he is way too old for the part, but he also had no personality. He played Nathan as this uptight and obnoxious man, when the whole point with these gamblers is that they pretend to be tough, but deep down they are nice little lovable guys. He had no chemistry with Lauren Graham. I did not feel like they had any history.

I blame a lot of these problems on the direction. The staging was too spread out and the production numbers were all over the place. I did not know where to look since every second scenery or projections seemed to be changing. It was overly complicated when Guys and Dolls is a simple story if one really takes it apart. The scenery was an attempt to show off the amazing projections and high-technological benefits of live theater. It was completely distracting.

The entire show took a darker approach, making Adelaide's hot box club an actual strip club, and having murders in the opening "Runyonland" scene, when the scene is more supposed to show the fun charm of the city. This darker approach was not true to Damon Runyon's original ideas in the short stories he wrote that Guys and Dolls used as inspiration. He was obsessed with the variety of New York City, but never focused on the true danger and negative parts of the city. He just liked the glamour and excitement, but that was all lost.

I just don't know how this production was so bad, but I guess a combination of bad acting, bad singing, and self-indulgent scenery can do it.

I shouldn't have to think this hard with Guys and Dolls. It's a fun show. Yet I felt sick. Not good, Broadway.

"I Can Do That!"

2009-03-13T22:41:00.004-04:00

The stunning production of A Little Night Music at the White Plains Performing Arts Center in Westchester County, New York was so inspiring and interesting for me for so many reasons. I am struggling with my scene in my acting class from A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, so the show helped me get a better understanding of that piece because it takes place in a similar time period and location (although, A Little Night Music is in Sweden and A Doll's House is in Norway). And like every Sondheim piece I've ever seen, A Little Night Music allows me to think about so many issues that are prevalent in today's society: family, love, sex, marriage.

Everyone in the cast was so perfect for their role. Because they were all so outstanding, it made me think what other parts I would like to see them in. Some roles are very similar to the ones they played, but some are different enough because I'd like to see them challenged.

In my musical theater history class, I really learned about how early operettas and shows such as those by Gilbert and Sullivan would always have "stock" characters (meaning similar types of parts so they could "stock" up on actors of certain character types). Basically every Gilbert and Sullivan show has the pretty soprano ingenue, the leading man tenor, the strange and crazy alto, and the funny bass/baritone. While musical theater has branched out throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, there certainly are a great deal of "stock" characters today. Summer stock theaters across the United States tend to have seasons that consist of shows that have the similar characters. So if they are doing Carousel and Oklahoma, they can cast the same girl as Julie Jordan and Laurey, and the same girl as Carrie and Ado Annie.

It's an interesting approach since Julie and Laurey are very similar parts. Theoretically, if someone played one, they could play the other, even though they are different. And obviously the goal of the actress would be to make sure that those two parts are not played exactly the same even though both parts are pretty girls with pretty voices.

So what kinds of parts are there in musical theater? As a young artist, what possible "types" do I fit into?

Well, I could fit into the ingenue. The ingenue is the innocent and pretty girl with the (usually) soprano voice. She is a good girl, meets a boy, gets heartbroken, but gets him at the end. I already named two ingenues. The role of Anne in A Little Night Music fits into that. And if someone could play those three roles, they also could probably play Sarah Brown in Guys and Dolls, Marion in The Music Man, Emma in Jekyll and Hyde, Cosette in Les Miserables, and Maria in West Side Story, to name a few.

An interesting challenge for the girl who fits into the ingenue category is to see her play an ingenue role that is a little more interesting. Parts like that include Hope in Urinetown and Glinda in Wicked. Those are parts that still call for that beautiful legit soprano sound, but they also call for good comic timing.

Most of the shows that I named above are not shows that are written very recently. In the modern musical, the ingenue is still a pretty girl with a pretty voice, but that pretty voice is now a beltier sound. The ingenues of modern musicals include Belle in Beauty and the Beast, Ariel in The Little Mermaid, Millie in Thoroughly Modern Millie, and Eve in Children of Eden.

Many ingenues find themselves stretched to roles such as Maria in The Sound of Music or Eliza in My Fair Lady, both roles that don't quite fit into the ingenue story since the characters are a little more full.

So now an important question to ask someone who calls themselves an ingenue is, "Well, what kind of ingenue are you?" Someone could be perfect for Belle, but completely wrong for Sarah Brown. But hopefully this actress is just so talented that she is right for both, even though they call for total different vocal skills.

Charlotte and Petra in A Little Night Music seem to fall into the category of the quirky and sassy friend or sidekick of the lead. This type is also a pretty girl with a pretty voice, but they have a little more of an edge. They tend to belt more and have a little more personality than your typical ingenue. Some of the characters are more silly, some are more slutty, some are more sassy. They are just off-beat in a variety of ways and tend to be potential show-stealing roles since they are more interesting. Other parts that I would like to see these characters play include Lois in Kiss Me Kate, Anita in West Side Story, Pennywise in Urinetown, The Baker's Wife in Into the Woods, Adelaide in Guys and Dolls, and Ruth in Wonderful Town.

Carl-Magnus is the arogant man with the beautiful voice in A Little Night Music. That type is so ridiculous and amusing. It is the good-looking and muscular man who just can't get enough of his own beauty and strength. Carl-Magnus also should play Gaston in Beauty and the Beast, Fred in Kiss Me Kate, or one of the two princes in Into the Woods. Certainly, someone of that type could also play scarier parts such as Bill Sykes in Oliver or Jud Fry in Oklahoma, but those parts would be a little less fun since they are legitimately bad people.

Of course not all men are so bad. Henrik in A Little Night Music is the hopelessly romantic tenor who does get the pretty girl at the end. While that part has a little bit more of an emotional journey since he is so dissatisfied with his relationship with his father and stepmother, a good Henrik could also play Raoul in Phantom of the Opera, Freddy in My Fair Lady, Curly in Oklahoma, and Jimmy in Thoroughly Modern Millie.

There are a thousand other types. Some shows don't have ingenues or bad guys. Some only have funny characters or only have dramatic ones. What type does the Witch in Into the Woods fall into, for instance? The fierce belter?

Certain people create their own types. What was was Gwen Verdon as Charity in Sweet Charity or Lola in Damn Yankees? She certainly set the tone for the trule triple-threat female lead. Since Gwen Verdon, other roles have come along calling for the same, but no one else creates their own type the way she did.

I guess this little example just showed how there is consistently an overlap of types in the theater, and musical theater is always expanding. I need to know what kinds of parts I am more suited for than others, but just because someone is Adelaide in Guys and Dolls doesn't mean they are uncastable as Laurey in Oklahoma. It could, though, if the actress decided she could only play the quirky friend. As musical theater is always changing, one needs be easily adaptable. It's true that modern musical theater doesn't tend to call for a legit soprano sound these days, but these days there are also a lot of revivals of 1950s and 1960s shows since those are the only things that seem to sell. Suddenly the belters are out of a job and the legit sopranos are smoothly sailing. Everything old is new again.

It's kind of cool that there are so many different types of parts in musical theater. I can always grow and I don't have to resort to one type. But it's also good to know that if I'm right for one role, there are at least ten other roles that I'm probably right for as well. And then there are another ten that are a little different, but I could become right with more work. Ah, the never-ending process of creating live theater.

I just need to keep improving my skills so no one ever sees me in a show and says, "What a MISCAST!" I would like to see an audition for any role, no matter what kind of character or voice type it calls for, and be able to confidently say, "I can do that!"

"Oh, that is my dream!....But it will never happen."

2009-03-11T00:49:00.001-04:00

I have always had this idea for the office I will have in my dream house when I grow up. It will be a huge office, filled with posters of shows, pictures, trinkets, and quotes that have meaning to me. There will be an enormous book shelf with two copies of every single book and play that has meaning to me. At one window, I will overlook a beautiful beach and mountains. At another window, I will overlook a fascinating city. I will always have frequent visitors to my office of all the friends that I have made from all my adventures in life. I will spend plenty of time in my office working, thinking, and creating, but never will I be frustrated. All my artistic ideas will come easily and naturally to me and I will live a care-free life filled with friends, food, and fine arts.

It's always fun to dream about this office. I don't even know what I'll need an office for. I do want to write, but obviously I want to act and perform even more. Yet, this dream of an office stays ingrained in my brain, and hopefully someday I can allow some small part of that office to be a reality (most likely not the part of being able to overlook the beach and the city at the same time!). It's just a little dream I have about my fabulous and sophisticated life I will have when I grow up.

But I am slowly learning how I have to re-adjust and allow my dreams to adapt themselves over time. And that's okay. It's just hard. One of the many difficulties of growing up.

I was thinking so much about this today because I was reading The Seagull by Anton Chekhov. I will not reveal any plot points because I know all the juniors have to read this, but so much of this play resonated with me, and certainly will do any young artist. The desire to create and put meaning in our lives is so prevalent in this play, written in Russia in the 1890s. It never stops to amaze me how much human society hasn't changed. Yes, lives are so different, filled with computers and cell phones, but on the basis humans are the same. We all wonder about our purpose in life and fantasize for the life we are not living, as opposed to truly experiencing the life we are in.

One of the characters in The Seagull is Nina, who wants more than anything to be an actress. She says, "For the happiness of being a writer or actress, I would endure rejection of my loved ones, poverty, and disillusionment, I'd live in a garret, and eat only black bread, I'd suffer discontent and disappointment in myself, but in return for all of this, I shall have fame.....real, resounding fame!"

She is fascinated by a novelist named Trigorin and his lifestyle. He tries to enlighten her that it is not as glamorous as it seems.

"Here you are talking about fame, happiness, about some kind of brilliant, fascinating life, but for me they are just pretty words, forgive me, like candy, which I never indulge in...Day and night, one persistent thought will overpower me, and I have to write, I have to write, I have to...And no sooner I finish one story, then for some reason I have to write another, and then a third, and after that, a fourth...I'll write constantly, as if I'm in a relay race. I can't stop. What's so wonderful and brilliant about that, I ask you? Oh, what a cruel life! Here I am with you, all excited and yet the whole time, I am thinking about the unfinished story that's waiting for me...And when I'm through working, I'll run off to the theater, or go fishing, to rest, to lose myself,--but no, there it is, already casting around in my head like an iron cannonball, a new plot, and already it's pulling me back to my desk, and again, I'm racing to write it down, to write, and write. And that's the way it always is, always. I have no peace from myself and I feel that I am devouring my own life....."

I don't truly believe the artistic life is consistently as bad as Trigorin makes it out to be, but there are certainly moments that I feel this way as a young artist. I'll finish my homework and try to relax. But inside me a little voice starts to say, "Are you sure your autobiography for studio is thorough enough?" "Did you practice enough for your voice lesson tomorrow?" "Why aren't you reading more plays?" "Why aren't you working on the play you want to write?" Suddenly my attempt to relax results in an increase in my blood pressure instead.

All throughout childhood and adolescence, I always fantasized of the glamorous Broadway life I would lead. Throughout high school, I fantasized the glamorous BFA musical theater major life I would hopefully lead. All these programs sounded wonderful, classes from 9-5 and rehearsals in the evenings studying exactly what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. Yes, it would take up a lot of time, but it would just be so much fun all the time. A dream-come-true!

Oops.

Don't get me wrong. I love my program and teachers and friends, and sometimes it is a lot of fun, but it's also a lot of hard work. I never understood how absolutely draining it could be and how miserable I would feel sometimes. Studying what I love! The idea makes no sense. It was sad to realize how something that was once a hobby could turn into my worst enemy on some days. It was sad to realize that my dream to be happy 100% of the the time studying musical theater was not going to happen.

But it just made me realize how our dreams never work out how we expect them to, even when the dream comes true. Yes, I'm in a wonderful training program that is fulfilling and exactly what I did want, but all that fulfillment comes from such hard work and strain on myself. I must not hate myself for not being an actor 24/7. I must allow myself the freedom to relax and do something outside my acting life. I don't need less theater, I need more of something else.

My office will never happen exactly how I want it to. My Broadway dreams won't happen the way I want them to either. I would love to have the hundreds of Tony Awards and huge mansions with people waiting on me hand and foot.

It probably won't all happen. And any little part that randomly does happen won't happen exactly how I thought it would or planned it.

But I guess life would be kind of boring if I always knew exactly what would happen next. :-)

I love one of the last things Nina says about the arts. "I understand that in our work--it's all the same, whether we perform or write--the main thing is not the glory, not the glitter, no, not any of those things I dreamed of, it's having the strength to endure."

"The world is poor and man's a shit. And that is all there is to it."

2009-02-12T21:56:00.003-05:00

Whoa, so it's been a while. Ever since I have returned to school, I have had absolutely no time for myself. This semester is so ridiculously exhausting.

In the last four weeks, I have done so many different things, I don't even know where to begin.

Projects include:
-"Jealousy Duet" from The Threepenny Opera for my musical theater scene study class (aka Musical Theater Repertory)
-"Ballad of the Prisoner of Sexuality" from The Threepenny Opera for my solo musical theater performance class (aka Voice for Musical Theater)
-The Spoon River Anthology, becoming the character of Margaret Fuller Slack
-the final scene from A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen
-"The Miller's Son" from A Little Night Music for voice lesson repertoire

It's so busy and it's so many different styles of drama. It almost seems conflicting.

On the one end, all these styles do seem to conflict, but on the other end, they don't.

The biggest challenge so far has been the Brechtian unit in Rep and Voice for Musical Theater. It has been such a foreign style for me and my classmates.

Bertolt Brecht was a German playwright and director in the early 20th century. He wrote The Threepenny Opera and various other plays and wanted the theater to be a forum for political ideas to be expressed. He took a very avant-garde approach to theater of eliminating the idea of a fourth wall (the wall that separates the audience from the actors/characters) and creating direct contact between the actor and the audience. In his style of acting, the actor is always conscious that he is an actor performing a song, even though though he is playing a character. The idea of Brechtian drama is for the actor to be a little removed from the action and to allow the audience to come to their own conclusions. The Threepenny Opera talks about very corrupt things, such has whorehouses, beggars, and thieves, but the actor must speak casually and distantly--and must not comment and judge what he is saying. It allows the audience to become disgusted and want to change the world. Having spent two and a half years in a program that is mostly Stanislavski-based (actions, objectives, character development, etc), I have had a hard time removing myself from the action and not becoming the character.

For example, one of the most well-known songs in The Threepenny Opera is the Tango Ballad that Macheath and Jenny sing. The song tells all about their experience living in a whore house and the affair that they had. However, the brilliance of the piece is that the two characters don't seem to think this relationship is completely messed up and portray it as a great romance. The actors' distance from the situation makes the audience think.

Imagine if you were sitting in the audience and an actress sang this lyric in a happy and casual manner!

"I asked him straight out to say what he thought he was doing. Then he'd lash out and knock me headlong down the stairs. I had the bruises off and on for years. That time's long past, but what would I not give to see that whorehouse where we used to live?"

Two of my classmates have this scene and as an audience member, it disgusts me (because they are doing a good job!). What does this say about society if people think this is a great romance? This relationship is completely corrupt.

And then I'm supposed to want to change the world because I have just witnessed corruption.

Brecht is definitely something you have to experience for it to make any sense because I read a lot before any of it started to make any sense to me. It wasn't until my classmates and I started working on these pieces that I started to understand this style. And I don't really understand it yet, but I'm getting there.

And quite honestly, I don't even like it all the time. Last year at UArts, they put on The Cradle Will Rock, which is written by Marc Blitzstein, the translator for The Threepenny Opera. It is very similar to Threepenny in this approach of direct contact with the audience. Everyone in the cast was wonderful, but the style isn't something that always appeals to me. It makes you think, but sometimes I feel like ideas are being thrust in my face, even with the actor's distance from the action. It's very abstract and confusing. Sometimes I go to the theater to hear a great story where I can relate to the characters. Sometimes I want to see characters, not actors.

The Brecht style is certainly more prevalent to the time in which Brecht was writing, in the early 20th century. A German, he was well aware of a lot of the corruption going on in Germany and elsewhere. While there is certainly plenty of corruption going on in the United States currently, the Brechtian style is not American and not something that American theater students can easily relate to.

However, one thing we American theater students can relate to is the desire to want to change the world and make people think. It's all fine and dandy to have Disney musicals that are just fun, but at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves why we wanted to be artists. It wasn't so we could just do fun Disney musicals. Or at least, it wasn't for me. My acting teacher always reminds us how the theater is a discussion of an idea. It's not a lesson, but some idea is being discussed. It could be something very vague, but someone should come out of a great piece of theater thinking something new about the world.

So the Brechtian way of acting may not be apparent in a lot of contemporary drama today, but the idea of wanting people to think and take action on all the corruption of society should never die.

"We'll get together all our friends and exploit all of their talents."

2009-01-15T00:19:00.005-05:00

Who doesn't want to write an amazing musical and have an incredible journey getting that show to Broadway?

Well, there are probably plenty of people who don't have writing a musical high on their list of priorities, but I think so many artists have this desire to create something new and different that makes people think. As a performing artist and writer, I certainly feel that way, but I then sit back and think: Even if I create the most wonderful and innovative musical, it's not going to change the entire world. It might influence some people, but it's obviously next to impossible to completely change the world with one work of art.

So what is my role as a contemporary young artist if I'm not going to completely change the world? What do artists hope to accomplish? What is a realistic goal?

I find myself emerging as an artist in a time of change. This change is particularly prevalent in my life right now because president-elect Barack Obama is to be inaugurated in just a few more days. I am a young artist witnessing history.

I think back to my experiences during Obama's campaign. I changed my residency to Pennsylvania since I figured New York, my home state, did not need my vote since it would clearly go for Obama. Pennsylvania was rumored to be a swing state, so it seemed safer to change my residency. Of course when looking at the final results, my one vote did not make a difference since Obama won by a landslide, but perhaps it did more than I think. I told other people from non-swing states to switch their residency and they told people who told people. And as crazy as that is, I may have done more good than I thought.

I don't contribute Obama's success to me, obviously, but it is clear to me that there were enough people who volunteered in so many different ways and that made such an enormous difference. It's true. One person can't always make the difference in something as important as the presidential election. But if enough people do a little, suddenly a difference can be made. Maybe I helped influence 10 people and each of them influenced their own set of 10 and so on. If enough people think about the big picture of their little influence, then something can be accomplished. The problem is it is too easy to get caught up in how each of us can't do much. It's true. The 10 people I influenced did not affect the election, and I could have easily decided not to suggest anyone change their residency. But had everyone who influenced anyone thought that, the election results may have been very different. Election night, when Obama thanked everyone who made phone calls, volunteered, etc, I know he really meant it because it's the accumulation of all the little things people did that helped elect him as president.

So what does this have to do with my role as an artist?

I get easily frustrated because there are so many people with the same dreams that I have and there are only so many jobs available. We can't all have the Broadway success, Tony Awards, and glamorous lives.

