Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

PLAYWRIGHT WORK:

There's been a bit of development on the draft of the play I've been writing. I had a log jam there for a few days. I had come to a point in writing where I wasn't sure if much of what I had was going to be compelling to anyone but myself. It was a mixture of unrealistic self-doubt and quite realistic honesty. In other words, what I came to see was that some of it was bogged down in detail and some of it was just fine.

I was able to leave it for a few days and come back and address the concerns that were on the right track. Besides addressing the issue of decluttering some prose, I also rewrote a portion to put more conflict, (read: argument), into a scene which gives it more energy. This last thing was a problem that had bugged me but that I wasn't readily recognizing when I'd hit that wall.

At this very moment the manuscript is at 52 pages. I read it out loud, not speaking any of the written directions, but leaving estimated time for any action, and the spoken reading took me about 75 minutes. That, when it was a few pages shorter. The general rule is that it should take about a minute a page, but there are a lot of monologues, which adds length to the dialogue per page. That's why I got a timing at about 50% more than the general rule suggests.

Here's my quandary of the moment. My goal has been a one-act. Quite frankly, since I had a fairly complete idea of the story arch, I didn't think it could be a two-act play. But it may end up one. I am just about to breach the climax of the story, and then the resolution, which I am less clear of at the moment than what the climax is. I'm not at all sure how much more there is in words, so the play running longer than what should be a comfortable length for a one-act seems possible. I don't think I want it be two acts.

For one thing, the spot that would logically be the place for the act break is not as strong of an act break as I would want. It's not a bad act break, but it's not a tension-builder nor does it really introduce a new plot twist or complication, except for perhaps in a subtle way. One might say, "well then, rewrite it." The problem there is that I'm quite satisfied with that segment of the play so I am not inclined to mess with it. Like I said, it's not a bad act break, just not the strongest.

I actually would rather keep this thing to one act. I'm trying to write something as marketable as I can, at least in format, and a one-act with fewer characters (as I've written before, this is a three-hander) is the goal. So, of course, there's always the ruthless cutting, which is likely what I will go back and do after I have the first draft done and have had some people read it. I may wait until after I've had a reading, but I'm not sure about that.

One other thing I did was upgrade my Final Draft software from version 8 to Final Draft 11. Then, just a few days back, I added Final Draft Mobile on my iPhone so I can work on, edit, etc., the draft at pretty much any given time. I suppose this is mostly for when I get an idea and I want to deal with it in the now and my MacBook Pro isn't immediately accessable. Hey, the app was only ten bucks, so what-the-hell.

PUBLIC DRAMATIC READING COMING UP:

Sometime here soon I should be hearing back about a public reading of local playwright Daniel W. Owens' play, Jimi's Guitar, that will be done through the Ohio Playwrights Circle. I've read some scenes as one of the characters in some class workshops and Dan has requested that I reprise the role for this public reding of the whole play.

I believe I've written in past blog entries that I am actually against type, for the role only because of age ‐‐ the character is in his late thirties; I can possibly sell late forties, but late thirties? I don't think so. Fortunately this is a dramatic reading not a full production, so my being out of type is not as critical.

Dan's play is one that fellow local actor Franklin Johnson and I did a scene from a few months back. I think it's likely that he is coming on board again as that character ‐‐ but don't quote me because I may not know what the hell I'm talking about.


There may also be a new U.D. Law gig coming up in the next month or so. I was solicited a few weeks back and am now waiting for further word.

For those who don't know what this is about. The University of Dayton Law School commissions local theatre diva Fran Pesch to hire actors to come in and play clients and witnesses for the law students to practice their skills with. Pretty much any situation where a lawyer encounters a client or a witness may be covered: mock trial testimony and cross examination, initial interviews with potential new clients, counseling such new clients, deposition prep, and depositions.

We actors are given documents with our stories ‐‐ our facts ‐‐ and, within the framework of the facts, we improvise performances as the said client or witness ‐‐ sometimes this is referred to as guided improv.

It's not a massive paycheck, but it is some extra money in the pocket and it is technically a professional gig, so....

