4 Cents Review – When 2 reviewers each give their 2 cents.

Today it takes both Tortora-Lees (Karen and Stephen) to give The Land Whale Murders the consideration it deserves.

For those of you who have already had the opportunity to experience a play by writer Jonathan A. Goldberg (such as The Luck of the Ibis) you’ll no doubt know what I mean when I say that it’s as if Goldberg lets both hands write two plays independently of each other simultaneously – one fully right brain, the other fully left – and then allows his subconscious to stitch  them together till it all makes sense.  This is his gift – this is where he succeeds when others fail.  And this is why The Land Whale Murders is both difficult to describe, yet impossible to forget.

Richard Hollman, Nathaniel Kent, Jennifer Joan Thompson, Carl Howell, Amy Landon, Robert Michael McClure (Photo by Eric Michael Pearson)

Boiled down to its essence The Land Whale Murders is a murder mystery set in the late 1890s in New York’s gritty underbelly.  It is a unique time – where we can almost see the modern world – yet still can feel the odd quirks of  the old fashioned time preceding it.  So, while this is a coming of age story for the characters, it is also one for the country, as the United States moves from its adolescence into the beginning of the modern age.

But even more importantly The Land Whale Murders is a grand  majestic romp full of comedic bits that take those odd facets of the Gilded Age and serve them up in a wacky steam punk adventure that turns out to be quite historically accurate.  So, as comical as it may sound as a plot line – strap in, New Yorkers, for this is your city in its youth: whale oil was having its last gasps as a precious commodity while crude oil was becoming the new industrial force in the world, and Theodore Roosevelt was New York’s police commissioner. An odd group of concerned citizens (the Amercian Acclimatization Society) really did release All the Birds of Shakespeare’s Plays into Central Park.  Naturalists, thrilling for adventure  and calling for change, abounded throughout the period.  So, nutty as it seems, the old adage rings true – you can’t make this stuff up.

Carl Howell and Robert Michael McClure (Photo by Eric Michael Pearson)

What you can do, however, if you’re a playwright in search of a whale of a tale, is mix in some Victorian naturalists who like to be known as the Four Elementals  – murder one of them in the Prologue – and set the remaining 3 off and running in this crazy quilt of a city.  The audience is then left to watch what happens as an adventuring botanist (Angus Troup played by Amy Landon), a clumsy but well-meaning ornithologist (Eugene Neddly played by Carl Howell), and a fiery poetess (Maryanne Blud, played by Jennifer Joan Thompson) , try to solve the murder of a passionate oceanographer (Hiram Blud, played by Robert Michael McClure) while simultaneously trying to save the citizens of New York from the threat of a land whale.  They’re in a dead heat with a cold hearted female pirate – Pirate Penny – who is supported by a roving gang of eye-patch wearing goons (A bunch of former whalers and fishermen who now practice land piracy. You recognize them because they all wear eye patches . . . whether they need them or not!) who “reckon good and evil is more a social construct”.   On top of all this, the Remaining Elementals must deal with the daily ins and outs of navigating their relationships with each other.

These Three Elementals hide their eyebrow-raising predilections (oh, hell no – tell me she’s not kissing a . . . ), crack their one liners, and try not to get clobbered by The Big Stick (aka Teddy Roosevelt, played by Richard Hollman).   But come on, this group once banded together and fought a mummy (a mummy!) – do you think a whale oil tycoon like Henry B. Lubbins III (played by Nathaniel Kent) poses such a problem?  Even when he says – about America adopting petroleum as an energy source  – “You sound like that fool Rockefeller.  America runs on whale juice.  Now and forever.” No.  No, he does not.  In fact, Henry B. Lubbins turns out to be  . . . well . . . otherwise octopied.  (You read that right.  Octopus – Octopied).

Director Tom Ridgely clearly understands Goldberg’s madcap vision and brings it to life stunningly.  He uses fight choreographer Rod Kinter to full advantage throughout; if you’re a fan of Kinter’s brilliantly inventive fights (and I am) you’ll thrill each time the music swells around another great fracas of stage combat.