I have thought a lot what it means to be an artist, and I know that one side advantage to being a famous artist (or famous anything for that matter) is that you have eternity. You make an impact and you may always be remembered, centuries after your death, for how you revolutionized something.

Who would have thought that the first African American president would get elected in my lifetime? We still have so far to go in equal rights, but 100 years ago Brown vs. Board of Education hadn't even happened yet. How amazing it is that significantly less than 100 years later the highest government position in our country is about to be taken over by a minority? I truly am witnessing history. And I am so honored to be witnessing this history.

The only way to create change is to get as many people together and do something. I don't know what we should do. I don't currently have some amazing idea that is going to revolutionize art and I don't pretend to have the answers. I remember during one of the Democratic debates early well before Obama received the nomination and one of the questions directed to the potential candidates was how they proposed to help women's rights, minority rights, etc. Each candidate was arguing how they were going to do a better job than all their opponents. Then Hilary Clinton correctly said how great it is that that was what they were arguing about. Who was going to do a better job to give more people the rights they deserve! What a nice change of pace.

It saddens me how art is that same competition when art has always been a collaboration. I am competing with thousands of people to change the world. Why shouldn't we all get to change the world? Chances are, I won't be the one to have that dream career. But that doesn't mean I still can't help change the world by collaborating and working with my fellow artists, supporting their new works in whatever way I can, suggesting ideas, sharing thoughts.

In conclusion, I am one young artist and I probably won't individually change the world. Even if I have a successful career as a working actor, it is unlikely that the whole world will remember me years after my death. However, maybe the accumulation of me and the thousands of other young artists can change the world. Maybe not.

I shouldn't stop writing and yearning to create because maybe something amazing could come out of what I do. Maybe not.

But all the small things the American people did contributed to Barack Obama's election. So you never know. And it's kind of cool to feel like I helped play a role in creating history, as small as it was.

"I am a playwright who wants an audience of over-educated dilettantes and wannabe intellectuals--people like me, in other words." --Tony Kushner

2008-12-31T18:25:00.004-05:00

In the last few days, I have happily resigned myself to laying in my bed and reading play after play. Right now, I have read eight plays in the last 3 1/2 days: Zoo Story by Edward Albee, Buried Child, Fool for Love, and Curse of the Starving Class, all by Sam Shepard, Plaza Suite and The Odd Couple, both by Neil Simon, 4.48 Psychosis and Blasted, both by Sarah Kane. It has been a very productive last few days.

As I have been reading these different plays, I have noticed to various extents a lot of stage directions and descriptions of the scenery and costumes. My acting teacher told us that we should ignore stage directions when staging a scene, unless it is a direction that is obviously relevant and cannot be ignored (for example, if it says the character hits another character, you probably should do that). However, most stage directions are simply the directions that they used when the play was first produced, so it is not necessary to follow it precisely.

I talked about in a previous post that when playwright Terrence McNally spoke at UArts a few weeks ago, he said how he does not like to see a production of his play where the set is identical to the original production because nothing new is brought to the play. No two productions should be identical.

I appreciated everything that Terrence McNally said and I agree that productions should always be unique, but I feel that a lot of society does not agree. I can't think of how many times I have seen revivals of shows that are different than the original production and people complain that it deviated away from the original too much. An example I recall is the 2005 Broadway revival of Sweet Charity, where the choreography had very limited similarities to the original choreography by Bob Fosse. So many of the reviews criticized this production for being so different. One of the articles said, "Hey, Big Spender! Ever heard of Fosse?"

But then there are also the reviews that criticize the star of the revival for being too similar to the original star and not doing anything different with the role. It seems very difficult to win in these situations.

I know for me I like to find something in between. The Les Miz revival (if we can actually call it a revival.....) was essentially identical to the original Broadway production with the revolving stage and everything. I was entertained because it's Les Miz and that's one of my favorite shows, but there was nothing new or innovative. Yet, I was entertained. Would I have preferred to have seen a production that was drastically different and did not live up to my expectations? I don't know. There's comfort in knowing essentially what we are going to see and having the show live up to our expectations.

Why do we revive shows? Is it because we're trying to go back in time and bring back something from the past? Or is it because we think we have more to get out of the show so we are bringing it back to learn more?

For me, it is the latter. You can't revive a show and expect it to be the same as it was when it was first produced because times aren't the same. For example, Hair is returning to Broadway this spring. Hair was a very innovative show and truly affected its audience at the time because of the Vietnam War and the draft. In many ways, it is a very appropriate time to bring back since we are at war now, but the current lack of a draft in the United States right now makes the return of Hair very different. And while my generation has read about the Vietnam War and talked to our parents, who were the ones around during the draft, we do not have first-hand experience and the ability to relate to that issue. Hopefully this revival of Hair does not pretend that it's 1968 and that everyone in the audience is scared about a draft. How interesting it could be to see the parallels of how this play is relevant today. If done correctly, it will definitely show society how we have come so far, but have so far to go. If done correctly, it could be a really terrific revival.

Most audience members are less open to new interpretations than I am, though, and they like to see a revival so they can re-experience the show they saw several years ago.

I guess as long as new shows continue to be created, I can humor the ignorant audience members and let the revivals be similar enough to the original production. I mean, obviously the original was good enough that people want to see it again. However, Broadway today seems to consist of mostly revivals. And if revivals are not bringing much new to the show, how can theater and art grow?

It is a problem. Hopefully 2009 will bring a lot of new theater in addition to revivals. I am not extremely enthusiastic about the musical [title of show], but if there's one thing that show did correctly, it definitely encouraged me and many other people, I'm sure, to pick up drafts of plays that we have been working on and just keep writing!

I want to write something unique. Everyone, I'm sure, feels the same way that they want to create something that no one's ever seen before. And it's hard because a lot of shows that are so unique don't have a role in the theater scene since most audience members cannot appreciate something so different and radical.

As Tristram Bernard said, "In the theater, the audience wants to be surprised--but by the things they expect."

Are the hills alive with "the Sound of Music?"

2008-12-27T00:23:00.005-05:00

The New York Times had an interesting article a couple of days ago about the von Trapp family, the family we all feel a connection to from years of growing up watching The Sound of Music. Of course the family isn't quite how we envision them when we see this lovely movie. Maria has been dead for over 20 years, her son is 69, and her grandson is 36. The article talked about how the von Trapp family isn't as perfect as it was romanticized to be. Maria wasn't actually such a lovely woman and the kids got along adequately, and not nearly as well as they do in the show and movie.

The article talked about the burden, even all these years later, of being a von Trapp because everyone associates their lives with the classic movie that did not accurately represent their true lives. My favorite quote of the article, about Johannes, Maria and the Captain's 69 year old son (yes, the Captain and Maria had three additional kids in the USA who did not get included in The Sound of Music. I'd be pretty bitter if it were me!). "People would ask about Liesl, and he would have to point out that his eldest sibling was not 16 going on 17, but 54 in 1965 — and male. They would ask whether he was Kurt or Friedrich, and he would have to explain that his father and mother had three children together that were not portrayed in the movie, and he was the youngest. His mother was presented as a near-saint in the movie; in real life, she was difficult and domineering, people who knew her said." Johannes said, "It wasn't what we were. I got tired of being cast as a Sound of Music person."

The article goes on a little to talk about the family inn that Maria started in Vermont after the family moved to the United States. Tourists from all over come to this inn because it is the "Sound of Music inn." Johannes, who runs the inn now, does not feel the same compassion and giddiness for it that others have and resent how many of his other siblings did not try to take over the inn and left him to do something that he really had no interest in doing. So I guess the von Trapp family wasn't as happy and perfect as we always thought they were.

When I had the opportunity to play Louisa von Trapp in The Sound of Music a couple of years ago, I researched for kicks how similar the representation of the von Trapp family in the show actually was to the real family. The two things that amused me the most were that the family did not climb a mountain to Switzerland, but rather they took a train to Italy, and had they actually climbed that specific mountain, they would have ended up at one of Hitler's headquarters, which clearly would not have been an escape for them. The true story is that the family was musical and became known as the von Trapp Family Singers. Many other elements of the musical have been changed and it does not sound like the true story would have been nearly as entertaining and charming as the musical is.

The article seemed to indicate that the family does not really get along so well. Whether or not they truly have awful relationships or are just like every other family in America, not perfect, is unclear, but I think it's disappointing to know this, even if the relationships are adequate and not terrible. There's something very comforting about the von Trapp family represented through The Sound of Music and I know everyone secretly wishes they had as many siblings, were as close with all of them, dressed in the same clothes, and sang and danced all around Austria with them. I remember when I did the show, the mother of the Brigitta organized pizza and sushi dinners for the seven "kids" and it was so much fun to pretend that I had this many siblings who all loved each other and never argued.

So why is the family not so close? Who knows? But I'm sure the fame and association with The Sound of Music did not help. We all dream of glamor and fame, but as is always the case with anything, things never work out exactly how we envision them to. I'm sure the fact that they did not live a "normal" life probably did not help.

I have always wanted to be a Broadway star. Even when I was in elementary school, I knew I wanted to be on a Broadway stage. Other girls were listening to the Spice Girls, but I was blasting my Broadway show tunes and watching any musical I could get my hands on. I would see some Broadway shows that had children in them: Annie, The King and I, and of course, The Sound of Music and was so jealous of all these children who were experiencing their Broadway dream because I already knew this was what I wanted to. My parents would not really let me audition for professional theater because they wanted me to be a kid and experience a kid's life, not a professional adult actor's life. I didn't understand that then, but of course I see now how I have no time as a child as it is, and it certainly is important to try and savor those childhood experiences as much as possible. And it would have been exciting, sure, to be in a Broadway show at a young age, but it wouldn't have been this fantasy I created for myself. It would have been lots of late nights (and of course still early mornings because you are expected to still essentially be a full-time student!) and exposure to bad language, cigarette smoking, and the ugly business of the theater. I would see first-hand how Broadway isn't easy; it's a job. Yes, it's a more exciting and fulfilling job than many other jobs, but it's still a job. It would have stopped being fun. I would feel like I had to do it, and not like I wanted to. Through my very demanding undergraduate musical theater program, I sometimes feel like I have to perform, and not that I want to. On those hard days, I try to remember that spark and excitement I had as a little girl because it isn't lost. Sometimes it gets hidden by the stress of all the homework that needs to be done and the fear that I'll never be good enough, but I just need to dig sometimes. It's there. Performing is still the thing that gives me the most joy, and I'm glad I got to experience that as a young kid. I can't ever think of not wanting to go to rehearsal unless it was because I felt that people weren't taking it as seriously and as passionately as I was (which sometimes was the case because most other 8 year olds aren't as dedicated to the art of the theater as I was).

I don't know how extensive the von Trapp family's singing career was, but it was extensive enough that they were pretty famous (even before The Sound of Music) and certainly did not live the life of a typical family. The children probably never felt like real children because they had to do a job.

I can't even imagine the life of a child actor. I was passionate, serious, and (in my opinion) talented enough to be a childhood musical star, but I don't think it would have been the life for me, as much as I wanted it to be (and believe me, I wanted it to be!).

I think childhood actors deserve a lot of credit. Imagine having 2 full-time jobs before the age of 10 and going through all the drama and craziness of growing up. It makes being a working actor adult sound like a piece of cake.

It is a little disheartening to know that the von Trapp family wasn't as close as The Sound of Music represented them to be. To fuel my disappointment, I guess I'll just have to do The Sound of Music again and develop a close relationship with the seven children. Good thing I'm taking guitar class next semester and hopefully I'll eventually graduate up the ranks to be Maria.

"That's what an overture is, a musical appetizer. A pu-pu platter of tunes, if you will."

2008-12-25T21:16:00.008-05:00

I guess I am on my The Drowsy Chaperone faze as I quote the Man in the Chair again. He is right how great overtures can be when seeing live theater. Overtures always include highlights of the songs and help keep the excitement and anticipation of the show you are about to see. I used to always skip overtures when I would listen to recordings of musicals, but I realized it was because I was just too excited to get the show started and I couldn't contain myself. Now I have a little more patience and can appreciate the beauty of an overture.

This is my favorite overture to musical theater, the overture to Candide by Leonard Bernstein.

I don't know why this is my favorite overture because Candide is most definitely not my favorite musical. I like it, but I don't have particularly strong feelings towards it, but there's something about that overture that I just love.

Clearly I am not the only person to feel this way. Candide was a major flop when it opened on Broadway in 1956, but the overture immediately became a success with every major orchestra in America, despite the failure of the musical. Since then, Candide has been re-visited and people have a much stronger appreciation and admiration for it. I saw the revival in 1997 (and of course didn't understand a thing), own the DVD of the 2005 PBS Great Performances with Kristin Chenoweth and Patti LuPone, and had the lovely opportunity to see the recent production at the Arden Theater in Philadelphia this past fall.

Perhaps the thing that the overture conveys so well (and possibly is lacking in the musical) is the excitement of the world. There is so much to fear, but there is so much to be excited about. Every time I listen to Candide, there's this part of me that wants to grab every single philosophy book and learn and write about the world and happiness and knowledge and life. I feel overwhelmed because there's so much I don't know about, but how cool is it that I will never know everything and there is always something to learn?

Here is my favorite quote from Candide:

"Since this is the only possible world, it follows....
That this is the best of all possible worlds.
Correct! Since this is the best of all possible worlds, it follows....
That everything that happens in this world is for the best.
Correct! So if any man said that all is well,
He lies!
Everything is not well.
Everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds!"

And I think in some weird way, that is the theme to Candide's overture.

I started going through my numerous Broadway recordings to see what other overtures I found gave me this excitement because there had to be other brilliant overtures, right? I decided that it would make it easy if I made an iTunes playlist of all my overtures and would compare and contrast which overtures I liked the best. As I went through all these overtures, I was surprised to actually take note of the fact that maybe half of my Broadway recordings have overtures in them. So many musicals, especially more modern ones, do not have overtures in them. Some musicals immediately begin with some other impressive opening number sung by the cast and other musicals begin with a scene.

I think I prefer an overture because, beyond all other reasons, it is a nice way to recognize the orchestra. Many actors take for granted a good orchestra and do not realize how much better an orchestra makes them sound if they are any good. It's not until you go see a show where the orchestra is noticeably bad do you realize how lucky you are. Similarly, it's not until you go to an audition and the pianist horribly messes up your song and your audition is ruined that you realize how spoiled you are having that vocal coach or voice teacher who can sight-read any piece of music you throw into their hands and make it sound perfect.

The rehearsal process for an orchestra is so different from the rehearsal process the cast members go through, as it has been explained to me by two teachers at school who are constantly involved in professional orchestras in and around Philadelphia. While the cast members rehearse for several weeks, the orchestra only has a couple rehearsals with all of them together. And there's usually only one rehearsal that's actually dedicated for the cast to practice singing with the orchestra (in the show biz, we call it a sitzprobe.) . Somehow this is enough for the orchestra to sound amazing.

Most actors don't really have any interaction with the members of the orchestra, other than the conductor who was most likely the music director throughout the entire rehearsal process. It is a common courtesy, though, that during the bows, the cast motions to the orchestra as a thank you. It becomes a muscle memory thing to do and less of a thank you. It's not that actors are rude; they just aren't thinking about how lucky they are. It doesn't always occur to them.

So that's why it's nice to have an overture. Thank you in advance to the orchestra for not letting us down, for making the show what it is. There's nothing better than having the lights out in the entire theater, imagining what you're about to see on stage, and hearing highlights that help get you in the mood.

The Man in the Chair says, "Overtures are out of style. I miss them." He's right. Bring them back!

"I hate theater. Well, it's so disappointing, isn't it?"

2008-12-24T11:58:00.005-05:00

The Man in the Chair in The Drowsy Chaperone has his own opinions about theater, as indicated above with the first line of the play. The delightful show consists of many little theater jokes that would probably be amusing to your average person, but are ridiculously hilarious to the dedicated theatergoer.

While the lights are still completely dark, he continues.....

"You know what I do when I'm sitting in a darkened theater waiting for the show to begin? I pray. 'Oh, dear God. Please let it be a good show. And let it be short, oh Lord in Heaven please. 2 hours is fine. 3 hours is too much. And keep the actors out of the audience, God. I didn't pay 100 dollars to have the fourth wall come crashing down around me. I just want a story and a few good songs that will take me away. I just want to be entertained. I mean, isn't that the point? Amen.' You know there was a time when people sat in darkened theaters and thought to themselves, 'What have George and Ira got for me tonight?' Or 'Can Cole Porter pull it off again?' Can you imagine? Now it's, 'Please, Elton John. Must we continue this charade?' "

When I saw the Broadway production in 2006 (and then the national tour when it came to Philadelphia in 2007), I remember feeling such a connection to the Man in the Chair. Every single thing that came out of his mouth about musical theater delighted me because I am my own version of the Man in the Chair. Please, I keep a Broadway blog and 99% of the songs on my iTunes are from shows. Hopefully I am not as pathetic as he is, but I obviously get true joy and giddiness going to see a show. And there is certainly a community of people who are the same way. The Broadway message boards on the Internet are always buzzing with people exchanging musical theater anecdotes and thoughts.

As someone who is passionate about theater, I love going to see musicals that have jokes about theater, as long as they aren't redundant. However, I realize that my community is only a small portion of people who might go see a Broadway show. I think The Drowsy Chaperone is absolutely hilarious, but I don't know if I would get these jokes if I were not the theater enthusiast that I am.

The Drowsy Chaperone is probably an extreme situation of a musical where 90% of the jokes are theater-related. Without the theater jokes, it's a cute show with a funny sh0w-with-in a show aspect, but it wouldn't be anything special. But there are a lot of musicals that may not center around theater jokes, but certainly have several mingled in. Does it matter that not everyone will get those jokes?

What other musicals have theater jokes or a theater subject matter?

The next obvious musical is Curtains, a musical with a character much like the Man in the Chair. He bluntly says, "Putting on a musical has got to be the most fulfilling thing a person could ever hope to do. You people, you're all heroes to me." He gushes and raves about musicals, but to me this character and show were a little stale. It was entertaining. I thought the theater jokes were amusing and cute, but I didn't have a grin glued on my face the way I did with The Drowsy Chaperone.

Monty Python's Spamalot also has a few little theater references that definitely get a decent chuckle out of your theater enthusiast. Based off of the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Spamalot has one major difference. King Arthur's big task is to join a Broadway show. This inspires the song, "You Won't Succeed on Broadway," where Arthur is informed that is necessary to have Jews if you are trying to go to the Great White Way. Of course in New York, a city filled with many Jewish people, this song always seems to have the crowd roaring. The tour in Philadelphia got a similar response, although not quite as vibrant. Later, Robin says, "I, too, have found my grail! Musical Theater!"