FINALLY, A TRIP TO BROADWAY!:

Over the course of the last decade, I have, on occasion, usually around at least once a year, but not exactly every year, taken a trip to Chicago to see some theatre ‐‐ often at steppenwolf. And I've kept telling myself: sooner or later, you have to go see some theatre in New York. Really, I ought to go see some theatre in a lot of other cities ‐‐ there's a lot of good American theatre out there.

Anyway, I knew I was eventually going to get to NYC for some theatre, though, to be honest, I always expected that I'd see an off-Broadway production before I saw a Broadway show. A lot of that has to do with just how much a ticket for a decent to excellent seat costs on Broadway, with the numbers going up from the one through to the other. Also, though not at all opposed to seeing a musical, I have been more inclined to get to New York to see some sort of interesting straight play. For the most part. Broadway seems to be heavy on the musicals, because they have a longer, and bigger, box office life. But there are clearly exceptions to that rule.

Here's my seat!

Along comes the three-way marriage of Harper Lee, Aaron Sorkin, and Jeff Daniels. That's a pretty damn potent combination. Just alone, To Kill A Mockingbird is an American classic regardless of the medium (novel, movie, stage play). Then to have the brilliant Mr. Sorkin write a version of the stage play from the novel. Then to have such a fine actor as Jeff Daniels step into the body of Atticus Finch. You just can't get much better of a combination than that!

Then, since its opening this past December, the reviews and the buzz have been overwhelmingly positive. Several of my New York theatre friends as well as a couple from my neck of the woods have seen it and they have all raved about it. New York theatre critic, Peter Filichia, one of my FutureFest (and facebook) friends also has written a most positive review, "To Refresh a Mockingbird," which simply aggravated my already mounting urge to make the trek to The Shubert and experience this wonderful merging of talents and brilliance.

My ticket is for the May 11, 2:00 matinée. As you can see from the graphic here, I have a damn good seat. Why am I going to travel 600 miles and go see such a monumental production and settle for a crap seat? Answer: I'm not. Yeah this is going to be an expensive weekend for me. I also am just going to bite the bullet and stay downtown ‐‐ though, since I haven't priced hotels yet, I reserve the right to amend that proclamation. My plan at the moment is to drive over on Friday, the 10th -- that will not be changing ‐‐ spend Friday night and Saturday night in the city, and I hope also Sunday night, then drive back Monday. It's all got to do with what budget I have to work with. Regardless of what the weekend turns out to be as a whole, the main event is still going to be the main event.

So

ANOTHER WINNER AT HOME:

The Shadow Box opened Friday evening to a most receptive audience. I wasn't there for the rest of the weekend, but I have no doubt the audiences were just as pleased. The Saturday audience may have been rather small due to the winter storm that moved in. I actually was at the theatre before the show, shoveling snow and laying down salt, but I left before the curtain came up. Anyway: TWO MORE WEEKENDS!

post mortem

This is actually getting closer to being posted ‐‐ you won't be able to say I haven't put the perspective of distance into place.

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

L-R: Marc Moritz, me, Doug MacKechnie, Patrica O'Hara, Brian Dykstra, & Scott Hunt. ‐‐ (Photo: Heather Powell)

Brian Dykstra as Pete Rose ‐‐ (Photo: Scott Kimmins)

Doug MacKechnie as Bart Giamatti ‐‐ (Photo: Scott Kimmins)

Scott Hunt as Fay Vincent ‐‐ (Photo: Scott Kimmins)

Marc Moritz as Reuvan Katz ‐‐ (Photo: Scott Kimmins)

Me (aka: K.L.Storer) as John Dowd - (Photo: Scott Kimmins)

Director Margarett Perry & Playwright Patricia O'Hara

It's four months now since the show closed. Like I've written lately, one cannot say that I now don't have the perspective of distance as I write this post mortem. Having acknowledged that, I still can report that this was a great experience on many levels.