While I’m not a fan of comparing one medium to another in order to give certain aspects a deeper sense of validity I still must say that there is something very cinematic about The Land Whale Murders – specifically when it comes to the original music (by John Balicanta) and overall sound design (by M. L. Dogg) which works hand in hand with Greg Goff’s dramatic lighting design. Underscoring scenes and transitions, these elements often adds a note of subtle humor, allowing a broadly acted scene to come off stronger and more complete.  Similarly, set design  Jason Simms keeps the scenery to a minimum but pulls out the best tricks for the times they’ll pack the biggest punch. And, if you’re a fan of steam punk you’ll adore the costumes Deanna Frieman created.

Perfectly paced, beautifully staged, brilliantly acted – The Land Whale Murders will surprise you, delight you, and leave you fully entertained.   You’ll also never look at a ficus, an octopus or a big stick in quite the same way again.

~~~

Related Posts:

• Just My Luck – “The Luck Of The Ibis”
• REAL DEAD GHOSTS: 10 Things To Know About The Show Before You Go (2014 FRIGID NEW YORK FESTIVAL)
• 4 Cents Review: The Princes Of Darkness – They Just Need Love Too
• 4 Cents Review: Almost Exactly Like Us
• 4 Cents Review: Late Nights With The Boys – A Grown Up Fairy Tale (Frigid Festival 2010)

4 Cents Review – When 2 reviewers each give their 2 cents.

Bill Connington as Hamlet (photo by Beau Allulli)

Today Stephen Tortora-Lee and Karen Tortora-Lee give their 4 Cents about The Princes Of Darkness which is playing at Theater for the New City.

Before The Princes of Darkness (written and performed by Bill Connington)  even begins there’s an ambiance created by sound designer Sean Gill that does its best to set a tone of creepy nervousness.  Resonating within the small theatre, which is completely draped in black cloth,  is the kind of music reserved for the scenes in movies that have the most startling effect – a subtle drop of blood oozing down a table, a shadow crossing a deserted hallway.  Let yourself get pulled too deeply into the sounds and you’ll find that you’ll jump when the seat behind you thuds down.

Equally effective is the lighting design by Kia Rogers.   Satan cast down into a lake of everlasting fire in the beginning of the play makes for a scorching moment as red lights dance along the floor and lick at the heels of the fallen angel.

Don’t worry.  The mood lightens from here.   Under Rachel Klein’s direction Lucifer’s decent into the netherworld transforms him from maddened outcast angel to Cabaret-style  Master of Ceremonies a la Joel Grey.  Indeed, he even has the makeup down.   This Satan isn’t just sitting around, however, he starts his show with a few parlour tricks and then immediately begins to rant at God and dare mankind (specifically the mankind that is sitting in the audience) to do a better job of ruling the universe.

Soon, the illustrations begin as The Dark One highlights the lives of three Dark Princes – Hamlet, Oedipus and Dracula – and uses their human failings as indications of where Man has gone wrong in the past.  The real lesson to draw from The Princes of Darkness is that the tue darkness we have to worry about are not the big ones like genocide, incest or suicide but the more subtle ones like codependency, self absorption, and insecurity.

Hamlet leads off the trio.  Hamlet, so bored with the constant “wake, eat, work, sleep” of his life, who dares to question why does it all matter anyway?  Next up is Oedipus who appreciates the significance and the value of good, but is doomed by his inability to accept things for what they are. The final character we are given the chance to explore through the eyes of Satan’s viewfinder is Dracula. He, like the other characters, exposes his true nature through interaction with voice-over quotes taken directly from literature.    While, as with the others, his scene turns on his insight into the nature of humanity and his divine shadow self, Dracula actually gives a surprising fatal flaw.

Dracula shows the evil we expect of wanting to be as God; all powerful and immortal and outside the confines of morality. But the surprising sin which is drawn out by Lucifer is co-dependency. Dracula’s need to be needed by those he “turns”  by his need to be appreciated for his “gifts” of unnaturalness. His need to not be appreciated for his “self”, but rather his commitment to non-self. “I won’t last a day without you“ he cries, singing the Carpenter’s hit in a dissonant and plaintive entreaty.  It’s as heartbreaking as it is uncomfortable to watch.  Dracula in pain?  Yes.

What we see in The Devil’s journey with us in this hour is how the little things that might seem to hold us back in life – such as commitment, empathy and restraint – don’t  keep us down . . . they actually hold us together. Lucifer’s fall is not really from God’s favor, but rather by him abandoning God’s Order, which shows that by putting yourself at the center of the universe, you trap yourself in your own bottomless pit; as chaos implodes your hopes and dreams into nothing but thinner and thinner caricatures of meaning. It takes the slick Beelzebub we often see in the media and makes us see that the Laws of nature and decency “aren’t just rules  . . . but a good idea”.

Connington’s play highlights the idea that perhaps, in the end, Lucifer’s true punishment is self inflicted. Instead of being forced to be imprisoned in the bottomless pit of Hell it seems that really, by him being able to abandon the rules of God more than any other, his own sense of Egoism and rebellion from Order caused the contradictions which doom him to continual dissolution of his own purpose and constructions.

Through deep story telling and strong imagery Connington attempts to, and for the most part succeeds in, giving a lesson in the true nature of what is evil and what we should aspire to.  Perhaps the real power of this piece is the devil’s sympathy of us, his encouragement to “save the world”. Perhaps his attempt to become the highest part of heaven is truly an inspiration. If it weren’t for that fall we may not have been given a great gift. Even the greatest Princes of Darkness give us a lesson: Evil is not a great force that threatens to rip apart the universe through sheer determinism. Evils is taking the easy path which damns us to the horror of facing what happens when a vacuum is made in Good.