Then of course the recent Broadway show: [title of show]. Now, I think I am the audience for this musical because I am one of these crazy Broadway fanatics, but this show did not really enthrall me that much. Again, these theater jokes just seemed predictable and bland. Although, I do get a kick out of the song "Die, Vampire, Die!" They talk about how a vampire is "any person or thought or feeling that stands between you and your creative self-expression." The show describes some of the challenges of creating a musical and trying to get it out there. It's innovative, but overall, the theater jokes didn't do anything for me.

Then there are the group of musicals that are about people putting on a show.

Kiss Me Kate and 42nd Street are the obvious musicals that come to mind. In both there is some offstage drama or mishap that happens. Of course the drama resolves itself, the show comes together, and the people who are in love get together. They do not exactly give a truthful and realistic account of what goes on backstage in a professional theater scene, but all people seem to enjoy these shows because of the big dance numbers and the parts of the stories that do not exactly focus on the creation of a musical. However, the songs that really anthem musical theater probably don't really mean anything to someone who doesn't share that passion. For example, anyone who has ever put on a show as a cast or crew member understands this line from Kiss Me Kate. "4 weeks you rehearse and rehearse. 3 weeks and it couldn't be worse. 1 week, will it ever be right? Then out of the hat, it's that big first night!"

And obviously there's A Chorus Line, the musical about the grueling audition process for aspiring professional actors, singers, and dancers. While this musical obviously means so much to me because I find myself fitting into the subject of this show, I do not think it only speaks to aspiring artists. The show is about wanting, growing up, and realizing the future of dreams, any dreams. "Can't forget, won't regret what I did for love" can speak to anyone and anything. But of course the little theater jokes in A Chorus Line mean more to me.

There are also shows that deal with the lives of actors, even if not the center focus of the musical. For instance, Desiree in A Little Night Music and Eileen in Wonderful Town. And then of course there are the musicals that tell the lives of true show biz people: Gypsy Rose Lee in Gypsy, Fanny Brice in Funny Girl, and Peter Allen in The Boy from Oz.

Then there are just so many little lines that make theater jokes. Freddy in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels screams, "I can finally afford to see a Broadway show!" Princeton in Avenue Q says, "Maybe my purpose is to take everything I'm learning and put it, put in into a show!" Officer Lockstock in Urinetown states, "Nothing can kill a show like too much exposition." Sometimes non-theater people think these jokes are funny, other times not so much. But at least a decent bulk of any audience will have those theater fanatics who will most certainly think these lines are funny.

In addition, there are the musicals about struggling artists, not necessarily musical theater artists, but artists longing to create. Guido in Nine, George in Sunday in the Park with George, Max and Leo in The Producers, Kathy in The Last Five Years. And then there are those characters in musicals who just happen to have a side hobby of performing so it's only fitting they burst into song. Nellie in South Pacific, Mrs. Banks in Mary Poppins, Lizzie in Baby, Adelaide in Guys and Dolls.

I don't know if I would like all these "show biz" musicals if I weren't in show biz myself. Even if I had another passion, the experience of creating live theater is so unique. There isn't anything else like it and it's not something that can be described to you; it's something you have to experience for yourself. However, sometimes the theater jokes are stupid and repetitive.

I don't know what it was about The Drowsy Chaperone that made it so fresh since it was certainly not the first, or the last, musical to be about musical theater. Maybe it's because it was told from our side, the crazy theater fanatics who watch, not the ones who are actually up there. So who knows why so many musicals are about musicals? But one reason I think so many are is because so many aspiring theater artists eat, breath, and sleep theater. It is their life and the source of so much of their fulfillment. It's not to say that we as theater artists are one-dimensional by any means, but we are our art, so naturally if writing a musical, the thing we think most about is theater.

William Finn's musical Make Me a Song sums it up.

"Though I live with passion and joy and rage, the only time I feel alive is when I'm on the stage. And that is why living life like a normal person is a stupid thing that I won't do. I need theater! I love theater! It's the food I eat eight times a week. God bless theater."

"Let me be something every blessed minute. And when I sleep, let me dream all the time so that not one little piece of living is ever lost."

2008-12-23T22:47:00.003-05:00

I re-discovered this quote last night. It is NOT from a musical or a play. Surprise surprise. I do love the quote, though. It sums up exactly where I am in life. Last night, I couldn't sleep. I was too excited and anxious about life, not one particular event, just my overall life that is staring there waiting for me. To quote a musical I saw on tour last week, my good old reliable A Chorus Line, "and now life really begins." That is how I feel right now. And this quote helped me calm down last night through all my excitement. I can live while dreaming, and it happened last night I had some very bizarre and interesting dreams, dreams that could maybe mount into something more than just funny dreams to laugh about.

This quote is from A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith, a book that I have conveniently picked up from my shelf at the right time in my life. Coincidence or not, I am being brought back into the world of Francie Nolan and her coming of age. I have not read this book since I was probably about 14 or 15, and certainly my life has changed a lot since then.

I love the specific detail of this novel. The language is so elegant and the character development is so precise. It's one of those books that you can picture every single little thing that happens.

I am aware that there is a musical of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn that opened on Broadway in 1951. I do not know the musical very well, but as I am writing this, I am downloading and listening to the soundtrack of this musical. It's such a beautiful story that hopefully does translate into a beautiful musical full of the same detail and specificity that the book has.

But the novel of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is an almost 500 pages long, so there is obviously no way to for that to fully translate into a 2 1/2 hour musical. Some of the detail that I admire so is most likely missing.

This is a common problem when books turn into musicals. Some recent musicals based on novels include A Tale of Two Cities, The Color Purple, Little Women, and Gone with the Wind. Not only is there a trend of converting books to musicals, but also there is a trend of converting books with epic stories that cannot possibly be as epic in a musical. You think the musical of Les Miserables is long? In the book, John Valjean does not enter until about page 120, just to give you a sense of how much more epic that book is.

Some musicals based on novels are some of my favorite musicals. I absolutely adore Les Miz, The King and I, Peter Pan, Wicked, and Man of La Mancha, to name a few. The success of novel musicals has been varied. Usually the problem is that many of these musicals lack a lot of the charm and character that the book has because the writers have been cramming to fit in every single important event that happens in the novel. I think the reason some are successful is because the writers realize that they aren't going to fit every event and decide what's important, so the musicals become more of a slice of the novel as opposed to an abridged version.

I was thinking about this recently because I just saw a production of Little Women at UArts. I think the novel of Little Women is great, but the musical just doesn't do anything for me. The thing that I love so much about the book is the character development of the March sisters, their loyalty to each other, their kindness towards those less fortunate than themselves, their compassion, their courage. But when a musical is trying to fit in everything from Jo selling her hair to Beth dying (sorry to ruin the story for anyone!), so much of what I love is gone.

However, a fine actor takes advantage of the wonderful resource of having an entire novel based on their play. This semester in musical theater history, we had a very interesting assignment. We read the novel of Show Boat by Edna Ferber and then read the libretto of the musical. Part of our assignment was to choose a character and find information about them in the novel that would help inform us when playing that character in the musical. Certainly the novel tells more specific details about the characters' pasts that the musical overlooks due to lack of time. Through this assignment, I truly learned the importance of research as an actor. This tied in well with my assignment in acting studio where I had to write a full autobiography for the character that my scene was from. My acting teacher explained to us how every character in life has become who they are due to their past. I didn't just suddenly wake up today and become Serena. I have 20 years worth of experiences that have shaped me. Even the tiniest most random childhood memories influence us and our personalities in ways we could never imagine. So we had to take all the information that the play provides us about the character and then we had to expand on it and make it mean something to us. Obviously every play is different. It happened that this scene I had (from Proof by David Auburn) did not mention many specific facts about my character's childhood, so I had to use what I knew and create facts that were meaningful to me and the character. Sometimes it's really exciting to not know much about the character because it gives the actor so many liberties to truly create the character, but sometimes it's nice when a lot of information is given to you.

It never came up in my scene some of the random stories and anecdotes I had created for my character. I made up some pretty obscure stuff that would probably be fascinating to anyone, but the most important thing is that it made my character three-dimensional and it turned me into that character. I can only imagine how much more specific I could have been if I had tons of information provided that I could expand on. My teacher says: Investigation, Inference, Invention. And that's the way that you are true to the playwright's vision, but still have your own artistic freedom. We can't just invent random things. They have to be things that make sense based on what we already know about the characters.

But this definitely makes acting really exciting for me. I have the ability to use my own humanity and the character's story to move other people. And it's certainly why we as actors will never be replaced by robots unless robots have the ability to understand past experiences, which I don't think is something they will understand any time soon. Robots aren't living. They don't have the ability to believe, to want, to fear, to dream, to hate, to love, to think, to regret. I do have the ability to live. And I also have the ability to be a smart actor and do my research and learn as much about the character as I can, a skill that should never be underestimated.

"I love those city lights, the color of city sights that shine under city lights tinting the sky."

2008-12-21T23:42:00.002-05:00

Lately I've been thinking a lot about cities--cities that I live in, cities that I want to live in, cities that fascinate me, cities that I know nothing about. I've been to a decent number of major cities: New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, London, Paris, Rome, Milan, Montreal....and I have always known that the city life is for me. I didn't really know how much I would love it until I moved to Philadelphia for college 2 1/2 years ago.

There are so many musicals that have songs about these major cities....or mention them. To name a few.....

"Where ya going?" "Barcelona." "Oh." --Company
"We open in Venice. We next play Verona. Then onto Cremona." --Kiss Me Kate
"Good morning, Baltimore! Every day's like an open door. Every night is a fantasy. Every sound's like a symphony." --Hairspray
"Everything's up-to-date in Kansas City. They've gone about as far as they can go." --Oklahoma!
"New York, New York! A hell of a town. The Bronx is up and the Battery's down." --On the Town
"Let's run away to Atlantic City. No one will find us there." --Ragtime
"It's hot as hell in Philadelphia!" --1776
"Paris makes me horny!" --Victor/Victoria
"My brother lived in San Francisco." --Elegies for Angels, Punks, and Raging Queens
"Her name is Alberta. She lives in Vancouver." --Avenue Q
"Meet me in St. Louis, Louis. Meet me at the fair." --Meet Me in St. Louis
"The heat is on in Saigon." --Miss Saigon
"How far away. Little Rock, ARK. Princeton, NJ. How far are they?" --South Pacific
"I have sailed the world, beheld its wonders from the Dardenells, to the mountains of Peru, but there's no place like London." --Sweeney Todd

Musicals seem to have this same fascination with city life that I do. The idea that a city has everything to offer just blocks from where you live and that you can move to a brand new city and re-create yourself and experience the American Dream. Despite the failures of the Bush administration these last eight years, the United States of America, especially New York and Los Angeles, remain as cities that people from all countries fantasize about because immigrants wanted to start a new life and thought it would be easiest in a city that had a diversity of people, jobs, and lifestyles.

I don't always think of New York as this glamorous city because I have lived here my whole life, with the exception of my time in college, but New York is most certainly where everything is at. And I may not think of it as so unique since it's the only city I really and truly know, but I know that other cities don't have the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, the Empire State Building, and oh yeah, Broadway shows. I'm lucky to have always lived in the city where anything is supposedly possible.

I thought about these cities and tried to see what the connection was between these musicals that take place in major cities. I drilled my head and I just could only connect this concept of the American Dream and optimism. The majority of musicals express some form of optimism with characters having some dream or aspiration of theirs coming true. Perhaps this is why musical theater, years and years after it came about, is still prevalent in pop culture, even if it has taken the backseat to reality television show, movies, and the Internet. No matter what the state of the world is, people need to be entertained with the idea of optimism and hope.

So many dreams come true in big cities. Would Wonderful Town, On the Town, or Thoroughly Modern Millie truly worked if they didn't take place in big cities? Of course not. The characters in these musicals experience their fantasies as they deal with the challenge to succeed in New York. No one goes to the middle of nowhere to pursue their dreams. This isn't a knock at other parts of the country that are more rural, but so many of the characters who aren't in these big cities aspire to be there and feel trapped. Take Caroline and Emmie in Caroline or Change or Belle in Beauty and the Beast. They want to find more, and are dissatisfied with where they are.

This idea of optimism is certainly what attracted me to musical theater. So many musicals provide this idea of hope and have profound lines in songs that help encourage this idea. Certainly the most effective ones to me are:

"Stop worrying if your vision is new. Let others make that decision. They usually do. Just keep moving on." --Sunday in the Park with George
"To dream the impossible dream. To fight the unbeatable foe. To bear with unbearable sorrow. To run where the brave dare not go." --Man of La Mancha
"Don't stress. Relax. Let life roll off your backs. Except for death and paying taxes, everything in life is only for now." --Avenue Q
"Something's coming. I don't know what it is, but it is gonna be great!" --West Side Story
"Beyond that road, beyond this lifetime, that car full of hope will always gleam. With the promise of happiness and the freedom he'll live to know. He'll travel with head held high, just as far as his heart will go. And he will ride, our son will ride on the wheels of a dream!" --Ragtime

There's a safety in musicals and the idea that it is okay to pursue our dreams. It's true that dreams don't necessarily come true overnight and the way we always expect them to, but musicals had the right idea, even if they oversimplified dreams and goals. Dream big and go where you can to pursue these dreams. For most of us, it is the city because it's filled with various opportunities.

Most people grow up with some type of big dream, maybe to be a writer, an actor, a doctor, or a musician. As we grow up, we start to realize that these dreams have to just be fantasies and aren't really how we are going to spend the rest of our lives. We give up on these dreams and decide to do something else, something more tangible, and we watch musicals and live vicariously through the characters in musicals who have the guts to move to a brand new city and find that American Dream.

I think this is why people love musical theater. And more people would love it if they were exposed to it. Because we all have had a vision of conquering a big city and pursuing our dreams, but most of us never do it. And there's nothing better than watching a character with all the optimism and courage that we aspire to have.

"What do you want to be when you grow up?" "I'm going to be an actress." I AM an actress.

2008-12-20T22:59:00.000-05:00

Tonight I went to a family holiday party. Most of these people at this party have watched me grow up since it's an annual party with the same people every year. They saw me each year be that enthusiastic little girl with the massive theater bug. Each year, they get the ten-minute update on my life. I'm a junior at UArts. I love Philadelphia. I'm going to be an actress. I am an actress.

Ever since I was six and my first grade teacher suggested that I be an actress because I had a loud voice (yes, that's why I got interested in theater!), I have been telling people all over that I have wanted to be an actress. It became assumed. People knew that I was going to be an actress and got true delight watching a little girl dance around dreaming about Broadway, Hollywood, and all the excitement and glory that goes with it.

Now I'm 20 and people don't seem to get that delight hearing that I am going to be an actress. "What's your back-up plan?" "How many restaurants are you planning on waitressing at when you move to New York?" "What do you do with that degree if you don't make it?" are some of the many responses I got. What happened to having dreams and first pursuing them before we accepted our fate and the fact that it is true that it's hard to be a working actor? I longed for the days when I was little and people thought it was great that I wanted to be an actress.

Here was the worst. A woman I had never met before said to me, "So have you decided what you want to be when you grow up?"

I looked her straight in the eye and confidently said, "Yes. I am going to be an actress."

I didn't tell her that I'd like to be an actress. I told her that I will be one, but I made a big mistake. I should have told her, "I AM an actress" because I'm not going to be one. I am still in training, but I am one, as are many other 20somethings like myself who have not had their big break or been discovered. I am not supporting myself by acting in plays right now, but I am an actress. I am one. I am still learning and will always be learning, but I am an actress.

I haven't really tried yet. Yes, I went through the grueling BFA college audition process my senior year of high school and tasted rejection and I deal every semester with the competition to get parts in plays at UArts against my incredibly talented classmates, but I haven't REALLY tried yet. I'm still 20, still in college, still young enough to have dreams. I am growing up and I realize the odds are against me, but they're against everyone and SOMEONE has to make it. I obviously cannot have the same dreams that I had when I was a little girl. My training at UArts is so intense that I have obviously learned that there are lots of really talented people and you have to work really hard to get results that you want. But I still have dreams. And I am going to hang onto them until there's a reason to let go of them.

I'm so sick of being discouraged from my dreams when I haven't really begun. I don't want to hear about how so many actors are out of work and how there are so many amazing people out there who have the same dream. I have plenty of time to realize that when I'm 30 and still have my college and high school shows on my resume. But I don't have to realize that now.

I'm growing up too fast.

Or am I? There's a part of me that wants to be treated like that little girl who was encouraged to believe in her dreams, but there's a part of me that wants to be treated like an adult who is an actress, who has a true passion, who can get paid to do what she does. I don't want to be the community theater star anymore who ignorantly thought she was amazing. But why are we encouraged to dream big and then we get to college and all of a sudden it's "What do you want to do with your life?" screaming at you from all different directions?

When do I really grow up? When are my theater dreams just dreams, and not realities?

The answer is simple. After I have tried.

And tried again.

And tried again.

And accepted the fact that things take time and that "you gotta have a dream. If you don't have a dream, how you gonna have a dream-come-true?"

I'm glad that I have a dream and a passion. I wouldn't trade that for all the financial stability in the world.

"Don't Throw Your Past Away. You Might Need It Some Rainy Day! Dreams Can Come True Again! 'Cause Everything Old is New Again!"

2008-12-19T12:30:00.000-05:00

One of the most unique experiences I had this past semester at school was to create my very own Vaudeville routine in my musical theater performance class. I had to come up with my own jokes, my own wow factor, my own choreography, and my own personality. This was such a unique experience because Vaudeville is dead and has been dead for several decades. I have a feeling that the 16 other members of my junior musical theater class and my teacher are the extent of my audience that I will have for this vaudeville routine. I am not going to go audition for the Orpheum circuit tomorrow presenting Zelda the Magician. Theater just isn't like that today.

However, so much of Vaudeville is prevalent in musical theater today, even if the actual concept of Vaudeville is dead. So many musicals are filled with strong personalities who present themselves to all the people around them. Apparently, the open calls for productions of the modern musical The Drowsy Chaperone sometimes say to come with your own Vaudeville skit prepared because that musical has so many characters who you would expect to see in a Vaudeville tour.

To get in the spirit of Vaudeville and to understand the style better, my teacher had us watch a documentary about Vaudeville hosted by Ben Vereen. We watched many snipets of famous vaudevillians and I was very bored (partly because the video was over 2 hours, but more because Vaudeville did not enthrall me.) I turned to my friends that I was watching the video and said, "There is a reason why Vaudeville is dead." I couldn't understand how people actually thought this stuff was funny and entertaining back in the day. I also couldn't understand why we were spending so many weeks on this unit in class when we should be going with the times and spending time working on contemporary musical theater repertoire since that is what the auditions are for. But on the first day of Vaudeville presentations, my mind quickly changed. Seeing my classmates inhabit strong personalities with wow factors, jokes, and gimmicks was an absolute delight. I realized that one of the most important things about Vaudeville is that it was live and consisted of direct contact with the audience. Watching a Vaudeville entertainer on a tv screen didn't do anything for me because I felt left out. These entertainers weren't communicating with me, but my classmates were because I was an audience member.