First of all, it was nice to work again with Director Margarett Perry, and to work on a fully-staged production this time. I also much enjoyed working with my fellow castmates: Brian Dykstra (Pete Rose), Doug MacKechnie (Bart Giamatti), Marc Moritz (Reuvan Katz), and Scott Hunt (Fay Vincent ), whom I've seen several times on stage in previous productions and was looking forward to someday working with.

And the top-notch stage management crew was a group of sharp young women, Jacquelyn Duncan (production stage manager), Morgan Jergens (assistant stage manager), Kamryn Cosby (stage management intern).

Of course, the show also had some wonderful designers attached: Tamara L. Honesty (scenic), John Rensel (lighting), Jay Brunner (sound), Janet G. Powell (costuming), and Heather Powell (properties).

Last, but certainly not least, we were all banded together to bring to life this excellent script written by Ms. Patricia O'Hara. I think it's important to note that this is her first play. It's pretty impressive to turn out a strong manuscript worthy of a professional debut as your first play out of the gate.

When I did the Generals for HRTC's 2018/2019 season, last May, I believe, in the section of the form that asked what shows I was interested in I wrote that I was specifically intersted in this show as well as "any other that I might seem the right type for." Actually, I think I may have identified this show as "Band" From Baseball rather than "Banned" because I kept making that malapropism, in writing, for quite a while.

I did two contrasting monologues. The first was a cut of a Joe Keller monologue from All My Sons. It's a monologue that I worked on in a recent acting class I did at The Race that previous fall, with the most excellent Jennifer Joplin at the helm. That was my dramatic monologue. My humorous monologue was something I took from an acquaintance of mine who used work in television, Robert (Bob) Earll, who just passed away in December of 2017.

I did have the option to do a two-minute monologue from a play in the HRTC 18/19 season, but, with Banned from Baseball, being the one I was most interested in, that was problematic because it's not published yet, so I had no access to the script. I figured Joe Keller would be close enough in type with several of the characters in BfB, at least in attitude and personality ‐‐ or, if you'll forgive the pun, close to being in the same ballpark ‐‐ that Joe was a good choice.

I can't say for sure if Joe was the reason, but, within a few days I recieved an email from HRTC Associate Artistic Director Tara Lail informing me of my callback for BfB. I was to submit a video audition of the sides provided for the role of attorney John Dowd. I did a DIY video at The Guild with the help of fellow Dayton actor, and fellow DTG board member, Scott Madden, off-camera reading the role of Pete Rose.

Now the funny part. Up to this point, I did not know who was directing BfB. So let's jump back to about a week or two before the Generals. A friend of mine from highschool contacted me. She and her son, who is a most talented musical director whom I have worked with, have written a musical and were looking for theatres or institutions where they can workshop it and I was one of the people she contacted about recommendations of where it might be workshopped. After establishing that geography was not an issue, I contacted any theatre folk I knew, anywhere who might have good suggestions. One of those was Director Margarett Perry. In the midst of our back-and-forth I wrote at one point:

Hope to see your work again ‐‐ hell, who knows, at some point you might be tricked into thinking I'm right to cast

I had no idea when I wrote that, that just a few weeks later I would be asked to submit a video audition to Ms. Perry, whom, of course, it turns out was the director of Banned from Baseball. When I said something to that effect to her later she responded that I should never feel bad about contacting a director to request that they keep me in mind for a project.

As for the audition video. I think I did okay. I had done what research I could on Dowd. I looked for some video of him speaking; all I found was a very short clip of him telling a reporter to F off. So I had no real sense of a speech pattern or dialect. So I just came up with a no-nonsense lawyer, lobbing questions at Pete Rose. As I said, my self critic was neither disappointed nor overly impressed with the finished project. My big thought was that I was not at all sure I was right for the role. I was prepared to not be cast. I expected I would not be cast.

I was proved wrong about a week later, when HRTC Artistic Director Kevin Moore called. Our conversation, in part, went something like this:

Kevin: "Hey, K.L., Margaret really liked your read as Dowd and would like to offer you the role." Me: "Well, I'd like to accept!"