~~~

Princes of Darkness
written and performed by Bill Connington

directed by Rachel Klein

Theater For The New City
155 First Avenue (between 9th and 10th Streets)
For more information: Click Here .

Related Posts:

• Let The Nightmare Begin – An Interview With The Creative Minds Behind Princes Of Darkness
• Bill Connington Is Unstoppable With *Zombie* And *The Thornhills Of Park Avenue*
• “ZOMBIE” To Be Screened At NYC International Film Festival
• The Land Whale Murders Is A Whale Of A Tale and The Tale Of A Whale
• Clandestine: It’s A Secret {But Tell Your Friends} . . . (Planet Connections 2010)

4 Cents Review – When 2 reviewers each give their 2 cents.

Today Diánna Martin and Stephen Tortora-Lee give their 4 Cents about Almost Exactly Like Us which is playing at The Workshop Theater.

Do you ever have one of those days where it seems like everything is melting down into an abyss of doom, and you just wish you could make a little tweak here and there in reality so that everything could go your way?

Almost Exactly Like Us (written by Alan M. Berks and directed by Jesse Edward Rosbrow) is a thoughtful lively drama about what freedom really is, and  explores how our intentions and our perceptions of the world subtly change as we, in turn, subtly change the world around us.

There are two acts to this play – The first, in which we are introduced to the characters and given bits of their history, and the second act which shifts us to another world that has been radically altered by one minor change.  In the original reality (Act One) a bomb went off 2 years prior to the beginning of the narrative.  The bomb, set off on a college campus, killed the wife of a professor, Michael (Timothy Fannon)  who creates a number of theories to try to find someway for his life to make sense after this experience.  Right now, all they can pin this on is terrorism.  Two years later, Michael goes to an unspecified foreign country and happens upon a young ESL teacher, Zoe, (Anna O’Donoghue) and together they forge a tenuous, odd, quirky relationship and find companionship – both strangers in a strange land. Also taking the journey with them is Anders (Seth Austin) the brother of Michael’s deceased wife and now an evangelical revolutionary, bent on changing the world through “Potterism”, a unique take on the conventional, more recognizable tenets of Christianity.

Paranoia abounds in this land (and in this reality), which sets the characters on particular paths.  By then end of Act One, in an odd twist, Zoe makes decisions which alienate her from Michael and as the act closes we’re shown a brief glimps of a new reality – what if Michael’s wife, Helen (Julie Fitzpatrick) had never been killed in the bombing?

The importance of the entire second act is pretty much how certain themes are now mirrored, switched, jumbled into a new reality, or completely non-existent.  Yet it still has many similar resonances of the other themes, now wearing different masks – for instance the same ideas but now spoken by different characters.  By switching roles the characters find new paths for their destinies.