I think one of the reasons that Vaudeville came easily to me was because my biggest problem when I perform is also my biggest strength. I sometimes get too caught up in "presenting" my material, be it a song, scene, whatever. I try to "entertain" and don't always live in the moment of the song or scene because I'm trying so hard to prove how good I am. Many times that is not always appropriate, but for Vaudeville it is. You don't want to prove how great you are necessarily, but you certainly want to entertain and have to present your jokes and gimmicks.

In the real world, you still have to present yourself. Maybe not in the way that vaudeville performers did, but you have to enter a room and have such a strong presence that all eyes are on you. When you audition for something or play a part, you have to be so captivating and unique that they can't picture anyone else playing the part or singing the song better than you.

So after this class experience, I was really sad that Vaudeville wasn't around. It's true that many of the Vaudeville performers weren't good, but some were great and got their first taste of show business through performing in these variety shows. Vaudeville encouraged humanity and diversity, something that sometimes gets lost in theater today as people try to fit into character types, vocal types, and physical types. In Vaudeville, you could be your own type because your own type just meant being different from everyone else's own type. I am trying to remember that. Yes, I do need to figure out what my type is because many shows are casting "types," but I can also remember how important it is to be different. You may not blend in the chorus if you're that different, but maybe you can be the one who gets plucked out of the chorus to be the star.

So check out my Vaudeville presentation in an attempt to bring many of the Vaudeville ideas back. Vaudeville might be dead, but I think many of the ideas behind it are still very important for anyone who is actively pursuing a career in show business. Enjoy!

"Please be my friend on the Facebook!"

2008-12-10T10:33:00.000-05:00

In my last few posts, I have been talking specifically about things that I have learned this semester at school and how it influences my art. I really am so grateful to be a part of the theater community, at my university and outside. I have started to realize how everyone knows everyone. While it is true that there are many fresh-faces who no one has heard of who get discovered, I think once you start auditioning and auditioning, you start to run into a lot of the same people you already know, some who are you are up against the same roles for and some who you are actually auditioning for (ie directors, stage managers, music directors, producers, etc). It is pretty cool how we are all connected. I know that I am one degree of separation away from some very famous people (theater people and non-theater people). For example, I'm one degree of separation away from vice president elect Joe Biden because I went to high school with his niece (who I knew and am facebook friends with). That's the other thing. Facebook makes it so much easier to be connected to so many people and to figure out how we are all connected. When you get a new friend, you can even choose to write in how you know each other. That way, when some other friend of mine realizes that I have made this new friend, he can find out how we know each other. You find the most random connections. I found through facebook that a current freshman musical theater major at my college from Colorado met my high school jazz teacher from New York at his old theater teacher's Halloween party in Delaware. Who would have thought they were one degree of separation when they met because they both had the honor of knowing me? But thanks to Facebook, they are now 0 degrees of separation away from each other.

So, the big thing that I learned this year is that everything is connected to The Beggar's Opera, an 18th century ballad opera and the first true example of musical comedy.

I'll show you.

-John Gay wrote The Beggar's Opera.
-Robert Walpole, the first prime minister of Great Britain, was mocked in The Beggar's Opera.
-George F. Handel wrote some of the popular tunes that were used in The Beggar's Opera.
-Alexander Pope came up with the original idea for The Beggar's Opera through his discussions with Jonathan Swift.
-The Licensing Act of 1738 was established after The Beggar's Opera was produced because this piece mocked so much of society that a ban as to what kinds of plays could be produced seemed necessary.
-Johann Pepusch was as composer who wrote the overture and arranged all the tunes in The Beggar's Opera.
-Lavinia Fenton was the original Polly Peachum in The Beggar's Opera and instantly became famous for her portrayal.
-William Hogarth was an artist who drew many pictures of important characters in The Beggar's Opera.
-Jonathan Wild was a famous 18th century criminal who the character Mr. Peachum in The Beggar's Opera is modeled after.
-Macheath is one of the characters in The Beggar's Opera.
-James Brydges employed Handel, who composed much of the music to The Beggar's Opera.
-Jonathan Swift was a 17th century satirist who came up with the original idea of The Beggar's Opera.
-Colley Cibber was a theater-manager and served as manager for the production of The Beggar's Opera at the Drury Lane Theatre in England.
-Charlotte Charke was an actress who appeared in The Beggar's Opera and had a difficult time finding employment as an actress because she rebelled against the Licensing Act of 1738 that was formed because of The Beggar's Opera.
-Francesca Cuzzoni and Faustina Bordoni were singers who's company and singing methods were mocked and satirized in The Beggar's Opera.
-Queen Anne's England allowed an imitation of The Beggar's Opera to be produced.
-George I supported Robert Walpole, who was very against The Beggar's Opera.
-George II was on the throne when The Beggar's Opera was produced.
-John Rich was the manager of Lincoln's Inn Fields, the theater that The Beggar's Opera premiered at.
-John Gay lost all his profits from The Beggar's Opera as a result of the South Sea Bubble, a major financial crash.
-Henry Fielding wrote several ballad operas that were inspired by The Beggar's Opera, the very first ballad opera.

Since all these people had so much to do with The Beggar's Opera in SOME way, you have to assume John Gay had some connection to all these people since he wrote The Beggar's Opera.

-Gay mocked Robert Walpole and his form of government in The Beggar's Opera. Walpole hated John Gay's satire and banned Gay's sequel.
-Gay studied studied with Handel and learned a lot about composition from him. Gay used many of Handel's songs in The Beggar's Opera.
-Alexander Pope and John Gay were good friends and Pope constantly encouraged Gay to write.
-The Licensing Act of 1738 was established because of John Gay's play The Beggar's Opera. Gay, however, did not live to see this act established.
-Johann Pepusch composed for John Gay.
-Lavinia Fenton originated the role of Polly Peachum, a character that John Gay created.
-William Hogarth was inspired by John Gay's words and styles of language and used them to create his paintings that focused on characters from The Beggar's Opera.
-Jonathan Wild's reputation as a criminal inspired John Gay when he was writing The Beggar's Opera.
-Macheath is one of the characters John Gay created in The Beggar's Opera.
-James Brydges employed Handel, a composer who had works used in The Beggar's Opera, written by John Gay.
-Jonathan Swift and John Gay were good friends and collaborators. Swift inspired Gay for the original idea of The Beggar's Opera.
-Colley Cibber was not John Gay's favorite person. Gay wrote negatively about Cibber because he spied on Drury Lane, where The Beggar's Opera was performing.
-Charlotte Charke was in John Gay's The Beggar's Opera.
-Francesca Cuzzoni and Faustina Bordoni's rivalry in their opera company inspired Gay for the characters of Polly Peachum and Lucy.
-Queen Anne's death eliminated any chance John Gay had of employment when he was secretary to the British Ambassador before he wrote The Beggar's Opera.
-George I's son, George II, was ruling when John Gay's play was produced.
-George II was ruling when John Gay's play was produced.
-John Rich produced John Gay's play.
-John Gay lost all his money through the South Sea Bubble.
-John Gay inspired Henry Fielding to create works that consisted of unique and irregular forms of comedy.

Robert Walpole had such a negative reaction to The Beggar's Opera, a piece that so many of these people had a connection to, so he's connected to all these people.

-Both Robert Walpole and George F. Handel were mocked in The Beggar's Opera. For Handel, it was his style of opera music, and for Walpole, it was his corrupt government in England.
-Alexander Pope was very frustrated with the government run by Robert Walpole and wrote many essays criticizing Walpole.
-Robert Walpole initiated the Licensing Act of 1738 and tried to control all types of theater that were produced.
-Johann Pepusch had inappropriate and insulting music that Walpole objected to.
-Lavinia Fenton's role as Polly Peachum was one of the many things that Walpole disliked about The Beggar's Opera.
-William Hogarth published The Punishments of Lemuel Gulliver, which was a satire on Robert Walpole.
-Jonathan Wild and Walpole were both mocked and satirized in The Beggar's Opera.
-Robert Walpole hated all parts of The Beggar's Opera, including the character of Macheath.
-James Brydges indirectly contributed to Walpole's hatred of The Beggar's Opera, for he employed Handel, a composer for the piece.
-Jonathan Swift was very frustrated with Walpole's policies and attacked him in The Drapier's Letters.
-Colley Cibber liked Walpole and received a special reward for his constant support of Walpole.
-Charlotte Charke performed in many plays that mocked Walpole and his government.
-Francesa Cuzzoni and Faustina Bordoni join Walpole in the club of people who were mocked in The Beggar's Opera.
-Queen Anne's death led to the close relationship between George I and Robert Walpole because George I succeeded her.
-George I was ruling during some of Walpole's years as prime minister and favored him greatly.
-George II did not have an opportunity to have much control over policy in his early reign because prime minister Walpole was controlling most of the rules.
-John Rich was the manager of the theater that Walpole was disgusted with The Beggar's Opera.
-The South Sea Bubble crisis allowed Robert Walpole to rise to the highest form of government.
-Henry Fielding had many pieces that mocked Robert Walpole. This was drawn to Walpole's attention and he was able to end Fielding's theatrical career through the Licesning Act of 1738.

George F. Handel today is still one of the most famous classical music composers, even in a world where pop and rap music take priority on most people's iTunes. In the 18th century, he was more like a superstar and somehow was connected to everyone.

-Alexander Pope was a great supporter of Handel and even complimented him in The Dunciad.
-Handel composed much of the music to The Beggar's Opera, which was affected by the Licensing Act of 1738.
-Both Handel and John Pepusch's compositions were in The Beggar's Opera.
-Lavinia Fenton sang many songs Handel wrote since she was Polly Peachum in The Beggar's Opera.
-William Hogarth was good friends with Handel and had a collection of engravings called Hogarth Looks at Handel's London.
-Handel composed the music for the character of Mr. Peachum, whom Jonathan Wild was modeled after.
-Handel composed much of the music that the character of Macheath sings.
-James Brydges employed Handel.
-Handel and Jonathan Swift were both involved in the creation of The Beggar's Opera.
-Colley Cibber was the manager of the theater that The Beggar's Opera, featuring a lot of music by Handel, relocated to.
-Charlotte Charke sang many songs that Handel wrote because she was in The Beggar's Opera.
-Francesca Cuzzoni and Faustina Bordoni were members of Handel's Royal Academy and performed in many of his operas as singers.
-Queen Anne gave Handel a yearly income and Handel composed a piece called Ode for the Birthday of Queen Anne.
-Handel wrote four anthems for the coronation ceremony of George I's son, George II.
-Handel wrote four anthems for the coronation ceremony of George II.
-John Rich was the manager of the theater that The Beggar's Opera, featuring music by Handel, premiered at.
-Handel invested 500 pounds in the stock market, but lost it all due to the South Sea Bubble, and used this personal experience to influence his music.
-Henry Fielding was inspired by the satire John Gay used to Handel in The Beggar's Opera.

Alexander Pope was a very influential writer and satirist in the 18th century. The Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert of the 18th century, you might say.

-Alexander Pope used his suppression regarding the Licensing Act of 1738 to write even more texts that criticized the government.
-Pope and Johann Pepusch both contributed the creation of The Beggar's Opera.
-Pope had many of the original ideas for the character of Polly Peachum, played by Lavinia Fenton.
-William Hogarth illustrated Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock.
-Pope contributed to many of the ideas of the character of Peachum, inspired by Jonathan Wild's criminal record.
-Pope also contributed to ideas of the character of Macheath.
-Pope thought very highly of James Brydges and complimented him in a few of his canons and received criticism for these compliments.
-Pope and Jonathan Swift had the first real discussion regarding the idea of The Beggar's Opera.
-Pope had a huge confrontation with Colley Cibber because he referred to Cibber as "king of dunces" in one of his poems.
-Charlotte Charke was the target of one of Pope's poems and was called the Goddess Dulness.
-Francesca Cuzzoni and Faustina Bordoni were mocked in some of Pope's poems.
-When Queen Anne died, many of Pope's supporters and followers left England because they did not approve of the Jacobites ruling.
-George I was the father of George II, the king during Pope's lifetime.
-George II was the king during Pope's lifetime.
-Pope mocked John Rich as the angel of the Goddess Dulness in one of his poems.
-Pope wrote poems about the South Sea Bubble.
-Pope and Henry Fielding were both satirical writers who were affected by the Licensing Act of 1738.

The Licensing Act of 1738 was one of the most influential acts in theater history. It stated that the government had to approve any play that was produced, so it limited a lot of off-beat and satirical works.

-Johann Pepusch composed the music to The Beggar's Opera, the piece that inspired the Licensing Act.
-Lavinia Fenton was an actress in The Beggar's Opera, the piece that inspired the Licensing Act.
-William Hogarth was very affected by the Licensing Act and creating many engravings about the act and his distaste for it.
-Jonathan Wild's character that he inspired was so inappropriate, and hence, the Licensing Act was formed.
-The character of Macheath was also distasteful, and inspired the Licensing Act.
-James Brydges employed Handel, who composed much of the music to The Beggar's Opera, the piece that inspired the Licensing Act.
-Jonathan Swift helped collaborate on The Beggar's Opera, which inspired the Licensing Act.
-Colley Cibber was a great supporter of Robert Walpole, who created the Licensing Act.
-Charlotte Charke performed in many plays that attacked Robert Walpole and his enforcement of the Licensing Act.
-Francesca Cuzzoni and Faustina Bordoni were both mocked in The Beggar's Opera, and it was the mocking that inspired the Licensing Act.
-Queen Anne promoted Robert Walpole as prime minister, and thus gave him the power to pass the Licensing Act.
-George I died before the Licensing Act was passed.
-George II was on the throne when the Licensing Act was passed, but had nothing to do with it getting passed.
-John Rich produced The Beggar's Opera, the piece that inspired the Licensing Act.
-The Licensing Act and the South Sea Bubble were both things that made The Beggar's Opera seem unworthwhile.
-The Licensing Act ended Henry Fielding's theatrical career because many of his plays consisted of satire on the government.

Johann Pepusch, like Handel, was a famous composer of the time. His legacy is not as well-known as Handel's today, however.

-Lavinia Fenton sang songs Pepusch wrote in The Beggar's Opera.
-William Hogarth's engravings were inspired by the characters in The Beggar's Opera and the songs Pepusch wrote for them.
-Pepusch arranged all the tunes for The Beggar's Opera, which had a character based off of Jonathan Wild.
-Pepusch arranged all the tunes for the character of Macheath.
-James Brydges employed Johann Pepusch.
-Both Jonathan Swift and Pepusch were involved in the behind-the-scenes creation of The Beggar's Opera.
-Colley Cibber was the manager of the theater that The Beggar's Opera, featuring an overture by Pepusch, relocated to.
-Charlotte Charke performed in The Beggar's Opera and sang songs Pepusch wrote.
-Pepusch's witty music mocked Faustina Bordoni and Francesca Cuzzoni.
-Queen Anne's death eventually led to George II's reign, who was on throne when Pepusch's music was becoming prevalent.
-George I's son, George II, was on the throne when Pepusch's music was becoming prevalent.
-George II was on the throne when Pepusch and his music were becoming prevalent.
-John Rich insisted that there be an actual overture in The Beggar's Opera and that there be actual music accompaniment. Pepusch was assigned the task of creating both.
-All of Pepusch's hard work was destroyed when all the profits of The Beggar's Opera were lost during the South Sea Bubble.
-Henry Fielding and Pepusch both wrote to criticize Ropert Walpole.

Lavinia Fenton was one of the first famous actresses. Her breakthrough role was as Polly Peachum in the original The Beggar's Opera.

-William Hogarth drew a portrait of her based on her role in The Beggar's Opera.
-Jonathan Wild's character he is modeled after in The Beggar's Opera is Lavinia Fenton's character's father.
-Lavinia Fenton's character is in love with Macheath.
-James Brydges employed Handel, who composed songs Lavinia Henton sang.
-Jonathan Swift helped collaborate on the character of Polly Peachum who Fenton played.
-Colley Cibber initially refused to produce The Beggar's Opera, starring Fenton.
-Charlotte Charke and Fenton were both prominent actresses in the 18th century who often competed for similar roles.
-Francesca Cuzzoni, Faustina Bordoni, and Fenton were all prominent female performers during the 18th century.
-Queen Anne was not around to witness Lavinia Fenton's ravishing performance as Polly Peachum.
-George I also missed the opportunity to see Lavinia Fenton as Polly Peachum.
-George II was on reign when Lavinia Fenton had her breakthrough performance as Polly Peachum.
-Fenton joined John Rich's company of actors at Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre.
-The profits from Fenton's exceptional performance as Polly Peachum were lost from the South Sea Bubble.
-Henry Fielding saw The Beggar's Opera, starring Fenton, and was inspired to be a satirist also.

William Hogarth was/is a very famous humorist through art work. He got around.

-Hogarth painted a portrait of Peachum, modeled after Jonathan Wild.
-Hogarath pained a portrait of the character of Macheath as well.
-Hogarth created a drawing that lovingly satirized Pope's admiration for James Brydges.
-Hogarth illustrated some of the books that Jonathan Swift wrote.
-Hogarth created the piece A Just View from the British Stage, which depicted Colley Cibber negatively.
-Charlotte Charke's characters in The Beggar's Opera were portrayed in Hogarth's engravings.
-Hogarth mocked Francesca Cuzzoni, Faustina Bordoni, and the opera lifestyle in his drawings.
-Hogarth was not really a fan of George I, but tolerated George II.
-Hogarth enjoyed drawing characters from The Beggar's Opera, which was produced by John Rich.
-Hogarth's earliest satirical works were about the financial crisis known as the South Sea Bubble.
-Henry Fielding helped enlist Hogarth with propaganda for a Gin Act.

Jonathan Wild was a pretty infamous criminal.

-The character modeled after him, Peachum, hated the character of Macheath.
-James Brydges employed Handel who composed songs that Jonathan Wild's character sang in The Beggar's Opera.
-Jonathan Swift had some of the original ideas and inspiration for representing people like Wild in The Beggar's Opera.
-Colley Cibber did not like The Beggar's Opera and its depiction of people such as Jonathan Wild.
-Charlotte Charke played opposite representations of Jonathan Wild.
-Faustina Bordoni and Francesca Cuzzoni joined Wild in the club of people mocked in The Beggar's Opera.
-Queen Anne and George I did not have the opportunity to witness Jonathan Wild's ridiculous criminal record.
-George II was on the throne during the craziness of Jonathan Wild.
-While the character of Peachum, modeled after Jonathan Wild, helped make The Beggar's Opera successful, all the profits from the play were lost thanks to the South Sea Bubble.
-Henry Fielding wrote a play about Jonathan Wild.

Macheath is another extremely important character in The Beggar's Opera.