That was early June. About a week after the call, the script arrived. Dowd has one scene in the play and in the draft that was originally delivered I believe there were 11 pages to the Dowd scene ‐‐ there are 10 pages to the scene in the draft that we eventually performed. The scene is somewhere between 10 to 15 minutes long; it probably usually hit around 12 or 13 minutes during performance.

I started to look at the script almost right away, though, I have to admit, not intensely. I was soon to take a trip to the Hocking Hills Ohio area to spend the weekend in a secluded cabin, and do some hiking at Old Man's Cave, Ash Cave, and other local forestry. I brought the script with me, but it was the same as when I was in college and would take occasional weekend trips. I always brought my books and notes to study at some point during the trip, and never did. In Hocking Hills there was a lot to do so I did not get to the script at all. But, the next weekend I took a trip to Chicago to see a play and visit the Lincoln Park Zoo and did manage to find at least a little time to do line study.

My original goal was to come in pretty much off-book, but then a local theatre colleague advised me that with this being a debut production, the playwright was sure to be there and there were sure to be a lot of re-writes, and that person suggested that I spend more time on dramaturgy focused on Dowd. I read quite a bit about him and his many major accomplishments as a lawyer and as a prosecutor for the DOJ. John Dowd, by the way, was one of Donald Trump's lawyers until early last spring when he left because his client kept ignoring his counsel and because it became clear to Dowd that Mr. Trump would be incapable of not perjuring himself in a deposition or in a trial. Dowd later denied these things, which was rather foolish, and ironic, since there is record of him having made the statements. But I digress.

I never did find good video of him, which was apparently just my bad research skills because once I got into rehearsal, Margarett turned me onto a video of a full classroom lecture about this Pete Rose case, that he gave a couple years back at his alma matter, Emory University School of Law.

Between myself and Margarett we didn't approach my version of Dowd as an impersonation anyway. First off, John Dowd is much larger man than I. He's got several inches in height on me and more than a few pounds on me. Once From that Emory video I was able to hear good sampling of his voice I decided it would not work well for me to try to imitate his vocal aspects, as well, because the tenor and quality of our two voices are quite dissimilar and I would have sounded like and actor on stage trying to do a voice ‐‐ I do not believe I would have sold it well, at all, as a natural voice of the Dowd who stood on stage.

Margarett, in fact, told me at one point that she didn't think I needed to do any real dialect work, that what I was doing pretty much worked. I already have just a hint of a generic Eastern seaboard accent to my speech, to begin with, so I was essentially using my own dialect, just slightly modifying some vowels and, as Margarett told me to, softening my Rs.

In my estimation, Margarett also had me give my Dowd perhaps a little more drama to his aggression during the deposition than Dowd probably had in reality. There are two reasons I believe this. First, in that Emory lecture Dowd says that Bart Giamatti instructed him to not go after Rose in the deposition, to keep it conversational and avoid confrontational tactics. The second reason is that listening to him speak during the course of the hour-long video, I didn't get the sense that Dowd was a lawyer who relied on dramatic theatrics when going full speed in a deposition or cross examination. That second one is a guess, though, since I did not see any video of him in a courtroom setting, nor have I read anything that speaks directly to his style of presentation in court. I think his style is a down-to-business and no-nonsense lawyer in these situations, but it's more a steady, understated approach with an onslaught of evidence that backs a witness into a corner.

What we did was present a Dowd that was more confrontational, more demonstrative in his reactions, not over-the-top, whatsoever, but still more theatrical in behavior and voice than Dowd probably is. The point obviously being that we needed a more dramatic scene, and Dowd being confrontational helped Rose be more emotional with his defences, to be angrier and more demonstratively frustrated, because our Dowd was putting the screws to our Rose with some measure drama.

There was little adjustment from my performance in the audition video. Margarett even said at one point, early, when we still doing table work, that she wanted me to do what I did in the video, and that her big concern was that during the course of rehearsal I was going to get bored with it and start messing with it.