Almost Exactly Like Us

Stephen: So looking at this play it seemed like there were a couple of main themes, or questions it was trying to look at.
1. If our environment was different, how would our actions and perceptions be different?   2. How much of a difference would there be in our interactions with the same people if our worlds were different?

Diánna: Correct – it’s dealing with the very basics of consideration in any question of multiple realities/universes.

Stephen: Perhaps the story is all the same, no matter what our world is like around us, but maybe our position within it (our role and what we are supposed to do in this world, our destiny) may be different depending. Key themes, however, and phrases, and activities echo through out in a diversity of ways.

Diánna: Take for example, in another alternate reality/universe I’m an investment broker and I’m eating dinner right now … or any other bizarre number of possibilities – one’s roles then changes the number of forks in the road that there are at each turn.

I applaud the effort of a company/playwright/director for putting together a show that includes something as yummy (for I love these kinds of elements, parallel universes, etc) in a show.

Stephen: Yeah. it is definitely a yummy concept, that I think works well in this play.

Diánna: Yet I also feel that because it is not something that the average theatre goer is used to (unless everyone in the audience watches LOST) that the playwright and director need to be careful how it’s done otherwise you end up with a bunch of confused people.  I was confused because I was not aware of the multiverse thing going on, initially, until we talked about it during intermission. Yet even if I had been, it was introduced so late into the show that it became an afterthought, it seemed.

Stephen: There might have been some self-selecting of the audience by having the short teasers for the show be enigmatic yet intriguing. Almost like it’s a primer of alternative reality for newbies in some ways. By having no preamble the audience was able to be as disoriented as the characters were.

Diánna: Then again, that could just be me … you got it right away – you got the alternate reality thing. But in terms of pure pacing and the script itself, they really didn’t get on the multiverse bandwagon until the last scene of Act One, and a few clues could have been planted earlier while still packing the same punch.

Stephen: I feel like, in this play, unless you read the blurb beforehand you really won’t get the play, and that’s usually not the case. “If your world were different, would you be different, too? Almost Exactly Like Us shows us four people in different realities, from a totalitarian regime to an evangelical college and a post-apocalyptic war zone, and examines how the world around us shapes who we are and who we will become.”

Diánna: When you combine multiple realities with confusing scenarios that make no sense because of the script/direction/actors behavior….then it blows the audience’s mind and we can’t buy it.

I mean, I LOVED the opening scene. I thought that Timothy Fannon (Michael) was amazing throughout the entire play. He was a joy to watch on stage because everything was believable and he was so engaging – and that was my favorite scene of Anna O’Donoghue’s (Zoe) as well – the first scene.  I just thought it was a fun cat and mouse …

I was torn between moments of enjoying the acting and being annoyed that I had NO idea what the hell was going on.

Stephen: Perhaps the reason that the play didn’t shift our perception earlier on was because the playwright wanted only extreme emotional trauma to be the key that would unlock the door between worlds.

Diánna: That’s another thing – the interesting thought that Zoe was the only one who seemed to recognize the realities …who had documentation? I literally was thinking “Oh, he got that from the episode of LOST – The Constant, right?” It just seemed like they took interesting aspects of LOST, Hurt Locker, and The Road…and for some reason the shifts were happening faster and faster.

I personally would have liked some more time in the final world … or else shifting back to other worlds briefly.

Going back to what I was saying earlier – I wish they had done that other times – in all the realities, so that way we could appreciate the realities…the true meaning of Multiverse and the infinite number of possibilities even as we focus on just these three presented in the play … because it seemed forced for the second act.

I also have to mention with the acting, I enjoyed it very much we got to see Sean Austin and Julie Fitzpatrick in other “kinds of roles” because that’s what they were; when they were in an alternate reality they were in an alternate role, as actors as well as characters.

The thing is, honestly – the only thing that really interested me in the first act was Fannon’s character (Michael). It was explored with so many levels and layers – the actor did a tremendous job. What made it (I think) an NYITF Award-winning performance was his incredible diverseness between Acts One and Two – again, a testament to the multiverse. Interesting, though…his anger/loss…were there in both – same as all of the actors – they were all great, but I had issues with the character of Zoe (Anne O’Donoghue) … it’s a tough character and I think she pulled it off sometimes.