-James Brydes employed Handel, who composed songs that Macheath sang.
-Jonathan Swift had some of the original ideas for the character of Macheath.
-Colley Cibber hated The Beggar's Opera and the character of Macheath.
-The character of Macheath helped contribute to the mocking of Francesca Cuzzoni and Faustina Bordoni.
-Queen Anne and George I missed out on getting to fall in love with the character of Macheath.
-George II was on the throne when Macheath warmed many peoples' hearts in The Beggar's Opera.
-Macheath's heart and soul was irrelevant when Gay lost all of his profits of The Beggar's Opera in the South Sea Bubble.
-Henry Fielding enjoyed all the satire in The Beggar's Opera and the character of Macheath.

James Brydges was the first Duke of Chandos.

-Brydges hired Handel, who, along with Jonathan Swift, helped contribute to the creation of The Beggar's Opera.
-Brydges hired Handel, who had music that was in The Beggar's Opera, a piece that Cibber, the manager of the theater it relocated to, hated.
-Brydges's employment of Handel led to many of his great songs that Charlotte Charke had the opportunity to sing.
-Brydges's employment of Handel led to his own Royal Academy, which Faustina Bordoni and Francesca Cuzzoni were performers at.
-Queen Anne and George I did not really seem to know Brydges.
-George II was on the throne when The Beggar's Opera, indirectly inspired by Brydges, was produced.
-Brydges led to John Rich producing The Beggar's Opera.
-Brydges's and Handel's hard work to The Beggar's Opera was lost through the South Sea Bubble.
-Henry Fielding was inspired by the satire of Handel's work in The Beggar's Opera that would not have existed if Brydges had not hired Handel.

Jonathan Swift was a writer who contributed a lot to the creation of The Beggar's Opera.

-Colley Cibber was the manager of The Beggar's Opera's second theater and hated all the humor that Swift contributed to.
-Charlotte Charke played roles in The Beggar's Opera that were influenced by Swift.
-Swift enjoyed the idea of mocking Francesca Cuzzoni and Faustina Bordoni in The Beggar's Opera.
-Queen Anne disliked Swift, even though he tried to have a church appointment in England.
-George I's death was not positive for Swift because many of his supporters left England afterwards.
-George II was on the throne when The Beggar's Opera, featuring many of Swift's ideas, was produced.
-John Rich was a producer of Swift's ideas in The Beggar's Opera.
-Swift's ideas were irrelevant to the financial success of The Beggar's Opera since the money was lost in the South Sea Bubble.
-Henry Fielding was very inspired by Swift's use of satire.

Colley Cibber was a theater-manager, as well as actor, playwright, and poet.

-He was Charlotte Charke's father.
-He was mocked in many plays after The Beggar's Opera. Francesca Cuzzoni and Faustina Bordoni could relate to his pain as they were mocked in The Beggar's Opera.
-Cibber had great respect for Queen Anne and George I.
-George II was on the throne for most of Cibber's lifetime, but Cibber supported Walpole more than George II.
-John Rich and Cibber were both theater managers, but of different theaters.
-Cibber was probably glad when the profits from The Beggar's Opera were lost during the South Sea Bubble because he did not like The Beggar's Opera.
-Henry Fielding wrote negatively about Cibber frequently.

Charlotte Charke was a famous actress who seemed to have a little personality and guts to her.

-She was performing when Faustina Bordoni and Francesca Cuzzoni seemed to be prominent in British performing arts.
-She did not approve of Queen Anne and George I.
-George II was on the throne when she was an assertive and loud woman complaining about the Licensing Act.
-She performed in The Beggar's Opera, produced by John Rich.
-Charke had a harder time getting employment after the South Sea Bubble.
-Charke joined Henry Fielding in the Haymarket Theater that mocked many people, including her father.

Francesca Cuzzoni and Faustina Bordoni were opera singers who were major rivals.

-They were mocked and satirized in The Beggar's Opera, and that is their connection to everyone!

Queen Anne ruled from 1702 to 1714.

-George I succeeded her.
-George II succeeded her after George I died.
-Before John Rich came along and produced The Beggar's Opera, Queen Anne did not give John Gay any hope for employment. Thankfully, Rich saved the day and produced The Beggar's Opera.
-Queen Anne and the South Sea Bubble were both problems John Gay encountered in his professional career.
-Henry Fielding was glad that Gay overcame his problems Queen Anne gave him because he was so inspired by Gay.

George I ruled after Queen Anne.

-George II was his son.
-George I did not get to experience John Rich's abilities as a theater producer.
-George I's son, George II, was unpopular after the South Sea Bubble because they thought George II caused it. Fortunately for George I, he was dead so he could not be blamed.
-Henry Fielding did most of his writing after George I died.

George II ruled after George I.

-George II was on the throne when John Rich produced The Beggar's Opera.
-Everyone believed George II caused the South Sea Bubble.
-Henry Fielding wrote during George II's lifetime.

John Rich was a successful theater producer.

-The South Sea Bubble ruined all the profits of The Beggar's Opera, which Rich had worked so hard to produce.
-Henry Fielding saw Rich's producing skills in action when he saw The Beggar's Opera.

The South Sea Bubble was a terrible financial crisis.

-Henry Fielding was one of the many Britains affected by this terrible financial crisis.

Phew! That was a workout! Everyone is everyone's friends.

Check out this youtube link to the song from the musical Edges, called "Be My Friend!" Everyone is really obsessed with being friends with everyone. You never know when you need a connection, especially as artists. There's always someone looking for someone. It's important to be on top of things!

"Excuse me! I think I had too much turkey yesterday!"

2008-11-28T20:23:00.000-05:00

Today is the day after Thanksgiving. 5 years ago, I had the exciting fortune of seeing the original Broadway cast of Wicked on the day after Thanksgiving. The reason I remember that so well is because during the scene right before "Popular," Kristin Chenoweth was dancing around, and suddenly the microphones made a fairly obnoxious noise. Being the pro that she is, she grabbed her stomach and said, "Excuse me! I think I had too much turkey yesterday!"

That instance will always remain imprinted in my mind as one of the greatest cover-ups for incidents that inevitably happen since this is live theater. We don't re-shoot if something weird happens.

This got me thinking about how one of the joys of live theater is some of the most random stuff that happens unexpectedly. Some of the best moments in theater are when things happen that aren't supposed to and the audience member reacts in a truthful way. The most important thing is to learn the appropriate balance. This year I have taken a viewpoints class. Viewpoints are points of awareness used to create movement and one of the viewpoints is kinesthetic response, which is the response to outside stimuli. If you are the actor, why pretend that you didn't hear the fairly obvious noise that everyone heard. If a chair falls in the middle of the scene, are you just going to pretend you didn't see and hear it happen? That said, it is important to also remain in the moment and appropriate to the given circumstances of the play. I remember a friend told me that they saw Alfred Molina in Fiddler on the Roof on Broadway a few years ago and someone's cell phone went off in the middle of the play. Molina completely broke out of character and the moment of the play where cell phones had not even been invented yet and asked them to turn their phone off. I do not think that is appropriate and it totally takes the audience out of the play.

If an actor is not engaged enough in the scene, he will barely notice that some outside noise has happened or he simply will not know how to react. He will be so set to say his lines exactly the same way no matter what that he will pretend that he did not hear the noise and remain rigid. It has been interesting this year in classes because we have been learning about how your scene should be essentially the same each time you do it. It's not a criticism if someone says that the audience saw the same show today as they did yesterday. There has to be structure to the play that keeps it similar. An actor can't use the fact that they are having a bad day and let that guide them to doing the scene differently than how they might when they are having a good day. It is simply not appropriate to the play to one day throw furniture and another day give someone a hug.

Of course this gets me thinking about the role of an actor in presenting a playwright's work. Where do we have the liberties to interpret it how we want to? When Terrence McNally spoke last week at UArts, I asked him what he thought the role of the actor was and was it frustrating to see an actor misinterpret his work. He said that he obviously does not like it when he feels like people ruin his work, but at the same time, he does not want to go see a production of his play where the set is identical to the original Broadway production and the characters do not bring anything to the role. He says he likes to go see a production of his plays where he learns something new about the character that he didn't know before. That is of course a tough challenge for an actor. Be different, but not so different that you destroy someone else's vision.

The best resource an actor can have to solve this issue is the play itself. I am currently doing a major assignment on my scene from Proof where I have to write down every single fact about the character. Then I have to write down everything I infer from the text and then I have to write down things I have decided about the character that the text does not indicate one way or the other. I never realized how much harder it is to do a scene out of context. Having the rest of the play there to guide you with information about the character helps inform you as to how they would react in the situation of another scene.

In other words, "structure will set you free!" as my acting teachers so eloquently say. If you know what you are doing, you will have much more of an ability to take risks and react truthfully to any crazy thing that might happen.

"Hi-ho, the glamorous life!"

2008-11-22T19:31:00.000-05:00

Recently I have gotten interested in the Stephen Sondheim musical A Little Night Music. It is a musical that I was not particularly familiar with, but I was assigned a scene from it for my musical theater scene study class this year, so I figured I would acquaint myself with it.

The one song from it that I did know is called "The Glamorous Life," as quoted above. One of the plots in A Little Night Music is about a thirteen year-old girl named Fredrika who has a mother who is a touring actress, and is therefore never around. She is leading "the glamorous life" as an actress.

The song mocks the theatrical lifestyle: "Unpack the luggage, la la la. Pack up the luggage, la la la. Unpack the luggage, la la la. Hi-ho, the glamorous life! Ice in the basin, la la la. Cracks in the plaster, la la la. Mice in the hallway, la la la. Hi-ho, the glamorous life! Run for the carriage, la la la. Wolf down the sandwich, la la la. Which town is this one, la la la. Hi-ho, the glamorous life!"

This song particularly hits me because I think all aspiring actors fantasize about this idea of the perfect Broadway lifestyle. Being a Broadway star just sounds so wonderful. I mean, who hasn't practiced their Tony acceptance speech in their bedroom?

I am certainly a victim of that fantasizing. We all think about "making it" as this thing that just happens and suddenly life is perfect. Being a working actor is hard, and not just because acting is difficult. It's not a 9-5 job and I'm sure that working actors find that they mostly only know other working or aspiring actors because most people with "real" jobs are working opposite hours. If someone wants to be a working actor and still be a parent, they are never around when their kids are around. Even if they are situated in New York City, they still have shows almost every night and are not around to help their kids with their homework or play with them. The kids must look forward to that exciting Monday night when their parent has the night off. The character of Fredrika talks about how she misses her mother in this song and laments how her mother doesn't do what "ordinary mothers" do. There is also of course no stability. Even if you're in a show, your show could suddenly announce a closing notice or decide not to renew your contract. Beyond the fact that you only make a lot of money if you're a true star, this lifestyle is not as glamorous as it seems from afar.

So why do we continue to believe that this lifestyle is so perfect and glamorous when we have every indication that it's not?

The answer. We're crazy.

I was getting a little choked up yesterday in my acting studio class. I am currently working on a scene from David Auburn's play Proof, which centers around two adult sisters: Claire and Catherine. My character Claire thinks that Catherine is a little crazy and needs some professional help. This scene started hitting a little too close to home because so many people who I went to high school with always seemed to think I was crazy because I was trying to pursue theater. It's not that anyone thought I was so nuts that I belonged in a mental hospital or something, but people always thought I was little weird, until I came to UArts.

I started explaining this problem to my acting teacher. I told her how I found myself going crazy and she told me we are all crazy. Why don't we have a 9-5 job, she asked us? Why are we doing this? "We're all a little crazy," she said. "Anyone who gets up and pretends to be someone else! Hello?" We all laughed and started talking about our imaginary friends and fantasies we had when we were little kids. We were always different and crazy.

My teacher was totally right. We get joy out of pretending to be people that we are not. It is glamorous and thrilling, but not in the typical way that we think of glamor. We can't get enough of it and we keep coming back for more. We try to escape from it and be normal, but it's impossible. We're not normal and it's silly to keep pretending that we are. So, it is a let-down that this lifestyle isn't glamorous and perfect, but it's what I'm doing. I wish I could love a typical 9-5 lifestyle, but that doesn't work for me, so I'm might as well embrace this "glamorous life." And isn't it kind of cool that I'm pursuing a lifestyle that so many people secretly wish they had?

"You're going out a youngster, but you've got to come back as a star!"

2008-11-21T19:59:00.000-05:00

Yes, I realize it has been an exceptionally long time. You try being a junior musical theater major. It's pretty much INSANE. It's extremely rewarding, but it definitely is a lot of work. But I'm back for real this time.

It's been almost an entire semester of musical theaterness. Let me sum up what I've been up to.

-seeing Ben Vereen and Terrence McNally speak at UArts
-sitting in the pit at the Walnut Street Theater's production of Hairspray
-seeing Candide at the Arden Theater
-creating my very own Vaudeville routine of Zelda the Magician
-learning that there is always something new to be found in the old and something old to be found in the new as I take a musical theater history class where we study everything that happened before in 1950 in the world of the American musical
-writing my book where I talk about how I learned American history from Broadway musicals
-mourning over the terrible economy and how so many Broadway shows have been closing because no one is going since no one has any money
-learning about how The Beggar's Opera influenced the idea of musical comedy, and how an aspiring musical comedian like myself can learn so much from that ballad opera, produced in the 18th century.
-acting, singing, and dancing in scenes from Golden Boy, Proof, Carousel, 110 in the Shade, A Little Night Music, Grand Hotel, A Chorus Line, Guys and Dolls, The Most Happy Fella, and The Will Rogers Follies

A little busy, huh?

I am going to focus my entry today on my experience sitting in the pit of Hairspray, which I had the opportunity to do last week. It will be interesting because I have every intention to see Hairspray from the audience perspective tomorrow, so many of my opinions may change.

This was not my first experience sitting in the pit for a professional show, as I sat in the pit for the national tour of Wicked last year at the Academy of Music in Philadelphia. My piano teacher at school plays in the pits for many tours and professional shows in Philadelphia, and I am fascinated by the experience, so I take her up on her offer to sit in the pit with her.

I just enjoy being around professional artists, especially artists involved in the theater. I don't have any particular interest in ever playing in pits. My sight-reading skills on piano are certainly not sufficient enough to be able to learn a full score in a couple of days. However, I am always
improving, and you never know where life will lead you. I love sitting in pits because I was around people who were getting paid to perform. Most of the musicians in the pit have another job, such as teaching at UArts, but they still are making money doing what they love to do.

I'm at a challenging point in my life right now because I'm almost 5/8 done with my college career. Sitting in the pit was so inspiring. I love the theater and I want to be involved in it so badly. I want to wake up every morning and get paid to go to rehearsal and perform in a show! I'm a little sick of waking up every morning and going to school. I love my classes, teachers, friends, and the general college lifestyle, but I have been attending some type of formal education for almost my entire life and I need a break. The idea of growing up and being a working actor sounds exciting! However, the idea of growing up and being unemployed....or employed in something I have no passion or interest in does not sound so exciting.

And of course unemployment seems very likely with the "state of the art" today because of the terrible economy. So many Broadway shows are closing or have closed since I last updated several months ago. Since I last updated, [title of show], Monty Python's Spamalot, 13 the Musical, Legally Blonde, Hairspray, Spring Awakening, A Tale of Two Cities, Xanadu, Equus, Gypsy, and probably several others that I've forgotten have either closed or announced that they are closing. Being a working actor has always been a hard thing to do, but now it seems even more difficult since there are even fewer opportunities.

Today distinguished playwright Terrence McNally spoke at UArts today. The most interesting thing that he said was that it is important for artists to write, sing, compose, act, dance, etc during their most difficult time in their process. Right now is a very difficult time for people to get involved in the arts because of the lousy economy, but we have to find that inner strength to not get defeated by that. If we get defeated, then there is no way to get out of it and no one will ever become inspired to create art because there won't be art around to inspire people! And quite often, the best art comes out of struggle. All good plays, even comedies, are about loss and struggles. If there weren't challenges and obstacles that characters face, there would be no play. Romeo and Juliet would be boring if the play starts out with Romeo going to Lady Capulet, asking for Juliet's hand, and Lady Capulet saying, "Splendid! Let's have the wedding at my house!" Who would want to see that? Seriously.

So I'm trying to power through and find that inner strength to not get defeated by the impossible concept of becoming a professional actor, and instead, USE IT and create amazing art! :-)

"Greetings, boys! I'm back!"

2008-08-13T19:19:00.000-04:00

Hello, hello, hello! After a long and busy summer, I am back in action and ready to be a hardcore reporter for my blog again! Hooray.

I spent seven weeks of this summer working at the Interlochen Center for the Arts in Interlochen, Michigan. It's pretty far up north in Michigan. It is surrounded by lakes, sand, and a lot of trees, and is definitely very different from New York and Philadelphia.

Interlochen is a pretty unique place. In the summer, over 2,000 young musicians, actors, visual artists, dancers, and creative writers come to Interlochen because it is a place where they can be accepted and appreciated for what they contribute to the artistic community. I was lucky enough to go there for two summers when I was in high school. I returned as a staff member this summer after a four-year hiatus. Over these seven weeks, I heard and saw some of the best young talent and some of the best talent period. Every Sunday night, I would head to Kresge Auditorium (as pictured above) to hear the World Youth Symphony Orchestra perform. This orchestra is made up entirely of high school students, but it is as good as some of the professional symphonies in the country. I was amazed and thrilled when I would go to the concerts and see the 4,000 seat-theater sold-out. When is the last time you saw a classical music concert sold-out? Or better yet, when is the last time you saw an amateur high school classical music concert sold-out? You can imagine what a unique place Interlochen can be.

If anything, the Interlochen experience this summer gave me new respect for theater artists and for other kinds of artists. While there is a very top musical theater program for high school students at Interlochen, there are tons of campers and staff members who know next to nothing about musical theater. I was the only musical theater major in the entire division that I worked in, whereas at school, everyone I know is a musical theater or acting major. Suddenly, the work that I do as a musical theater performer became fascinating to everyone I talked to. At school, we lose respect for what we do because everyone around us does the same thing. When I'm at school, I never think about the vulnerability it takes to become an actor.

Instead, I think about the vulnerability it takes to be a musician or a painter. Recently, I was given crayons and paper and told to draw whatever I wanted. I was instantly intimidated by the concept of a blank piece of paper that I had the power to do anything I wanted with. I have never had any natural visual arts skills, so I have always believed that I was not good at art. If the people around me hadn't given me a nudge to just draw, I swear I would have just left because I did not want anyone to see my art. Everyone around thought I was crazy. It's just drawing. Anyone can do it. What's the big deal?

But then suddenly it hit me. There are some people who are exactly like me, except that they refuse to get up and sing at a karaoke bar or a friend's house. They are instantly intimidated by the thought of anyone hearing them sing. They sit in their chairs and remained convinced that they have no musical ability.

However, I don't accept that. As a singer, I don't understand how someone can possibly be intimidated by the idea of singing. It's just singing. Please! But when I think back to how scared I was of just touching a crayon, I understand now how one could be afraid.