Overall, I'd say I felt good about my work as Dowd. It was a little frustrating to have had a few line glitches during performances. A couple times I went up for a moment or two. A few other times I misspoke lines. A couple of those misspeaks were problematic. In once I said the wrong name, in the other I asked if Rose had ever borrowed money from a person instead of if he'd loaned money to that person. Brian was able to fix the errors. but still, they are errors that call attention to themselves. I'd say that one solace is that I've seen well-seasoned, veterans, including some big-name actors, make errors as big, but there's not much solace there. Ahh well....Live Theatre.

When it was all said and done, I had it much easier than all the rest of the cast ‐‐ much, much, much easier. The most difficult thing I had to deal with was rangling a bit of paperwork in a rather self-choreographed manner ‐‐ that had to look spontaneous. I had to lay documents in front of Rose (Brian) at given moments, documents to bring home a specific question or point. Integrating that propwork smoothly in with the lines took a little planning and practice, but it wasn't some anxiety-inducing task. Well, at first it was awkward, but, you know, once the rhythm was down it was no longer a challenge at all.

The only other person that had this particular prop-wrangling issue was Marc Moritz, who play Rose's lawyer, Reuvan Katz, and I think his process of mastering that propwork was probably about equal to mine.

No, the big challenge for cast was the rewrites. The play was still in development so there were changes pretty much at every rehearsal up to Tech. There were all varieties of change, minor changes in lines, major revisions of scenes, scenes cut, and scenes added. My one scene changed but only a little, and given that I didn't have but that one scene, I was not at all in the same predicament as the rest of the cast, who sometimes were subjected to major changes. They were all up to challenge, but as one of my castmates said one day, "I'm having a hard time remembering which version of the scene we're doing now." Fortunately that actor and the others are all real pros so they all brought it together and gave stellar performances. All of them were impressive in their roles and I'm happy to have been their fellow castmate.

Just as I did not do an impersonation of Joh Dowd, neither did anyone else do such for their characters. Pete Rose was, of course, the one figure who, if an impersonation was going to be expected, it would be of him. Between Margarett Perry and Brain Dykstra that did not happen, yet, Brian was able to capture Rose's essence regardless. Veteren sports writer, and National Sports Media Association Hall of Famer, Hal McCoy, who has known Rose for decades, said after seeing the show that he felt like Pete was on the stage.

Doug MacKechnie infused his Bart Giamatti with an enthusiastic love for baseball, a deep reverence for academia, and tremendous respect for the mantle of leadership he wore. Scott Hunt's Fay Vincent was unwavering in his sense of principled justice. Marc Moritz gave us a practical and level-headed Reuvan Katz, trying, often in vain, to get his client, Rose, to understand the realities of his situation. Yes, these things were already there in the script, but these actors brought it all to life with great finess. A bad performance can kill an inherent aspect of a character as written in the script; we were in no danger of that.

And again, I liked working with Margarett. This was the second time I've been directed by her and I've enjoyed both ventures. The first time it was a dramatic reading, but, really, because of the nature of my scene in this one ‐‐ sitting at a table for the whole scene, thus no blocking -- there was little difference. In both instances she and I focused on character work and line work. Margarett was most helpful to my development of the Dowd I brought on stage. She also got out of the way when she thought she should and let me get to some things on my own.

I only disagreed with one note from her, but it was a small point that I didn't push. Some of Dowd's questioning, in the script, are more rhetorical statements than direct questions. In other words they are questions that end with a period. They are questions not spoken with an upward inflection in the voice on that last word. "So, you never bet on baseball." rather than "So, you never bet on baseball?" Margerett's note was for me to put that definite question mark, that upward vocal inflection, on all of those said lines as we got toward the end of the scene. Her reason was to set up my line "I ask the questions, Mr. Rose," so that the statement makes more sense to the audience. My though was, and still is, that it is so obvious that those lines are still clearly inquiries without the question marks that I felt the change was unnecessary. On the other hand, it was not really an important point to me at all, so I didn't bother to bring it up; I followed the note.