I’ve seen her work before, and she’s very talented, but I saw her doing the exact same thing she did in another show – when she was being the petulant young college coed.  However when she was sweet and vulnerable she was interesting … I wish we could have seen more of that.

Ultimately I walked out of the theatre glad to have seen this show, but not thrilled with it. I think it has holes in the script that the audience can fall though, no matter how many sci-fi novels they’ve read.

I also feel the director needed to pull more colors from some of the actors in their scenes – or the actors needed to bring them.

Stephen: It was as if he was fighting the same need to have things be understood, known, manageable.  But the circumstances dictated whether he enjoyed freedom or lack of freedom more in the second act.

Diánna: Overall, Almost Exactly Like Us is indeed a commentary on how we can be a product of our environment, or at least how we can react and become more of what we are inside … or fight those genes.

Stephen: All and all I think it was a good play and would really enjoy it with a bit more rework on the points we’ve been talking about.   I think it is pretty fresh way of peeking through the looking glass of what would happen in terms of this alternative or another.

Diánna: It was a good concept of a play, and had some good moments.

Stephen: I think the playwright might have been more of the type to want to have the audience be solving the play of what is happening, but since he had powerful points it would be perhaps have been better if he had made them a little less subtle in the play so it was broader for the audience to grasp.

Diánna: It just needed a torch to light the way for the audience … This is not a play to have to figure stuff out…like a puzzle…its a play to sit back and learn the meaning.

I saw some moments when I think that the actors could have added more dimension to their characters (Zoe and Anders in particular) but I felt overall everyone did a good job. There was a lot of talent on the stage. I still feel like Fannon carried the show – and it was the first time I’ve seen his work, I think. I look forward to seeing more of it.

Overall, since Off-Off Broadway is really a place to get people to see theatre that is not necessarily so mainstream, this kind of production and script are perfect for it. That said, I’d like to see this or something like it rewritten and worked so the average person who enjoys this can appreciate it even on Broadway. Although I had problems with the play, I am very glad it was attempted, and I think that more efforts in this direction of plot/and alternate reality should be done in plays.  I love it.