The thought just amazes me because I've always thought theater was easy because it came naturally to me. I had no respect for what I did because I didn't have to work hard to get positive results. Now I see that I am lucky since performing in front of hundreds of people doesn't scare me. The Interlochen experience reminded me of that. Yes, it's true that there are thousands of other talented actors, but it shouldn't downgrade what it takes to be an actor.

So, I'm resuming this blog with new eyes. I may see a show that I think is badly written or an actor that I think isn't good, but I am going to look at everyone with respect because at least they are putting themselves out there and trying to be heard. They may not be the best, but the only way for art to still thrive is for people to just put themselves out there and see what happens.

Omigod, you guys! This should not be LEGAL!

2008-06-10T11:28:00.000-04:00

Reality television has hit Broadway again. I was hoping that "Grease: You're the One That I Want," the reality television show last year used to cast Danny and Sandy in the current Broadway revival of Grease, was not going to start a trend. I'm sorry to say that it has.

Legally Blonde is the next Broadway show to cast through a reality television show. "The Search For Elle Woods" is being presented through MTV, and this show is even more of a nightmare than "Grease: You're the One That I Want."

I was encouraged to turn on the first episode of this show because Seth Rudetsky, another super Broadway geek like myself, is involved in this television show. I enjoy his radio station and his Broadway obsessions, so I figured I would support him....at least for a few minutes. The first episode was too painful to watch, yet I could not turn it off. Yesterday was the second episode, and I still could not turn it off.

Let's start by saying that I do not particularly like Legally Blonde: The Musical. I'm sure it's fun and cute, but it's just not in my own personal taste. However, I would like to believe that the reality television casting people could find talented people. The material might not be great, but a great performer can make the material better. I am not a huge fan of Grease either, but at least a few people on that television show did have some talent. Maybe a couple of the girls on this Legally Blonde show have a little talent, but most of them are so out of tune and have no acting ability.

One thing I will at least give this show credit for is that at least so far they have only had the girls work on material specifically from Legally Blonde. On the Grease reality television show, they had them do so many different genres of musical theater and pop that were irrelevant to the roles of Sandy and Danny.

But still. This show is a train wreck. It's just like every reality television show, but why is this casting a Broadway show? Think of all the great people who aren't getting jobs The girls are all living together in a huge loft where everything is pink enough to make me throw up. There is so much screaming that I had to lower the volume every single second.

The worst part is how all of these girls pride themselves on having similar personality qualities to Elle Woods. They are presenting themselves as superficial and flaky, just to get a chance at the Great White Way. They are saying this is one of the greatest roles for girls in all of musical theater. Seriously? Come on. Have you seen any other musicals? And if another girl mentions that getting this role is their dream and they want it more than anything, I don't know what I'll do. Tell us how you really feel. Clearly they want to get the role. If they didn't, they wouldn't have gone on the show!

I find it hard to believe that these were really the best girls they could find. The first episode consisted of them singing "So Much Better," which is Elle's song she sings when she finds out she made the list for whatever internship she wants. They are saying on this television show that is is one of the greatest and hardest songs in musical theater. Really? The last note is only a C#. Not really super high to belt when you think of how high so many women who never get their Broadway chance can belt. Yes, I agree it's held for a bit, but the song is not one of the hardest songs in musical theater. It just has been hard for all these girls because they aren't good. Some of them cracked and others were just so flat. All of them either have too much energy or too little energy. Yesterday's episode was an acting episode where they worked on a scene with Legally Blonde actress Nikki Snelson. Before the girls did the scene, the audition panel told Ms. Snelson to drop one of her lines so they could see how quickly these girls could cover up and think on their feet. Every single one of them had a long awkward pause. One of them even started giving Ms. Snelson hand motions to say her next line. If you're so confident that it's her line and she's not delivering it, say something on your own! And this was the girl who has been in 4 Broadway shows. Yeah, that's an additional issue. Why is this show saying they're discovering new talent when 2 of the girls have appeared on Broadway? The two of them are also the worst, in my opinion. Just saying. Maybe I'm being unfair to these girls, but I've always learned that you have to cover, and if there's a long pause, do something! The judge panel didn't even seem to care what they did, as long as they didn't just let the pause becoming this epic moment.

I have watched these two episodes and been ashamed to call myself a musical theater performer. It's a good thing that there are so many wonderful great musical theater performers like Audra McDonald or Victoria Clark who I can aspire to be like. I know I don't like Legally Blonde, but this show is simply pathetic and makes Broadway seem like a fun game, not a great art form. Why has Broadway come to this? It makes me sad that this is the only way shows are able to sell tickets. MTV has to get involved. Since Elle Woods goes to law school, I'll be speak in law terms. This should not be legal.

"Every day like the one before."

2008-06-07T16:12:00.000-04:00

So often the challenge that theater artists fall into is figuring out how to keep their art fresh, especially when they are doing 8 shows a week for an extended period of time. It can be very easy to fall into muscle memory and start faking everything, as opposed to really living through every moment. When that happens, theater becomes more like an assembly line in a factory and less like art. Some actors do the same show for years and become burnt out and sick of doing the show if it is the same thing every night. Actors must then take it upon themselves to find ways to keep discovering new things so they keep their work fresh. It is very easy to tell when an actor is just going through the motions of acting and isn't really doing anything.

I went to see Les Miserables at the Walnut Street Theatre again a couple of days ago. As I wrote in my previous entry, I was so enthralled with the quality of the production, so I had to go see it again. Also, as previously stated, Les Miserables is one of my absolute favorite shows.

In many ways, it was a completely different show, and in many ways, it was exactly the same. It was an appropriate balance. If the show is the same every single night, there is absolutely nothing fulfilling for the artist or audience member. However, the show cannot be completely different either. The creative team has a vision and expects a cast to maintain this vision, even if the show has been going on for months. So there should be a happy balance.

It was just so interesting because now I see why sometimes I see the same show as my friends and we have completely different opinions. That is partly because everyone has different opinions, but it is also because on a different night, the quality of the production might be very different.

I had very negative things to say about Jessica Bogart (Fantine) and Paul Schoeffler (Javert) when I first saw the show. The problems I had with them last week were similar to my problems this week, but the problems were not nearly as extreme. Ms. Bogart was still too self-indulgent and Mr. Schoeffler was still too stiff, but I actually enjoyed their performances overall this time. I'm glad I got to see them do more justice to their parts this time around.

In contrast, I did not enjoy Josh Young (Marius) and Jeff Coon (Enjolras) as much as I did last week. They still were great, but I did not feel the same energy from them. I cannot blame it completely on them, though. I was fifth row center last week, and this week I was in the balcony. My seats were still excellent, but I think it was a little harder to be emotionally connected from further away.

I probably wouldn't have enjoyed this production if it was identical to the one I had seen a week earlier. I can listen to Les Miz over and over again, but when I go to see shows, I like to get something new out of them. I can't even pinpoint exactly what it was that made this production different from how it was a week ago, but it is the most subtle things that change how a production makes me feel.

One of the joys of being a theater artist is that my life isn't a cycle. I can work on a scene or a song for weeks or months and still discover new things. If I'm working the way I should, I will never do a song or scene exactly the same twice. It might be the most subtle difference, but there should always be some thing, or else I will be bored, and the audience will know it. It doesn't become boring if you approach it in a playful way and don't become dead-set on doing things exactly the same way every time. The most polished song or scene is still a work in progress. It only becomes burnt out and flat if the artist makes up his or her mind that there's nothing else to discover.

I'm glad to say that Les Miserables at the Walnut Street Theatre was not like the " one before." It confirmed to me why I'm so glad to be the arts community because I have a great job where I can always learn more and never become completely fulfilled.

"What a bore! You're in for 10 years more!"

2008-05-30T22:46:00.000-04:00

So eloquently says Forbidden Broadway in reference to the fact that Les Miserables seems to never end and is always done over and over again.

However, Les Miserables may be one of the most overdone and cliche shows in the United States of America, but the production that I saw last night at the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia was anything but cliche. It's the same show that I have known and loved for several years, but it was most certainly not a bore.

This show has been close to my heart and I was a bit skeptical when I was informed by my teacher who was involved in the show that there would be no revolving stage. Les Miz without a revolving stage? That's like Peter Pan without flying! However, the production was so excellent and the scenery was beautiful without a revolving stage, that I didn't even remember that Les Miz is typically done with a revolving stage. There were enough other incredible things going on throughout the show.

Hugh Panaro as John Valjean was an excellent casting decision. He was an appropriate choice because he was the right age. So often Valjean is either played by someone who is 20 or 60. It's difficult because the play does span over such a long period of time, but somehow Valjean always seems to look too young or too old. Panaro was the right age and the wig and make-up people did an excellent job aging him. His voice was absolutely sensational. I had seen him play the Phantom in The Phantom of the Opera on Broadway a few years ago (and it's most likely because of his lovely voice that I don't hate Phantom... the way other people do) and was even more impressed with his voice in this show. He was so consistently in the moment from start to finish and he did the simplest things that were very touching. Les Miz is always a show that makes me cry, but I was crying much earlier in this production than I usually am. He had a true empathy and I was so moved when he gave young Cosette a doll early in the play. My only problem with Mr. Panaro was that I felt he was too much like an animal at the beginning when he was in the jail cell. I think he was directed to be that way, and that was not his own personal choice, but it was a little redundant. However, all in all, he was really great and helped lead the rest of the show.

Paul Schoeffler as Javert was a little disappointing. He has been in many other shows at the Walnut Street Theatre, and I have seen him in a few Broadway shows as well. I have always really enjoyed his performances. The trap that he fell into in this production was thinking that he had to sing. He looked too stiff, and I believe it was actor tension, and not the tension that the character has (because Javert does have a lot of tension. Someone needs to tell him to relax. It's just a job!). It is true that Les Miz has more singing than a typical musical since there is barely any dialogue, but it should be approached in the same way that any traditional musical theater material is. You still have to tell a story and have the text mean something to you. I felt like the text meant nothing to him and that he was just trying to sing beautifully. As a result, his singing was not always consistent and was not conversational at all. I knew he was unmemorable when it came time for the bows and I forgot that he was even in the show.

The three main females in the cast, Jessica Bogart (Fantine), Julie Craig (Cosette), and Christina DeCicco (Eponine), all had some excellent moments, but also had some disappointing ones as well. Jessica Bogart did a really good job of portraying the dirty life that Fantine encounters. It was the first time that I really felt I understood what Fantine goes through for her child. However, she was way too self-indulgent in "I Dreamed a Dream," her main song in the show, and it made me not particularly care about her. Also, her singing had a little too much of a pop sound, so I don't think she was appropriately cast the whole time. Julie Craig was very enjoyable as Cosette. She had a beautiful voice and made Cosette much more interesting than I have ever seen her. I usually find Cosette to be the most dull character of the show who you don't care about at all. I appreciated that she found new things and wasn't cliche, but sometimes she pushed it too far and I felt that she was trying too hard to not be boring. Christina DeCicco rocked "On My Own." It was one of the most beautiful performances of it that I have ever heard, but there was something lacking in her performance. Her singing was beautiful, but she was also a bit unmemorable. I think her problem might have been that she was also too self-indulgent, so she came across as dull instead of brave.

Mr. and Madam Thenardier (Scott Greer and Dawn Spence) were excellent as well. "Master of the House" was extremely well-staged. The number finally explained really how dirty and sneaky that family is and showed more of the relationship with them and young Eponine. They were charming and funny. My only problem was that they did not have the funny bit that everyone expects towards the end of the show where they steal the silverware and look up at the ceiling when it falls. That was disappointing, but they were very original.

Marius and Enjolras (Josh Young and Jeff Coon) were also excellent, but Enjolras was too old, so I didn't always feel like they were young school boys, who were fighting a revolution.

As I said, I cried many times throughout the show. Les Miserables is such a powerful show and I feel it is so relevant today, even though it takes place in the 19th century. I sat in my chair and thought, how can people see this show and still be pro-war? The parallels between Les Miz and the world today are amazing. Even the slightest line that says "Will the world remember you when you fall? Could it mean your death means nothing at all? Is your life just one more lie?" stands out so much to me because everyone today strives to create a legacy and become important. We learn that each of us is just one person. People have come before us and people will come after us. Les Miserables makes me strive to be a leader because there are so many people who have come before me who have helped give me freedom and so many other wonderful things in life that I take for granted every single day. I cared so much more about the revolution in this performance because the show took the time to show what that life is really like. Usually the Eponine/Marius/Cosette love triangle is the plot I focus on the most. This time, it was the revolution that meant the most to me. I'm sure that is partly because I am growing up and learning that life is about more than an adolescent crush, but I also think this production was more dirty, and therefore more provocative.

People may say that Les Miz is a boring and repetitive show. They may say that they have seen it so many times that it has lost any meaning, but I disagree.

This production at the Walnut Street Theatre is as fresh as it gets. They have maintained the charm of Les Miserables, but still managed to create some new moments and interpretations that were simply breathtaking. The entire production was beautiful and I felt so envious of the cast of getting to perform such wonderful material every night. Les Miz teaches so many lessons about life. I'm so glad that I know this show so well that I don't have to sit and try to focus on what is going on. It is ingrained in me. Les Miserables may be the most overdone show in the United States, but there's a reason. It's a great show, and the Walnut Street Theatre gave it all the justice it deserved.

"You're about as sexy as a wet cardboard box."

2008-05-26T20:57:00.001-04:00

I finally had the opportunity to see August: Osage County this past weekend. I am delighted to report that it lived up to all the hype that everyone in the theater community seemed to have given it. It was absolutely sensational. It is a 3 1/2 hour play, but I did not look at my watch once. Even though I had read the play beforehand, I was slightly dreading watching a 3 1/2 hour play. I do love theater (clearly), but I don't like shows that drag on forever. However, this was the shortest play I have ever seen. I was so disappointed that it was over because I could sit and watch this family for hours and hours.

Charles Isherwood of The New York Times agreed with me. He said, "Watching it is like sitting at home on a rainy day, greedily devouring two, three, four episodes of your series in a row on DVR or DVD. You will leave the theater emotionally wrung out and exhausted from laughing, but you may still find yourself hungry for more."

There is no complicated plot to August: Osage County. In it, Violet and Beverly Weston are an elderly married couple. Beverly mysteriously disappears for a few days, and Violet's sister and her three daughters and their respective families come together to deal with this hard time. All the members of the family talk about everything.

That's it. It's not that deep.

The cast is lead by Deanna Dunagan as Violet Weston. I felt that she was so excellent and everyone else stepped up to the plate and worked off of her so well. She was a grumpy old woman with a serious drug addiction, but she had the appropriate balance so that I hated her, but I also had so much sympathy for her. I think it was because she didn't work just from herself. She worked off the other actors and was instantly in the moment the second she entered the stage. Throughout the show, she manages to insult every single character in ways that are hurtful to them, but still funny to the audience.

The rest of the cast was quite excellent as well. A stand-out to me was Mariann Mayberry, as the youngest Weston daughter who arrives from Florida with her fiance. I found that her best moments were when she wasn't saying anything. Amy Morton and Sally Murphy, who played Barbara and Ivy respectively (the two other Weston sisters) had a scene that consisted mostly of the two of them talking. However, Ms. Mayberry was in this scene and she did the most subtle things that evoked so many forms of emotion out of me. I truly believed that she was the Weston daughter who felt ignored all the time. Everyone in the cast was great. I sensed a family and a history.

August: Osage County deals with many serious subjects. In addition to death, there are topics of incest, drugs, and sexuality. However, we realize that so many things in life are happy and sad. I laughed so hard, but I cried equally as hard. The play simply consists of a big family interacting with one another during a hard time. The conversations and the fights are as amusing as they are upsetting. People say really funny things when they are angry because they are impulsive, which allows them to be cynical and truthful at the same time. There were many instances that I felt uncomfortable while I was watching the play because I felt like I was watching private family fighting that wasn't any of my business.

I don't know what it is about August that is so innovative. This is not the first play to ever deal with family relationships, but there was something fresh and different about it. I think that the play was not afraid if the audience did not catch every single joke or sassy comment. The dinner scene, which ends Act 2 (the play has three acts), consists of pages and pages of fighting, where the conversations are overlapping each other. People are cutting each other off and talking about things that have nothing to do with what someone else just said. Half the time, you have no idea what the cast is saying or what they are fighting about or if they are even listening to each other, but it doesn't matter. The show is fast-paced, but that is how real conversations are. People say the most ridiculous things that have nothing to do with anything and sometimes they aren't even listening to what the other person is saying and they are just waiting to get their next line in. This play was about real people. The lines were very natural, and everyone connects, even if they have never specifically fought about the subjects from August.

I could go on and on about how wonderful this play was. Everyone should go see it so they can be touched and amused in the same way that I was. It was a simple plot, but it was one of the most thought-provoking plays I have ever seen or read. I learned so much.

If you don't believe me, you can go see it for yourself.

"Having just the vision's no solution. Everything depends on execution. Putting it together. That's what counts."

2008-05-22T11:34:00.001-04:00

There are a lot of musicals out there. Some are the typical boy-meets-girl shows, some are more complicated and dark, and some are the ones that young fresh faces write and try to get produced at a legitimate theater. Most of these shows usually end up staying in Fringe Festival land or at just some other small theaters. Of course some of the shows, such as The Drowsy Chaperone, get very lucky and somehow get picked up and produced on Broadway, even though they were just tiny little shows that no one really expected to get anywhere.

The biggest challenge for an aspiring playwright is to figure out ways to create something new and not create a play that is cliche and typical of what people would expect. There are musicals about everything these days, so it becomes harder and harder to come up with an innovative idea that seems likely to work as a play or musical. Some ideas are so innovative that people feel they can never work as a big musical simply because American theater is so commercial these days.

And as George in Sunday in the Park with George, says in the above quote, it is hard enough to create a vision, but then executing it is a whole additional problem.

There doesn't seem to be as much of a place for alternative musical theater as there once was, and that is because off-Broadway has lost a lot of its meaning. Off-Broadway used to be where all the off-beat shows and new writers would come to express a new point of view since commercial shows thrive so well in the Broadway setting. It is still less commercial than Broadway (and less expensive), but it has become much more commercial over the years. Now, off-Broadway seems to just be a temporary stop if a show is en route to Broadway. So many shows transfer from off-Broadway to Broadway. For some, it is appropriate, but many shows have success off-Broadway and then are not very successful on Broadway because they don't belong in such a commercial setting. Grey Gardens was highly successful off-Broadway, but did not do very well in ticket sales when it transferred to Broadway. Even when the two leading women both won Tony Awards for their roles in it, it still did not do well and could not last. Other off-beat shows like Spring Awakening or Avenue Q do well on Broadway as well, but there doesn't seem to really be a place for the modern alternative musical theater writer.

