Tuesday, November 08, 2011
The Great Fire--a play
The Great Chicago Fire in a play---an extremely intense afternoon of drama, at the Lookingglass Theater in Chicago, IL.
The Great Fire lasted 36 hours, burned 2200 acres, displaced 100,000 families, and destroyed esentially everything south of Fullerton street. The conditions could be described as a perfect storm--drought-parched, solid wood, houses, sidewalks, streets, and a steady, high wind. The spark was in the O'Leary barn--supposedly due to a cow kicking over a lantern. The play that it inspired is a complex creation, both in the script and in the execution.
It's structure is the interwoven stories of six survivors. But the central figure is the personification of the fire, who constantly threads through the scenes, battles the people and destroys property. Apparently there were places that were supposed to be humorous during the play--I never saw them. From the start with the ominous sub-sonics on the sound system as The Fire staged the O'Leary incident with toy animals and people and a play barn, it was greater and lesser tension throughout, until the final scene when the rain came.
Technically this show was a tour-du-force. The sound design, the lighting design, and especially the set design, with falling walls, all added to the tension and foreboding. The representations of buildings with wood and paper models, and their symbolic destruction as they were taken down or cut down and let fall, gave a definite feeling of the losses that were incurred. The management of the performance was perfect by my observation. I detected no mis-cues or mis-operation of props.
The actors were all superb, some of them playing as many as three or four roles with varying characters and accents. But to me, Lindsay Noel Whiting as the Fire was far and away the star. She was dressed much like a young, 1870's girl, and wore her hair as two large braids adding to the effect. One might have thought she were only 12 or 13 at first glance, until one observed her bearing. She is a phenomenal acrobat, scaling the supports at unbelievable speed and hanging in poses most people could not accomplish. But what stands out is her ability to be malevolent. There was no doubt that as The Fire, she was evil. It is this malevolence, despite the surface childlike look, that kept the mood constantly tense.
This play is drama at its best, providing a complex view of life, and leaving one with much to think about. It cannot be called entertaining, it took effort to watch and keep track. However, it is definitely worth the time.
The Great Fire lasted 36 hours, burned 2200 acres, displaced 100,000 families, and destroyed esentially everything south of Fullerton street. The conditions could be described as a perfect storm--drought-parched, solid wood, houses, sidewalks, streets, and a steady, high wind. The spark was in the O'Leary barn--supposedly due to a cow kicking over a lantern. The play that it inspired is a complex creation, both in the script and in the execution.
It's structure is the interwoven stories of six survivors. But the central figure is the personification of the fire, who constantly threads through the scenes, battles the people and destroys property. Apparently there were places that were supposed to be humorous during the play--I never saw them. From the start with the ominous sub-sonics on the sound system as The Fire staged the O'Leary incident with toy animals and people and a play barn, it was greater and lesser tension throughout, until the final scene when the rain came.
Technically this show was a tour-du-force. The sound design, the lighting design, and especially the set design, with falling walls, all added to the tension and foreboding. The representations of buildings with wood and paper models, and their symbolic destruction as they were taken down or cut down and let fall, gave a definite feeling of the losses that were incurred. The management of the performance was perfect by my observation. I detected no mis-cues or mis-operation of props.
The actors were all superb, some of them playing as many as three or four roles with varying characters and accents. But to me, Lindsay Noel Whiting as the Fire was far and away the star. She was dressed much like a young, 1870's girl, and wore her hair as two large braids adding to the effect. One might have thought she were only 12 or 13 at first glance, until one observed her bearing. She is a phenomenal acrobat, scaling the supports at unbelievable speed and hanging in poses most people could not accomplish. But what stands out is her ability to be malevolent. There was no doubt that as The Fire, she was evil. It is this malevolence, despite the surface childlike look, that kept the mood constantly tense.
This play is drama at its best, providing a complex view of life, and leaving one with much to think about. It cannot be called entertaining, it took effort to watch and keep track. However, it is definitely worth the time.
Sizzle: A different look at Global Warming
Last Friday I attended a preview performance of "Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy," written by Sarah Gmitter and Jason Burkett. It was presented by The New Suit Theater Company at West Stage of the Raven Theater Complex in Chicago, IL (SW corner of N Clark and W Granville).