And I couldn't end this without mentioning the great happenstance that the production was able to get Marty Brennaman, the voice of The Reds for four and a half decades to do the sportscaster voice-overs for the production. So, essentially, he came on board to play himself. Kevin Moore said that when he called Marty to see if he was interested his response was that he'd have to read the play, because he wasn't going to be involved if he felt the play was unfair to Rose. Kevin said that Marty said, "I'm a Pete guy." Obviously he approved of Pete's treatment.

Rose's record-breaking night, the night he reached his 4,192nd career hit, which happened in 1985, is part of the show. Marty recorded the sports announcing for that. The cool thing is, every night, I would stand in the vom, waiting to go on stage, and hear that recording and think, wow, Marty sat in Jay Brunner's studio reliving what had to be one of the most exciting nights of his life, since he was the one who called that game back in '85.

To close, and to repeat myself, it was a great pleasure to be a part of this world premiere of Patricia O'Hara's most excellent script. It was a pleasure to again be directed by Margarett. It was absolutely an honor to have been counted among this cast roster.

And now, more photographs:

The Theatre front
Designer Tamara L. Honesty's wonderful set - (Photo: Scott Kimmins)
Photos that I took of the set.
Doug MacKechnie & Scott Hunt - (Photo: Scott Kimmins)	Doug MacKechnie, Scott Hunt, & Brian Dykstra - (Photo: Scott Kimmins)
At the promotional outing, Aug 27, for the show, at Fifth Third Field. A game between The Dayton Dragons and The Lancing Lug Nuts. Unfortunately, the Lug Nuts won.	BIG-ass baseball outside the park.
Brian Dykstra & Marc Moritz - (Photo: Scott Kimmins)	Brian Dykstra & K.L.Storer (Me) - (Photo: Scott Kimmins)
Marty Brennaman & Margarett Perry in the studio, recording Marty's VOs for the show - (Photo: Christine Brunner)	Marty Brennaman & Jay Brunner (the show's sound designer and the recording session engineer) - (Photo: Margarett Perry)
Jay Brunner, Marty Brennaman, & Margarett Perry - (Photo: Christine Brunner)
Brian Dykstra & Marc Moritz - (Photo: Scott Kimmins)	Brian Dykstra & Doug MacKechnie - (Photo: Scott Kimmins)
Scott Hunt, Doug MacKechnie, Marc Moritz, & Brian Dykstra - (Photo: Scott Kimmins)
The whole cast: Scott Hunt, Doug MacKechnie, Brian Dykstra, Marc Moritz, & K.L.Storer - (Photo: Scott Kimmins)
Production stage manager Jacquelyn Duncan	Intern Kamryn Cosby & assistant stage manager Morgan Jergens
Line study in Chicago, last summer, in a little plaza between the North/Clybourn L Red Line station and the Lincoln Park Apple Store.	Last June, setting up to shoot my DIY video audition.
Me and Scott Madden, who read Rose for me, off screen, for the video audition. Notice that I'm in wardrobe for the desk ‐‐ just like every news anchor in the business would be.	A frame from the audition video.
Early rehearsal set-up of the Dowd-Rose deposition scene (my scene). Notice there are three chairs. That's because in earlier incarnations of the scene, Rose's lawyer, Reuvan Katz (Marc Moritz) was in the scene. He was later pulled.	In the front of the HRTC lobby, working out my props and my prop wrangling for my scene.
The Equity actors (I.E.: the rest of the cast) voted in their meeting to allow the EMC (me) to be in the dressing room with them. That is usually what happens, but, they could have voted to not allow it. I have heard of the vote going that way.	John Dowd in my dressing room.
My station in the dressing room.	Sandwich board
Cast and crew back: Scott Hunt & Marc Moritz 3rd tier: Doug MacKechnie, Brian Dykstra, & K.L.Storer 2nd tier: Margarett Perry front: Andrew Ian Adams, Bailey Olean, Jacquelyn Duncan,             Morgan Jergens, & Kamryn Cosby - (Photo: Scott Kimmins)
The Dowd deposition table, back stage, prepped to be brought on stage	Morgan Jergens & Kamryn Cosby on stand-by, waiting for the Go to set the Dowd deposition desk on stage.
L-R: Marc Moritz, me, Doug MacKechnie, Patrica O'Hara, Brian Dykstra, & Scott Hunt. ‐‐ (Photo: Heather Powell)

THE NEXT GIG WITH A PAYCHECK:

This one is the Region 7 regional of the 2019 National Trial Competition, which takes place February 8 through 10 at the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in Columbus, Ohio. As is often the case, I have the facts and the stories of two characters to learn for the guided improv.