However, "if you build it, they will come." In my musical theater history class this year, we watched snippets of Einstein on the Beach written by Philip Glass in 1976. It is an alternative musical theater/opera piece. It is about four hours long, without an intermission, so the audience is free to come and go as they please since sitting still for four hours is a lot to ask. We were impressed when my musical theater history teacher told us that he watched the whole thing live and didn't get up once. This was one of the most complicated and strangest performing art pieces I had ever watched, and I'll be honest. I thought some of it was ridiculous and was stupid. It is one of the first operas that doesn't have a plot of any kind. Einstein is represented as a historical figure. There is a great deal of repetition and the show seems very circular. Sometimes lines that seem to have nothing to do with anything are said over and over. "If you see one of those baggy pants, it was huge. Mr. Bojangles....and you know it was a violin. answer the telephone. it. it. it. Mr. Bojangles...." Another one was, "I was in a prematurely air-conditioned supermarket and there were all these aisles. And there were these bathing caps you could buy." All these lines were said in monotone over and over. I was getting a headache listening to it.

After watching this, a major debate began in my class as to whether or not this was art because we didn't understand it and so much of it was just random nothingness. Could we call it musical theater? There was a script and there was singing and dancing, but was this really musical theater? One of my classmates and I were talking about this afterwards and he said, "I didn't understand it. I thought it was stupid. But I would go see it if someone told me that Einstein on the Beach was playing here in Philadelphia. And I think that's what the point is. Even if you write the most random crap, someone is going to come see it. They might not get it. But they will come."

That is kind of exciting as a young playwright. There might not be a venue for less commercial works of art since off-Broadway much more commercial than it used to be, but there are definitely opportunities to get your voice out there. Of course if you try to get it to the next stop of off-off-Broadway, off-Broadway, and Broadway, it becomes a lot harder, but people can go further than they ever think they can if they just don't give up. I think that many young playwrights get caught up in the commercial aspect of American theater today, so they don't continue to pursue a slightly off-beat and radical approach to theater.

"White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So many possibilities" (Sunday in the Park with George)

You never know.

Re-Cap of the Drama Desk Awards

2008-05-20T16:50:00.000-04:00

Yes, I was one of the ten people who watched the Drama Desk Awards through theatermania.com Sunday night. There were more than ten of us, but the hosts, the cast of the upcoming Broadway production of [title of show], of the "Deskies" (their new name for the Drama Desk Awards ) said that they figured only ten people were watching through their computers. When they said this, they started suggesting a drinking game for those of us bored. They suggested we drink if any of the following words and phrases were mentioned in acceptance speeches: "craft," "journey," "amazing," "truly blessed," "magic," "magical," "opportunity of a lifetime," "safe space," "billington," "thank," and "you." It was pretty amusing because every single person who wins an award ever seems to say basically the same thing everyone else said, even if they are pouring their heart and soul into the acceptance.

I must admit, I was slightly dreading watching the event again this year after last year. It wasn't that the event was so terrible, but it started about thirty minutes late and everyone decided to have really long acceptance speeches (And the Deskies are nice and don't start playing music when they want you to stop talking like they do at the Tonys, Oscars, etc!). It started at 9:30 PM and wasn't over until well after midnight. I was hoping that this year things would be different.

It was 9:10 and the event had still not begun. "Great," I thought. At least they weren't playing music that was as annoying as this random clown music they played last year...but I wanted the event to start! I did not want to be watching an endless event.

Fortunately the cast of [title of show] seemed to feel similarly to how I felt and started at about 9:13. The second they got on stage, they made it very clear to us, "This event can be 3 hours or it can be 3 weeks. It's your call." They continued and started explaining how they were going to make this event shorter. "Smooth transitions," they said. They pointed to the entrances to the stage. "No intermission." "Short acceptance speeches." They then began to complain about Donna Murphy's ridiculously long acceptance speech last year, which I was thinking about five seconds before they mentioned it. If you don't believe how long it is, check it out on youtube! And, they told all of the presenters to get to the point and that we didn't need all this useless chit-chat. The song ended abruptly as the cast suddenly realized they had gone over their planned time for the opening number. Oh no!

Kelli O'Hara was the first presenter to present Best Lyrics. She comes on and starts talking about the Greek root of the word lyric and the lyrics in her new CD. I started groaning because I realized this event would be just as epically long as every other Drama Desk Award ceremony. All of a sudden she fell and the hosts returned and said, "We're sorry we had to tazer Kelli O'Hara, but we aren't kidding!" It was quite amusing, but it was too bad that after that little incident they didn't really mention their plan to keep the event shorter than usual.

Overall, there were no major surprises at these events. Patti Lupone, South Pacific, and August: Osage County won, just as everyone expected. The cast of [title of show] was very funny, but eliminating the additional performances by nominated shows and performers really brought the mood down and didn't make it as funny. It was a slow event, even though it was over in a little over two hours. Way too many "Special" Drama Desk Awards were presented and the cast of title of show seemed to disappear midway through the event.

There definitely were some inspiring and amusing moments. Seeing Patti Lupone, a huge Broadway star, get choked up by winning a Drama Desk meant a lot to me. She said that she is still a "work in progress" and that she is always learning. That is important because as a young actor it is easy to get caught up in the end result and not embrace the creative process.

Laura Benanti was also very touching when she won for Best Featured Actress in a Musical. She thanked her parents who she knew were trying to watch the event on their computer. "I hope the server's working!" she said.

When the nominees for Best Revival of a Play were presented, they said, "the Voldemort of the the theater" when referring to Macbeth, but then said the actual title five seconds later when it was clear that no one in the audience was a Harry Potter fan. He must have been waiting to make that joke. Macbeth had already been said, so the theater was already in trouble since no one decided to spin around three times.

Douglas Carter Beane, who won for Best Book of a Musical for Xanadu, was also very appreciative. He made me want to be a playwright as he talked about how all playwrights (including some of the ones nominated in his category) are his sources of inspiration. He ended it with, "All the contemporary writers, I'll be stealing from you soon. Don't worry!"

Boyd Gaines spent about a year thanking Patti Lupone when he accepted his award for Best Featured Actor in a Musical. After he had presumably finished his speech and said "thank you," he suddenly realized he forgot to thank his wife. Oops.

They also created a Best Projections Drama Desk Award. They might as well have just called this the Sunday in the Park with George award. I was sad that Sunday did not go home with more awards, but at least it won that award.

In conclusion, the event started out well, but unfortunately the momentum could not sustain. They had a theme about keeping the event short, but they didn't really stick to it. It was only at the end when the show was over at 11:26, the hosts screamed, "We did it together!"

We all know that award shows are corrupt in so many ways and it's more political than it is artistic. Next thing, the Tony Awards won't be on television and we'll have to watch that through the Internet as well. The ratings will go down even more. So it was slightly disappointing, but it was a rainy Sunday night. Did I really have anything better to do?

"No life in his art. No life in his life."

2008-05-17T14:23:00.000-04:00

Today I had the exciting opportunity to meet Bernadette Peters, one of my huge Broadway idols. She was at the Free Library of Philadelphia today to read her new children's book called Broadway Barks and have a book-signing. For those of you who don't know, Bernadette Peters and Mary Tyler Moore run an organization with the same name where they have a pet adopt-a-thon in New York City every summer. Both of these fierce women are big animal rights activists.

The event was filled with energy, food, entertainment, and tons of books. It was the annual Book Festival at the library. Bernadette Peters was one of the many guests scheduled to appear to advertise a new book today. There is a little theater at this library that seats about 300 people. The theater was very full with Broadway fans who wanted to catch a glimpse of Bernadette. She stood at a podium with her computer (she owns a Mac, I'm very disappointed to say) and the book was projected on the screen. The book is all about a lonely dog named Douglas who doesn't have a home, until someone comes to Broadway Barks and takes him home and re-names him Kramer. This is based on a true story, as Bernadette's dog is named Kramer and was once named Douglas. The story was very sweet and the illustrations were beautiful (there of course was a red head who is kind to the dog!). The illustrator, Liz Murphy, was also there to sign books. She and Bernadette were very nice to me and my friends when we talked about how we are theater majors.

I of course knew that Bernadette Peters ran this organization and was so interested in helping animals that don't have a home. Hearing her talk more about this organization really helped me understand why she is the wonderful performer that she is. She is a real person with true emotions and compassion. She has a life outside her art and does not just do Broadway Broadway Broadway 24/7. I have the above quote from Sunday in the Park with George (a show of course that Ms. Peters was in the original Broadway production of) because it is the criticism that people give to George's work at the beginning of the play. He has "no life" in his art or his life. The only way to have life in your art is to have life in your life. The head of the school of theater arts at my university says to us young artists, "Your job is ultimately to comment on the world around you. You cannot comment on a world you don't know." If we're just busy doing our art, how are we going to have the life experience to contribute and make our art worthwhile? I learn in school that you have to use everything around you because everything can contribute in some way to make your art more fulfilling to the people appreciating it.

Some people think that the only way to become a good artist is to immerse yourself completely in it and take non-stop classes in order to train for the professional world of your art. While it is of course true that aspiring artists need the training, we sometimes learn more if we just go out n the world and see life. Cady Huffman talked about this a couple of weeks ago. She said she just came back from Vietnam because she needed to see something different and get some new life experience and perspective. For those of us who don't necessarily have the finances that just allow us to randomly travel across the world. we can learn so much more about our art by breaking away and experiencing something so different, even if it is just a simple walk in the park. The greatest actors are the ones who have this life experience. We all can have it, but not if we spend our days locked up with only our art.

I think it's wonderful that Bernadette Peters has another issue other than theater that she is so passionate about because it not only makes her a good person, but it makes her a full person. In order to be an artist, you have to be full with something. We create art because we are so full that we need to communicate it to people! It definitely is something I struggle with because I am so involved with my school work. My program is very intense. I am in class from 9 AM-5:30 PM and sometimes have rehearsals or crew assignments in the evening after class is over. I eat, breath, and sleep musical theater, and all my friends at school are theater majors because we're all so busy that we don't have time to make new friends. If I have an hour break, I grab dinner with another theater major who is on the same crazy schedule that I am on. Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. But sometimes it's nice to break way from this intense theater world and meet people who don't just talk about theater. I realize this sounds pretty ridiculous that I'm writing this because I created this blog to talk specifically about theater, so obviously I can't be that sick of musicals. I long to find something else I am just as passionate about, just so I can have something else to do when I need that theater break. I think some people get burnt out by this business so quickly because they are living a life with nothing but theater. If I find something else that I love in addition to theater, it doesn't mean that I love theater any less, but it's good to be full so you make your art full....and so you don't go crazy.

"What do you do with a BFA in Musical Theater?"

2008-05-12T15:59:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press and other newspapers announced this weekend that Vanessa Williams, acclaimed singer and actress, has finally received her Bachelor of Fine Arts in Musical Theater from Syracuse University almost 25 years after she dropped out. She is officially now a college graduate. Clearly this degree is going to be the deciding factor in her success. She needed the degree to become successful. She's only starred in Broadway shows like Into the Woods, received a Tony nomination, and appeared in many television shows and movies.

I don't think the lack of a degree was standing in Vanessa Williams's way when she sought out to create an artistic career for herself. However, for whatever reason, it was important to her that she officially receive her diploma. She did not really go back to college, though. She got the credits she needed to graduate from her experiences on the stage and screen. So, nothing changed. She didn't take new classes or learn new techniques. She just now has a piece of paper that says she is a college graduate. I understand that it's nice to make that closure, but sometimes we have to think about what that piece of paper signifies.

This got me thinking to the huge fuss that is made about pursuing a BFA in Musical Theater. I was one of the man high school seniors who went through the draining process of auditioning for tons of musical theater programs. I would go to Broadway shows and constantly see in the bios of the actors in the shows "BFA Musical Theater XX College" and I would think that the only way to see my name up on lights was to obtain that beloved BFA. As a student in one of these BFA musical theater programs, I can say that it definitely is a good way to get the training and to get a college degree at the same time. But it is definitely not the only way. I know that I have seen some Broadway shows where the lead has a degree in philosophy from Yale or some other prestigious liberal arts college. The BFA is the right choice for some people, but not for all. And it doesn't mean you're not talented because you take a different approach to your education. It can be meaningless. Some people with BFAs do go on to have Broadway and professional theater careers. Others become theater and music teachers. And others have careers that have nothing to do with theater (although they do find ways to incorporate their skills of public-speaking, listening, truthfulness, organization, etc in these jobs). So since a BFA does not give you a ticket to Broadway, why is such a big fuss made? Why is Vanessa Williams receiving this degree when she's already gotten that ticket to Broadway?

I think Vanessa Williams made the decision to finally get the BFA because it's a college degree and it's nice to say you officially have a college degree. It clearly wasn't to help her career. It's hard because I feel like attending a BFA sometimes gives those students in a belief that they are a step ahead of all the other people who come out of college without BFAs or who don't even go to college. But then you go to auditions and there are people with BFAs and without....and no differentiation is made. That BFA that you worked so hard for four years is just another thing on the resumes that are glanced at so quickly at the millions of auditions.

I know I decided to go the BFA route because I knew that I loved singing, dancing, and acting 24/7. The thought of sitting in a science class sounded like torture in comparison to being in a voice lesson for credit. However, one thing lacking in these BFA programs is a lot of the life experience that you need to create great art. It is those non-theater experiences that make your theater good. And while I don't wish that I were in a biology class right now, I do wish I were getting all types of life experience that I don't always feel I get here.

Now, I'm not against BFAs. I'm getting fabulous training at my BFA and learning more than I could ever imagine, but I don't think people should think that getting a BFA automatically makes you good and vice-versa. It just another means to the same end of the professional theater world. And everyone needs to make the decision as to which means they want.

The Tony Awards are Coming!

2008-05-09T21:11:00.000-04:00

It's that time of year again. For most people in the "real world" with their "real jobs," mid-May and June have many exciting things. Weather getting warmer. Ice Cream. Flip flops. End of school for teachers and students.

But the people in the theater community of performers and enthusiasts could almost care less about the highlights of spring because this time of year means that the Tony Awards are emerging.

For these people, it means endless video and news coverage on theater websites. More articles in the newspaper about theater than there ever are. Waking up early to hear them announce the nominees. Having more to talk and think about everyday for a month. Making lists about who will get nominated and who will win. We wait the whole year for this event and talk throughout the year about the nominations and shows. We mark all the Tony dates on our calendars.

The Tony Awards are very meaningful to these people, but it's too bad that these people make up a very small portion of the world. The Tony Awards have very low ratings, even though I happen to think they are the most entertaining of any of the award shows. No other award shows has as many live performances. And it just gives so much respect to these performers who are nominated and perform at the awards. They wake up early Sunday morning for the Tony Awards rehearsal. Then they go do their matinee that afternoon that is over by about 4:30. They rush to shower, get changed, and head over to the ceremony. The ceremony starts at 8, but of course they have to be there earlier to model their beautiful designer clothing on the red carpet. Once they get to the awards, their night is hardly over. Throughout the awards, these actors and actresses have to get out of their fancy clothing and change into wigs and costumes to perform a full number on the broadcast. Then they have to get back into their fancy clothing just in case they actually win the award because they don't want to be wearing crazy costumes when they make their acceptance speeches.

I don't think the actors nominated for the Oscars have t0 film a movie the day of the Oscars. And they certainly don't have to perform a scene from their movie during the ceremony. They can just look pretty and get really excited if they win.

I'm not trying to say that film actors don't work hard or anything. It takes tons of work and energy to put a movie together, but the Oscars are just the way to celebrate this success that is over. The Tony Awards are in the middle of 8 shows a week for months and months and months. These Broadway actors don't get nearly the amount of respect for the hard work that they do.

Broadway producers have of course caught onto this. And that is why various movie and pop stars from Julia Roberts to Usher have graced the Great White Way in the last few years. Suddenly shows that weren't doing so well begin to see a lot of ticket sales. But if some random unknown talented person is starring in a musical, no one really seems to want to see her since they don't know who she is. It was announced a few days ago that Whoopi Goldberg will be hosting the Tony Awards. Maybe having someone with some status in the real world will help the Tony ratings.

Is this good or bad that famous film stars are giving Broadway success? Tough call. As an aspiring actress, it upsets me because sometimes these film people are not nearly as good as the Broadway people, so people who deserve to get roles are not getting work. However, if I were in the ensemble of a show that wasn't doing so well and they then brought someone with high status and then the show started doing well, I might be happy because then I wouldn't potentially be out of a job.

How can Broadway get more respect? Back in the day, going to a Broadway show was an exciting thing and was high-class. Now, people are spending all that money on movies and concerts.

I wish I knew the answer because there are a lot of talented people in the theater community who deserve respect. They don't deserve to be out of a job just because people are going to a rap concert instead.

So, it's nice when that Sunday night in June comes because suddenly I feel like I am in an art form that is just as respected as anything else. Everyone is all dressed up and there are thousands of people in the audience. I realize it is a select few, but it's exciting. And I am grateful that we at least have that one night to celebrate the wonderfulness that is Broadway.

Carol is a girl's best friend!

2008-05-04T22:56:00.000-04:00

So, it's been a few days. Sorry, y'all. It's finals time at school! It's a stressful time in a college kid's life. Lots of exams, projects, essays. It's great fun.

Fortunately, I am a musical theater major, so instead of taking some annoying boring history lecture class, I get to take a Musical Theater History class. This semester has been 1950s Musical Theater-present. As our final project, we were put into groups of three and had to pick an influential musical theater person and do a presentation and paper on them. My group did Michael Bennett and I had a really good time learning a lot about him. Another group did Carol Channing, and one of the boys in my class decided to dress up as Carol Channing and do an impersonation of her as part of the presentation. It was pretty ridiculous. One of the girls in my class screamed out, "This is the funniest thing I have ever seen happen in college!"

And it got me thinking how often people do impersonations of Carol Channing simply because her voice is so different and over-the-top. So many people love her since she is so unique. I happen to not be a big Carol Channing fan because I think her singing is really bad and annoying, but I understand the appeal of her. She's got great personality and uses her imperfections (such as pitch and tone) to help her and make her lovable. We all have imperfections as performers and people. We always try to cover up these flaws, but she accepts these flaws and does not cover them up. I think people like her because she's not perfect and doesn't try to portray herself as perfect. None of us are perfect, so sometimes it's reassuring to see someone who isn't perfect.

I guess it just goes to show that anything is possible. You can have a raspy voice that goes out of tune and crazy blonde hair, but if you have the personality and the drive, you never know what might happen. Many aspiring performers spend a lot of time trying to figure out their "type" so that they can fit into traditional musical theater genres, but why do that when you can create your own type? It would be so much more exciting to be an icon, and not just be another chorus girl. Be bold and make a big crazy mistake and celebrate the fact that you can't do a double pirouette. Many people try to cover up their flaws by faking it or hiding behind a tall person, but if you embrace it, you can go so much further.