New Suit produces plays that explore complex issues and make them understandable. This play and production certainly met that goal. Additionally Jason Burkett's plays always have a subtext. In this case, it was that people need to quit listening only to what they themselves are saying and actually listen to other people. Also, they need to learn to restate their ideas if they are not being understood.
The play took its inspiration from a documentary on global warming created by Randy Olsen. The comedy aspects come from the imagined misadventures of Randy Olsen as he produced the film, and the exaggerated characters he works with and meets. The play affirms a belief in anthropogenic global warming, but not in the apocalyptic manner of Al Gore and other environmental doomsayers. Though I would be called a global warming denier, I would still recommend seeing the play because it does present the sides in a reasonably fair manner and does not approve of blocking out the other sides message.
The play used a cast of seven, with two of the cast doubling in speaking roles and all of the women in the cast at one time or another during the play doubling as walk-on airline hostesses. Andrew Nowak was an excellent harried, nervous, and confused Randy Olsen, and Jovan King was outstanding as his street-wise videographer. The two really worked well together. Michael Reyes as the larger-than-life egotistical and slightly bizarre producer was phenomenal. The remaining cast members provided excellent, well-acted support.
The venue at Raven Theater Complex is very well suited to the kind of play that Jason Burkett writes. It is a major improvement over the venue at which New Suit produced his previous play, "JedIraq: Megan's First War." It is easy to get to, and comforable, being on the ground level. The execution of the play was well managed. All the scene changes went smoothly and that is despite the use of the cast as stage hands and their need to do costume changes. The sets were minimal but completely fulfilled the necessary functions.
This was an extremely enjoyable evening of theater, making a serious issue both interesting and entertaining without trivializing it. "Sizzle" plays through November 14. I strongly recommend seeing it.
New Suit produces plays that explore complex issues and make them understandable. This play and production certainly met that goal. Additionally Jason Burkett's plays always have a subtext. In this case, it was that people need to quit listening only to what they themselves are saying and actually listen to other people. Also, they need to learn to restate their ideas if they are not being understood.
The play took its inspiration from a documentary on global warming created by Randy Olsen. The comedy aspects come from the imagined misadventures of Randy Olsen as he produced the film, and the exaggerated characters he works with and meets. The play affirms a belief in anthropogenic global warming, but not in the apocalyptic manner of Al Gore and other environmental doomsayers. Though I would be called a global warming denier, I would still recommend seeing the play because it does present the sides in a reasonably fair manner and does not approve of blocking out the other sides message.
The play used a cast of seven, with two of the cast doubling in speaking roles and all of the women in the cast at one time or another during the play doubling as walk-on airline hostesses. Andrew Nowak was an excellent harried, nervous, and confused Randy Olsen, and Jovan King was outstanding as his street-wise videographer. The two really worked well together. Michael Reyes as the larger-than-life egotistical and slightly bizarre producer was phenomenal. The remaining cast members provided excellent, well-acted support.
The venue at Raven Theater Complex is very well suited to the kind of play that Jason Burkett writes. It is a major improvement over the venue at which New Suit produced his previous play, "JedIraq: Megan's First War." It is easy to get to, and comforable, being on the ground level. The execution of the play was well managed. All the scene changes went smoothly and that is despite the use of the cast as stage hands and their need to do costume changes. The sets were minimal but completely fulfilled the necessary functions.
This was an extremely enjoyable evening of theater, making a serious issue both interesting and entertaining without trivializing it. "Sizzle" plays through November 14. I strongly recommend seeing it.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Eleven years and counting forever
In Memoriam
Adam Trent Keezer
March 9, 1981 to November 4, 2000
Adam was the greatest
So long...farewell...good bye
After eleven years one lives with it, but never gets over it. He was truly a gentle giant, 6'5", 240 lbs, easy going, a great comedian, excellent musician, and a very creative writer. When a 19 years-old fills a church to overflowing at his funeral, you know he was a special person. To quote somebody else, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased."
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
God save us from professional politicians
The political news is filled with the rise of Herman Cain to lead Romney in several states by double digits. At the same time the pundits are in the tank for Romney and bombarding us with the weaknesses of Cain. Romney whom I see as a Republican version of John Kerry, a principleless person who will say whatever seems to be the right thing at the time, is touted as the one who can win with the independent voters. Note that there is no discussion of his principles or his programs (particularly RomneyCare). Just the bleat that he can win.