There's a rehearsal at U.D. tomorrow morning, which I will miss all or most of because I have an important Dayton Theatre Guild board of directors meeting starting at the same time. The DTG meeting was rescheduled from this past Saturday because we all thought the winter storm that did eventually materialize was going to arrive sooner than it did. There's another U.D. gig rehearsal a week from tomorrow at the school that I will make.

HOPING TO REVISIT A ROLE IN A READING:

The latest is that it will be "in February." I'm hoping that my new U.D. Law gig does not cause a conflict that can't be worked around.

UPDATE ON THE NYC TRIP IN MAY:

Well, I went on Hotels.com, found a great deal, with a great location, The Belvedere, and will be spending the three nights I wrote of hoping for in the last blog. I check in Friday evening and check out Monday morning. The Belvedere is less than a ten-minute walk from The Shubert, where the play is up,

I've given myself two full days for the excursion. Of course, Saturday afternoon belongs to Mockingbird. I'm also going to try to put an off-broadway show on the agenda for Saturday evening. I've further decided that if I'm going to New York City, there's no way that I'm not putting The Met on the agenda, I mean, come on now. My research tells me that the path to The Met from The Belvedere is a two-mile, 40-minute walk through the length of Central Park -- yep, I'm staying right in downtown Manhatten, just minutes away from Central Park, and my excitement about this clearly makes me a mid-western, yokel tourist, but I don't care.

Being this tourist ‐‐ but hoping to not be too "touristy" ‐‐ I greatly look forward to experiencing Central Park, uh, during the day, that is. As a major Beatles fan, how will I not make a point of visiting Strawberry Fields while at the park?

I'm also hoping during my weekend to catch some time with a few of my New York theatre peeps. I already have a couple hook-ups potentially set up.

Back to the main event, I know that Jeff Daniels, as well most of the rest of the cast, come out the public stage door and meet with fans for autographs, and perhaps photos. I know two people who have gotten Jeff's autograph. Jeff and I share a role in a play, one of my favorites, for reasons most have a difficult time understanding ‐‐ the character of Ray in David Harrower's Blackbird. Jeff actually originated the role in America in 2007 at The Manhatten Theatre Club, and then reprised it in a production at The Belasco Theatre in 2016. I am taking my actor's edition for his autograph. I'd actually love to spend some time discussing that play with him and sharing our experiences climbing inside the role of Ray, but I think we know that is not going to happen.

ANOTHER ROLE I'D REVISIT, GIVEN THE CHANCE:

For those few who are familiar with the show, this article explores the scary depths of the script and what the actors playing it face. For those not familiar, and for even those who are, it has some great insight into "from-page-to-stage," at least in terms of the actors and the director:

"Jeff Daniels on the Terror of Returning to 'Blackbird'."

DAMN YOU, AMAZON PRIME VIDEO!:

And that, my friends, is exactly what happened....


Check out Bert Saidel's review of the show: CLICK HERE.

ANNOUNCING THE CAST:

CHARACTER		ACTOR
Anna		Kathy Campbell
Seth		Mark Sharp
Abby		Kerry Simpson
Lover		Tim Rezash
*updated to reflect change in cast

I'll also be starting to work on the sound design. The first order of business is harvesting music from 1984 and slightly earlier for all of pre-show, intermission, and production music.

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

PLAYWRIGHT WORK:

I set the manuscript aside for a little while. I've gone back to it but it's slow-going at the moment. I'm still at that breach of the climix, which I wrote of being at in my Jan 14 entry. I've progress a little passed it, but not much.