Stephen: That’s a great point.  Love it or not, Almost Exactly Like Us is a play that will have you thinking and debating, and that’s exactly what Off-Off-Broadway is all about.  I heartily recommend this play to anyone who truly wants to explore in wonderful detail some possible answers to the question, “What if…?”

~~~

Related Posts:

• The Land Whale Murders Is A Whale Of A Tale and The Tale Of A Whale
• 4 Cents Review: The Princes Of Darkness – They Just Need Love Too
• 4 Cents Review: Late Nights With The Boys – A Grown Up Fairy Tale (Frigid Festival 2010)

4 Cents Review – When 2 reviewers each give their 2 cents.

LATE NIGHTS WITH THE BOYS: confessions of a leather bar chanteuse Pictured: Alex Bond in 1977

Today Diánna Martin and Karen Tortora-Lee give their 4 Cents about Late Nights With The Boys: Confessions Of A Leather Bar Chantuse which is part of this year’s Frigid Festival.

Late Nights With The Boys: Confessions Of A Leather Bar Chantuse was presented as selections read by Alex Bond and David Carson from Ms. Bond’s novel, but aside from that we both didn’t know what to expect.  The Frigid blurb promised that the reading would transport you to Dallas 1977, a magical time before HIV/AIDS, but not before ignorance and prejudice so we were eager to watch this story unfold.

Karen: I really didn’t know what to expect from Late Nights With The Boys, and almost immediately I was charmed.  Didn’t you sense their warmth right away?

Diánna: Absolutely – there was something very natural and calm about Alex Bond and David Carson that affected the audience. I think the fact that they didn’t dim the house lights was interesting toward that end …

Karen: Definitely. I mean, I felt they were having a conversation with us (the audience) as much as with each other, and that sense of immediacy happened automatically.

The story begins with Anna Zander interviewing prospective autobiographer Craig to see if he would be a good fit, not only as someone who is a good enough writer to capture her story, but if he’s someone she’ll feel comfortable with so that her story will be able to come forth naturally.

Karen: First of all, I loved how Anna greeted Craig at her front door with  “Are you gay? Come on in … but only if you’re gay” because it set a tone for the piece right away.

Diánna: Yes! It did – it got everyone laughing, but it also let you know, as an audience member, kinda what you were in for … and you immediately got a sense of who her character was.

Karen: Which is so important because on first sight she’s anything but, to put it bluntly, a fag hag so it was even more endearing when she says it right up front with all her southern charm.

Diánna: Right? It really was – and it was done so simply.  Really truthful honest choices were made in the acting by both actors, so we got to see them as the people they were – and not caricatures. It would be easy to fall into that trap with this play if they were actors who were “acting”.

Karen: I agree.  I think Craig said it best when he said of Anna, “She was a great lady AND trailer trash. HOW did she do that?” Because of course you knew exactly how he meant it when he said it. It was said with love and got a great response from the audience . . .

Diánna: EXACTLY.

Karen: It showed that she was elegant AND spunky . . . that she could be wicked and had no problem bringing that side of herself out. This way, when it starts becoming revealed that this genteel southern lady was a leather bar chanteuse, it’s not so inconceivable anymore.

Diánna: Absolutely – because despite the southern belle aspect, she is more an independent woman who has these different sides to her that are all so interesting. You totally buy it and that’s even if you don’t have any idea of what you’re seeing …I went in blind about some things – and still went with it – but more on that later.

Karen: Right, you absolutely buy it, because as Anna takes you on her journey you can see the wide-eyed innocent she once was, and you can see all these defining moments that she was open too, these things that maybe other girls of  her social circle might have been shocked by and would have turned away from.

Instead, she embraced it all, and by doing so, she widened her mind, and her world, and suddenly it makes so much sense to see the woman you see before you with all her gentility and her wickedness at once.

Diánna: Yes! You see her transformation that was fed by being surrounded by people who cared about her…and despite the stigma that a lot of people, regardless of their point of view, have about homosexuality, would not be able to deal with, she was not concerned with any of that. She opened herself to it all – because it came from such a positive place.

Sitting there watching it and hearing her relive her tale reminded me of myself when I was living in St. Louis. It really took me on a trip down memory lane, and I think that’s something that really strikes a note with the audience – going back to the comfort level the actors create – because most people coming to see the play will know a little about it from the title; and in doing so, might very well have an experience of their own that is comparable – their “first time.”

Karen: It’s so true. As Anna was describing her first time in a leather bar, all wide eyed and innocent, so sweet and naive, I remembered all those days of being 18, 19, and going to gay bars here in New York City for the first time with my friends who were just coming out. It was all so different and exciting, and quite frankly, it really was much more of a bonding experience than just going to a sports bar with “regular” guys. I have nights from 20 years ago that I remember more vividly than what I did last weekend!

I think many others will be doing what we did as they watch this show – going down memory lane!

Diánna: Oh, absolutely. I think that’s what also allows for such an emotional connection between the actors and the audience. I mean, here you have two people reading mostly descriptions that are out of a novel, really, with dialogue between them, of course, but still some of that was even done in the third person. The ability for them to hold us in the palm of their hand like that was amazing – for the audience to really be there with them. And I think so much of it has to do with the fact that the audience becomes so involved because they are reliving their own experiences. I saw many heads nodding and people dabbing their eyes…I know I wasn’t the only one!