They have learned nothing in the last six years. The Republicans lost the Congress during Bush's term because they went for winning and betrayed every conservative principle, becoming Democrats-lite. They won the house back because they suddenly rediscovered their conservative principles with a lot of help from the TEA Party. Now they think they can with the presidency without those principles?
Obama won, not because he presented principles, but because the disgust with Bush and the Republicans was so overwhelming, the Democrats could have run anyone and won. But in a race defined by personality and not principle, Obama will beat Romney hands down, save that his record is now so bad many people are in the same attitude towards him that they were towards Bush.
But lets get back to the independent voter. To listen to the commentary, one would think and independent voter is some sort of fence-sitting Republicrat or Demlican. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the 2010 election showed. Independent voters are exactly that--independent. They vote based on what is important to them, not on party loyalty or ideology. In 2008 getting rid of incumbents was a primary goal of independents and they were quite successful. In 2010, getting rid of Democrats that passed ObamaCare was the primary goal, and boy was there a blood-bath in the House. This year, I expect a blood-bath in the Senate, but the House Republicans had best look to their votes. A number of freshmen appear to have succumbed to belt-way disease and may get a permanent cure, along with some more incumbents.
Independent voters tend to vote on principle, not party, or perhaps on desired result. They get it in their mind that some Congressman or Senator is the bad guy and they will work to get rid of him. They will jump party lines in primaries in order to either prevent the nomination of a notably bad candidate or to at least insure the least bad alternative if their preferred candidate fails to win in the Fall. Independents are not impressed by wishy-washy, half-elephant, half-ass, candidates. They are perfectly capable of making choices between two imperfect candidates.
As an independent, I am disgusted with the Republican party. I am conservative to the point of reactionary at times, but am willing to work with opposite viewpoints to make progress overall. What I see in the Republican party right now is a set of people in the background sucking all the juice out of the process, trying to create an inevitability in Romney because they think he can win, and in winning continue their gravy-train of business as usual in Washington. The most interesting candidates have problems, but would shake things up and in a good way. Among the ways would be the loss of the professional politician.
They have learned nothing in the last six years. The Republicans lost the Congress during Bush's term because they went for winning and betrayed every conservative principle, becoming Democrats-lite. They won the house back because they suddenly rediscovered their conservative principles with a lot of help from the TEA Party. Now they think they can with the presidency without those principles?
Obama won, not because he presented principles, but because the disgust with Bush and the Republicans was so overwhelming, the Democrats could have run anyone and won. But in a race defined by personality and not principle, Obama will beat Romney hands down, save that his record is now so bad many people are in the same attitude towards him that they were towards Bush.
But lets get back to the independent voter. To listen to the commentary, one would think and independent voter is some sort of fence-sitting Republicrat or Demlican. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the 2010 election showed. Independent voters are exactly that--independent. They vote based on what is important to them, not on party loyalty or ideology. In 2008 getting rid of incumbents was a primary goal of independents and they were quite successful. In 2010, getting rid of Democrats that passed ObamaCare was the primary goal, and boy was there a blood-bath in the House. This year, I expect a blood-bath in the Senate, but the House Republicans had best look to their votes. A number of freshmen appear to have succumbed to belt-way disease and may get a permanent cure, along with some more incumbents.
Independent voters tend to vote on principle, not party, or perhaps on desired result. They get it in their mind that some Congressman or Senator is the bad guy and they will work to get rid of him. They will jump party lines in primaries in order to either prevent the nomination of a notably bad candidate or to at least insure the least bad alternative if their preferred candidate fails to win in the Fall. Independents are not impressed by wishy-washy, half-elephant, half-ass, candidates. They are perfectly capable of making choices between two imperfect candidates.
As an independent, I am disgusted with the Republican party. I am conservative to the point of reactionary at times, but am willing to work with opposite viewpoints to make progress overall. What I see in the Republican party right now is a set of people in the background sucking all the juice out of the process, trying to create an inevitability in Romney because they think he can win, and in winning continue their gravy-train of business as usual in Washington. The most interesting candidates have problems, but would shake things up and in a good way. Among the ways would be the loss of the professional politician.