Of course it's so hard because we don't want to come across too unique or too quirky. Sometimes Broadway calls for people who are traditional and don't have these crazy characteristics. Sometimes they are just looking for people who are typical of the finale of A Chorus Line where everyone blends in and is "one." Sometimes Broadway just wants someone who is normal and two-dimensional, like so many of the cliche musical theater roles. How does one find the appropriate amount of quirkiness that makes him stand out without losing his actual abilities that might make him perfect for a traditional Broadway role?

It's a hard question and I don't know the answer. If someone else knows the answer, please tell me. That's the balance I want to find.

Carol Channing had quite an extensive career that consisted of 3 Tony Awards, including the Lifetime Achievement Award in 1995. She performed in over 5,000 performances of Hello Dolly! and didn't miss one. She has also written her own memoirs book entitled Just Lucky, I Guess. Carol Channing may believe that she was "just lucky," but it was her ridiculous energy and unique personality that made her do well. She didn't try to blend it and be like everyone else. She wasn't afraid to make a mistake. She might not have the talent that I aspire to have, but she has the courage and character traits that I hopefully will manage to obtain, and that's what separates those who are in the chorus and those who are the stars.

"When you've got it, share it!"

2008-04-30T17:36:00.000-04:00

Today I had the great fortune to sit in on a discussion with Cady Huffman, Broadway performer and Tony Award winner for The Producers. At the University of the Arts, we sometimes have events called "Broad Topics," which consist of discussions led by UArts faculty members with theater and film professionals about their careers. Today, Charlie Gilbert, the head of the musical theater program at UArts, led the discussion. It was very informative and interesting to hear about Ms. Huffman's career.

I remember at the beginning of the discussion, Ms. Huffman told us how she was originally from California and got her equity card when she was 18 in an equity play in L.A. Then, she got cast in the L.A. company of Las Cage Aux Folles and then was asked to join the Broadway company of it. So she packed 5 suitcases and headed to New York. All the aspiring actors in the audience had their mouths open. We all dream of moving to New York City to pursue our theater careers and know how scary it must be, but it's obviously a thousand times easier if you have a Broadway job waiting for you...or so we would think.

Cady Huffman did have an exciting early career because she went on shortly after that to perform in the chorus of Bob Fosse's last show Big Deal on Broadway. She had many stories and exciting anecdotes to tell about Bob Fosse, but first she confirmed that everyone knew who Bob Fosse was. OF COURSE we all knew who he was since we are all super musical theater geeks. She was just making sure, she said, since she said the last time she did one of these at a certain college that will be anonymous for this, many people did not know who Fosse was. We all groaned and laughed. Not knowing who Bob Fosse is in musical theater is like not knowing who Franklin Roosevelt is in American History.

Anyways, I digress. At the beginning of Cady Huffman's discussion of her career, I became very frustrated. I will be 20 at the end of this year and am not even close to as successful as she was since she had already made her Broadway debut and danced for Bob Fosse by the time she was my age. Where is any hope for me? It seemed as though her career had just been smooth-sailing and she was one of those lucky people who just randomly makes it instantly and maintained a career all these years later. It does happen occasionally, but of course we never have master classes with the people who didn't make it at all. She continued to talk about her career and discussed her experiences working on The Will Rogers Follies, for which she got a Tony nomination as Zigfield's Favorite.

After The Will Rogers Follies, her smooth-sailing stopped temporarily. She said she got married and moved back to California and suddenly had a dry spell in her career for about five years. She thought the fact that she had been Tony-nominated would be a big deal and people would want to hire her and talk to her, but she found that it didn't mean anything. The only phone call she got was from a repertory theater in San Diego asking her if she wanted to come in and audition for a HotBox girl in a regional production of Guys and Dolls. She felt like her ego had been broken. I couldn't believe how hard a time she had to get work for those 5 years. She was a well-established Broadway performer. I started to realize that all these awards and nominations are just words. They don't always help you get jobs.

Eventually, she ended up getting her part as Ulla in The Producers, for which she won a Tony Award. She played the role for 2 1/2 years, which she said was very draining, but very fulfilling. She was able to get in depth and really learn about her character because she was doing it for so long. But, she said, doing 8 shows a week is so physically and emotionally demanding, but the audience doesn't care. They think the time they see the show is the only time you're doing it, so you have to keep it fresh.

She talked a bit about how hard a business theater is because there are so many people. But you just have to keep going at it, she said with a twinkle in her eye, "because eventually everyone else dies!"

Coincidentally, today I talked on the phone to my dad's good friend who is another Broadway actor who has an on and off Broadway career. I was talking a little bit about my apprehension about this business. He said how the auditioning never ends, which is so true, unless you are one of those lucky people who just gets offered roles. Even people who have "made it" still have to audition and go through the stress of wanting to get a role. You're always a beginner, no matter how advanced you are. I was also talking a couple of days ago to the head of the acting program at UArts who is going to be performing a one-man show in a couple of weeks. He was telling me how he is really nervous about it. Here was a man who has been acting for decades who is still nervous about how to approach a new role in the same way that I am. It made me realize that this never ends. It's always hard. You are always learning, you are always auditioning, you are always gaining life experience. It's a never-ending process. But it's a fulfilling process. As Cady Huffman told us, you just have to assert yourself and not be afraid. Never apologize for you are and just take risks....or as a certain Ulla in The Producers would say, "When you've got it, flaunt it!"

"It's hot as hell in Philadelphia!"

2008-04-29T19:59:00.001-04:00

Philadelphia is a very underrated city. I have lived now in this city for almost two years, and I can't believe how underrated it is. As a native New Yorker, I never imagined that I would say that Philadelphia is a better city for young theater enthusiasts like myself to live in.

And I'll tell you why....theater in Philadelphia is so ridiculously inexpensive when you show that nice little student ID. So, basically, I have to pay $30,000 a year to go to college to get cheap tickets to Philadelphia theater.

But nonetheless, I have gotten to see so much theater.

In the last two years, I have seen more shows than I think I would have seen in any other city....including New York because Philadelphia theater is so inexpensive! I realize that New York has Broadway, which brings huge "stars" like Sutton Foster, Kristin Chenoweth, Harvey Fierstein, and many others, but the Philadelphia actors aren't bad, even if they don't have the same name appeal. And yes, you can win the Wicked lottery in New York and only pay 20 dollars for those tickets, but do you realize how hard it is to win the Wicked lottery? Don't get me wrong. I'm all for New York....but Philadelphia deserves a hand. The maximum I have ever paid to see a show is $30. And usually I pay more like 5 or 10.

And I must say, I've seen my fair share of Broadway shows as well. You may think I'm wrong, but I don't always see a major difference in the quality of shows in Philadelphia versus New York. Sometimes I think the shows are better than Broadway. I saw Caroline or Change on Broadway and at the Arden Theater in Philadelphia. I liked the Arden's production better.

There was one difference of course.

I paid 5 dollars to see Caroline or Change at the Arden Theater. And I had perfect seats! Caroline or Change on Broadway could cost 100 dollars, if not more. God only knows with these crazy ticket prices.

So if I was able to pay 5 dollars to see a better production of Caroline or Change in Philadelphia, why on earth do people pay over 100 dollars to see shows that sometimes aren't that any better? What is this prestige about Broadway and this negative energy towards national tours or resident theaters in major cities like Philadelphia, Boston, or Chicago?

Definitely calling it Broadway makes it prestigious and I think that people who are not in the theater community do not realize how many incredibly talented people there are out there who aren't on Broadway. Some people think that only the people on Broadway are the really talented ones, but the Broadway people are not the only one. There are hundreds of talented actors who would do just as fabulous a job if given an opportunity to grace a Broadway stage. But there are only so many opportunities to do that, so these actors resort to lesser theaters and tours in order to pursue a theater career. And even then, there are many aspiring actors out of work.

I remember a few weeks ago when I went to audition for an internship at an equity theater in Maine. This was an internship that sounded ideal for a college student like myself. It provided an opportunity to obtain Equity Membership Candidate points, enhance my resume, and get to perform opposite theater professionals in the ensemble of the various shows. It also even paid a little. It was only about 200 dollars a week, but since I'm only a college kid and don't have to worry yet about paying for my next meal, that's okay. It's more for the experience. However, when I went to the audition, I was stunned to see how many people there were auditioning for this internship who were several years out of college. These college graduates who have to pay for their own food, rent, and general living expenses were dying to get this theater job that would pay them 200 dollars a week. That really proved to me how many people there are out there. Even getting jobs in minor equity and non-equity theaters in this county is hard.

But aspiring theater artists shouldn't be intimidated by Philadelphia when thinking of where to audition and send their resume to. The quality of theater is great and the variety of shows is phenomenal. I can see Monty Python's Spamalot one day and then go see The Pillowman the next. Or I can go see a Philadelphia Fringe show or see a play at the University of the Arts (sorry, shameless plug!). They better change the lyrics to the song because Philadelphia, PA is a hell of a town!

"Anything you can do, I can do better."

2008-04-28T12:06:00.000-04:00

Facebook has this application called Compare People. It's pretty ridiculous. Basically what happens is that one of my friends could be really bored and decide that they want to compare friends anonymously. So they'll suddenly get a question like, "Who is more athletic?" and they'll get a choice of two of their friends, who may or may not know each other. It's anonymous, so I'll never know who voted me less athletic or more interesting or whatever. But every so often I get this email from Facebook telling me friends have voted and here's how I compare. So basically, a computer program has told me that I'm not good at sports and that I'm friendly. Thanks, Facebook.

But it got me thinking to how does one judge who's more popular or more interesting, especially when these people don't know each other?

So, I have created my own Compare People using characters from musicals....none of whom know each other.

Who would most likely win in a fight?
Jud from Oklahoma vs. Momma Rose in Gypsy

As tough and powerful as Jud Fry is, I think Momma Rose would win in the fight. I mean, come on, she's a fighter. She will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to make her daughters successful. She will go to every single producer and she will never give up. She never dwells or cries. Compared to her, Jud comes across as a wimp. He sits in his lonely house and whines about why his life sucks. Momma Rose never whines. I pick her.

Who is the best companion on a desert island?
Prudy Pingleton in Hairspray vs. Lucy in You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown

Lucy in You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown. She is ridiculously annoying, but I think I would pick her over Penny's mom who tied Penny up to a bed. Lucy would not tie me up because she'd force me to be her entertainment since there would be no one else around us. She would also want me to be able to listen to her so she could teach me all about how snow comes up from the ground. She would probably also charge me for hanging out with her. It is the lesser of two evils.

Who would I rather sleep with?
Lt. Cable in South Pacific vs. Enjolras in Les Miserables

Lt. Cable in South Pacific. Enjolras is pretty hot and he does lead the revolution and all, but Lt. Cable is very sexy and knows how to seduce a girl. Also, he's lonely and wants some women in his life! If he's going to settle for a woman who doesn't even speak English, I'm sure he'd have no problems with me. But both Lt. Cable and Enjolras die, so I'd rather someone living!

Who would I rather be roommates with?
Elle Wood in Legally Blonde vs. Kate Monster in Avenue Q

Kate Monster in Avenue Q. Elle would be fun, I'm sure, and I know she would always have clothes and make-up for me to borrow, but she's so ridiculously annoying. I could not handle living with such a ditz and space cadet who is only focused on winning her boyfriend back. But then again, I don't want fur on my couch with Kate Monster. She'd be nice, though. I think she'd be a safer choice.

Who is more pathetic?
The Man in the Chair in The Drowsy Chaperone vs. Patsy in Monty Python's Spamalot

The Man in the Chair. He spends his time listening to musicals 24/7. Who does that? At least Patsy gets out and accompanies the knights on their exciting adventures. While he is not one of them, at least he has a little human contact. The Man in the Chair sits at home all the time and is obsessed with musicals. Who is more lame than that?

Who is less fashionable?
Elphaba in Wicked vs. the Beast in Beauty and the Beast

Elphaba is less fashionable, I'd say. I know the Beast is pretty hideous, but I mean, he can't help it. Think of his limitations of being huge and hairy. Elphaba's only limitation is the color of her skin....and she's had the help of Glinda to make her more fashionable. What's the problem, Elfie?

Who is more selfless?
Nancy in Oliver! vs. Fantine in Les Miserables

Of course Fantine is going to be selfless for her own child. Nancy is more selfless because she has no relation or need to help Oliver. But, then again, how different are these two women? One's in England and one's in France. Other differences? I think not.

Who has better taste in music?
Tracy in Hairspray vs. Marta in Company

Well, you know Tracy would listen to same awesome rock music, but Marta would listen to some really cool alternative punk music. I think I like Tracy's taste in music more, so I guess she's the answer.....but really the Man in the Chair from The Drowsy Chaperone is the answer to this question for me too.

Who is the smartest?
Benjamin Franklin in 1776 vs. Marcy Park in The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee

This is a tough one. Can Benjamin Franklin really compete with Marcy Park? She's not even 13 and speaks 6 languages, plays the piano proficiently, does karate, and is a really amazing speller. So Benjamin Franklin invented a few things....big deal. I think Benjamin Franklin is smarter than Marcy Park, but let's look at Marcy Park when she's older. She has the potential to out-smart him.

Who could drink more?
Joann in Company vs. The Drowsy Chaperone in The Drowsy Chaperone

I think Joann could drink more only for technical issues. There's no Prohibition in Company. so I think alcohol is slightly more accessible to Joann than it is to the Drowsy Chaperone.

Who is more slutty?
Lucy the Slut in Avenue Q vs. Lucy in Jekyll and Hyde

Lucy the Slut...duh. Lucy in Jekyll and Hyde wants to do good and create "a new life" for herself. Lucy the Slut's name explains who she is. She has no desire to change and she is very proud of her lifestyle.

Yay for comparing people. Hopefully next time Facebook emails me, it will be to tell me I've gone up in my rankings. I'm kind of depressed about them.

"There are only two worthwhile things to leave behind when you depart this world of ours: Children and Art."

2008-04-27T17:42:00.000-04:00

The above quote is from Sunday in the Park with George, one of Stephen Sondheim's most brilliant musicals, in my opinion. It is currently playing on Broadway, and it is a really stunning production. That specific quote stands out to me as I am someone who worries so much about the future and my role in the world. I want to create meaningful art and feel that I did something productive in my life. I think everyone worries about the impact they are going to have on the future of the world, but we realize that it's silly to worry. Children and art are two of the most lasting things. Art can continue to inspire for years and generations to come, long after we are gone. And we should always have children so that other people can be inspired and have the same experiences that we have.

It was also during the song that the above quote is said in ("Children and Art") that the two women sitting in front of me at Studio 54 said, "I'm bored. Let's go." And they walked out. They did not wait for the applause or the show to be over, but they just walked out (and of course they were in the middle of their row, so they disturbed half the row as they got up and left). I sat there with my mother absolutely stunned. First of all, I adore Sunday in the Park with George and would never imagine walking out and missing the end of it. I felt that the women in the audience weren't willing to think. It is so true that Sondheim shows require a lot of thinking. But second of all, how rude was to the other audience members and the actors?

I was so appalled that I immediately went to one of the Broadway message boards and posted a topic about this. I wondered if the other theater enthusiasts on this message board would be as appalled as I was. Within a couple of hours, I got a wide variety of responses. One person called me a "Sondheim snob" and said that not everyone "gets" Sondheim on the first time, so it's unfair for me to criticize them. Others agreed that it was their loss and that if they didn't want to think, they should have just gone to The Lion King instead. It's no secret that Sondheim show are complicated and require thinking. Others asked why should the women stay if they are miserable and bored. But everyone agreed that people shouldn't be rude and leave mid-song and disturb the rest of the audience that way.

It just got me thinking about the mixed reaction to Sondheim shows. Why do they never do well? Why do some people love him and why do others leave mid-song? In the parody of Sondheim's shows in The Musical of Musicals, they specifically say, "The sentiments heard are seldom endearing. It's kind of slow-going, but worth persevering. It may not sink in till the third or fourth hearing. Then if you're bright, there's a glimmer of light. Don't feel obtuse. Yes, it's abstruse. Everyone here has at least one screw loose...Don't feel too bad if you don't really follow. You're not alone, but then no one's alone."

Does it matter if you don't really understand Sondheim the first time? If you work super hard, will you understand him the first time? Can you still get a lot of enjoyment from Sondheim even if it doesn't entirely make sense? I know that I feel I still learned a lot from Into the Woods, Company, Sunday, etc. even when I didn't fully understand them. I still don't fully understand these shows, but I find the beauty of them is that I am always learning more. I never watch or listen to a Sondheim show and don't get something new out of it.

But you have to stay through the whole show first and be willing to put in a little effort, I think.

But I guess Sondheim's not for everyone. Their loss, I suppose.

I end this entry with my other favorite quote from Sunday in the Park with George.

"It's good to see you. Not that I've ever forgotten you, George. You gave me so much. You taught me about concentration. At first I thought that meant just being still, but I was to learn it meant so much more. You meant to tell me to be where I was, not someplace in the past or future. I worry too much about tomorrow. I thought the world could be perfect. I was wrong."

Welcome to Serena's Fierce Broadway Blog

2008-04-27T15:18:00.000-04:00

Hello and welcome to the very first entry of Serena's Fierce Broadway Blog! I intend to discuss contemporary Broadway and musical theater issues that are prevalent in the lives of the musical theater performers and musical theater enthusiasts. I am creating this blog for many reasons. But here is the first reason.

I like talking about musicals.

Surprise, surprise if you know me well. But if you don't know me well, now you know. I like talking about musicals. I like gushing about musicals. I like being immersed in musical theater.

And that is the main reason I have created this blog. I love musical theater and I want to write about them. I want people to read this blog and become inspired to produce great art that is different.

This blog was inspired by two research papers that I wrote for my musical theater history class at the University of the Arts: one on Guys and Dolls and one on legendary choreographer Michael Bennett. Two research papers that started out as frustrating assignments that I didn't feel like doing suddenly turned into topics that I was excited to write and learn about. I found myself looking forward to doing research, which is something I never thought I would ever say. And I thought to myself how great life would be if I could write about musicals all the time. I could still write about musicals even if the papers were finished.

This blog was also inspired by epiphanies I had about the creative process and the musical theater business. I love performing and it has been my dream to be working actor-singer, but sometimes I find the concept of going to New York and auditioning 24/7 very daunting. I was talking to a teacher at my school a couple of weeks ago and she was telling me about a girl who had graduated from the musical theater program at my college and decided to create her own career. Instead of doing the whole cattle call deal, she found ways to write her own cabarets and plays. They were still getting produced and she was a very prevalent working actor in Chicago with Equity Membership Candidate points. What an inspiring story as an aspiring young actor.

I want to create my own career and I want to write about musicals. I want to provide insights into the current musical theater scene. I will give reviews, history lessons, interviews, insights, and much more. I will always leave opportunity for comments and feedback for topics and suggestions.

So until next time.....