Karen: I was too! It really struck a chord, especially when she started talking about some of the sadder aspects.

Diánna:  And the descriptions – of the bar, of the people – it was all so vivid. It was amazing – and again, being done in the third person makes it so important that it was so rich in the way it painted the picture so that we would remain engaged. I have not been that affected by a reading in some time.

Karen: And I’m glad it was all inclusive, because while her joyful times were fun and funny, her journey really had tinges of sadness too. As she said, “carefree was replaced with caution and cadavers” and I think that’s the crux of this whole story. That she is not just that she was a naive girl who got some education about the leather bars and the underground gay scene of 1977.

Diánna: Absolutely!

Karen: But that she also unfortunately had to then bear witness to so much sadness, starting with seeing (or hearing about) her dear friends being gay bashed, and continuing on with watching her friends fall away one by one:  all victims of an epidemic which swept through the early 80s and claimed so many beautiful souls.

Diánna: I really appreciated the way that was laid out. The AIDS epidemic was mentioned/hinted at very early on and we knew that she had lost the myriad of friends she had lined in picture frames. And intermingled in the funny moments or the excited revelry, a small hint would be dropped again. But the main sad point, that was discussed for its own scene was the gay bashing – which was so sad, and made many of us cry in the audience; but the show, instead of taking an easy way out and going through a scene where she’s at a friend’s bedside when they’re dying of AIDS, she chose to focus on how incredible they were when they were alive – and so when they are talked about as dead, there is even so much more of a void, and it strikes home – without going over the top or getting sappy – where it could have.

Karen: That’s right. It’s one thing to talk about someone who’s dead … it’s another thing to talk about someone as if they were still alive … to see the gleam they still manage to produce in someone, to see that effect on someone makes their passing all the more poignant. It’s true. And whenever Anna spoke of her friends, you could see the years melt away, and she looked so much like a young girl again. That’s not just the power of acting. That’s the power of one person’s mark on another person, and like you say … the obviousness of that void is then just so much more heart wrenching.

David Carson and ALex Bond in DFW Fringe Festival

Diánna:  I wanted to also make note about David Carson’s performance – the same way that we saw in Alex’s face the joy and love that she had for those friends that she had lost, David had such a personalization in his love for her character. It really was just so lovely – it made me smile.

Karen: It’s so true. I think there’s a lot of nuance that would be lost without him; he’s got a tough role … he’s got to be the straight man (well, the gay straight man!) but the truth is, if this were just a one woman show I’m not so sure it would have played as well. They both come alive in each other’s company … and the story itself is so much about how people affect you and come into your life and rearrange you … that to do this piece solo wouldn’t have worked. So I agree, David does some of the hardest work in this piece, sometimes by simply letting Anna (and Alex) shine. He’s like the light that illuminates her.

Diánna: Well said – it really is a piece that makes for the characters to have a symbiotic relationship, and they do indeed feed each other, both to the actors and characters as well as the audience. Now, what is the history behind this? Is this an autobiographical tale that was a book, made into a play about a book?

Karen: Yes, there’s even a part in the beginning of the show where she’s talking to the man who’s about to write her book and says “lets write it in the 3rd person” and I think that’s why the play is about “someone else”.

Diánna: Ahhh…yes, that’s true. So they have written that in there so it just falls naturally.

Karen: Which is very magical in some ways, to take your life and hand it over.

Diánna: I suppose that was the decision to do it as a “reading”, instead of trying to bring it out as a staged piece – it wouldn’t have worked, trying to re-create her life as staging. The magic happened in a much subtler fashion.

Karen: Right, so unexpected. You don’t expect it to come to life as much because you’re expecting to hear someone reading a biography. Then, everything falls away and suddenly you’re transported, because the story is so powerful, and charming, and wonderful.

She really is a bit like Dorothy or Alice or … who else?

That chick in Narnia? … Going through the other side of the closet!

Diánna: Hahaha right!

Karen: Since back then everyone was still IN the closet, so the only way to understand the gay world, was to go INTO the closet!

Diánna: Very much like Alice. There is very much a fable/fairy tale thing going on – they even talk about that.

Karen: It’s nice to think that this is what Alice would be like grown up, telling her story to someone else of this time.

Diánna: All the leather and glitter; the trapeze and the world of queens, princesses . . .

Without a doubt, anyone who is interested in seeing the story of a young woman entering a world of unexpected delights and unimaginable experiences, but with a grown up twist, should then go see Late Nights With The Boys … it will transport you to a never-never-land  of fairy tales.

Related Posts:

• Vodka Shoes Fit All Sizes (Frigid Festival 2010)
• It or Her: Madness Reigns Supreme (Frigid Festival 2010)
• Delving Into DARK WATER With Diánna Martin
• Coyote On A Fence – FREE Staged Reading – 5 Things To Know About The Show Before You Go (2012 Planet Connections Festivity)
• Lickin’ With Bricken – An Interview With Bricken Sparacino