It's getting to the breaking point for one of the characters that is the sticking point. I have a vague idea how to get there, but I haven't discovered yet. I keep writing then deleting, writing and deleting. But each time I gain a little ground, so I am moving forward.


I attended a brief meeting yesterday at U.D. Law school about the upcoming 2019 National Trial Competition, taking place at the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in Columbus, Ohio in a couple weeks. As I wrote above, there was an actual rehearsal going on but I had to miss it because of a Dayton Theatre Guild board meeting I could not miss. But I did meet for about an hour with one of the instructors and with the leader of the student team to which I am assigned.

There was another rehearsal I did not know about this morning but I was not able to rearrange my plans for the morning to attend. But I will be able to make the next rehearsal next weekend and then, of course, the gig, itself, the second weekend of February.

Directed by David Shough Produced by K.L.Storer & Ryan Shannon The Shadow Box made its Broadway debut in 1977, winning both the Tony Award for Best Play and the Pulitzer Prize for Drama. Joe, Brian, and Felicity come from different walks of life, but all three are spending their final days with family in hospice cottages on the grounds of a large California hospital in the mid-1970s. Joe's wife Maggie is in denial, as they both struggle to accept the truth. Agnes dutifully cares for her mother Felicity, who pines for the return of her other daughter, and Brian must play referee between his brassy ex-wife and his male lover. Each day, the residents are observed and counseled by an invisible Interviewer as they explore their emotional and physical struggles.

CHARACTER		ACTOR
Joe		Brendan Sheehan
Maggie		Jackie Anderson
Steve		Elisha Chamberlin
Anges		Mandy Shannon
Felicity		Melissa Kerr Ertsgaard
Brian		Chuck Larkowski
Mark		Aaron Brewer
Beverly		Megan Cooper
The Interviewer		Geoff Burkman

ANNOUNCING DAYTON THEATRE GUILD 2019/2020 SEASON:

The Musical Comedy Murders Of 1940
by John Bishop
Directed by Doug Lloyd
Showing Aug 23-Sep 9, 2019

Decision Height
by Meredith Dayna Levy
Directed by David Senatore
Showing Oct 11-27, 2019

Icebergs
by Alena Smith
Directed by Debra Kent
Showing Nov 29-Dec 15, 2019

Mr. Rickey Calls a Meeting
by Ed Schmidt
Directed by Rick Flynn
Showing Jan 24-Feb 9, 2020

Morning's at Seven
by Paul Osborn
Directed by Kathy Mola
Showing Mar 20-Apr 5, 2020

The Old Man and the Old Moon
Book/music/lyrics: Pigpen Theatre Co.
Directed by Jeff Sams
Showing May 29-June 14, 2020

Scot Woolley

Over the weekend, musical director, instructor, and performer Scot Woolley died. Scot was the musical director of the first professional musical I was in, Caroline, or Change, at the Human Race Theatre Company -- actually my first professional theatre gig, period. Scot was kind and patient and most helpful to me as the freshman I was to that world.

Since then I would see him on campus at Wright State University on a regular basis, usually when he was at Starbucks in the library getting coffee. He was always friendly and most interested in what production I was currently, or would be soon, involved with, be it a pro gig or not.

A lot of people in South West Ohio feel the loss of this man. I did not know him as well as most of them did, but I always made a point of saying hello to him because he was always so friendly and supportive.

And he was a great musical director.

Rest in peace Scot.

I will miss those lovely encounters with you.

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

PLAYWRIGHT WORK:

In adding new material on the mobile app, specifically some new dialogue, I discovered that the mobile app does not seem to format play script dialogue properly. New dialogue that is created in the mobile app appears to be in the screenplay format, rather than the stage play format ‐‐ for the uninitiated, it has to do with paragraph indenting: screenplays and teleplays have specific formating rules about indenting dialogue paragraphs on both the left and the right. Stage plays have no indents, the text goes to the general page margins.

I discovered this issue when I did just that, added some new dialogue. I have things set up to sync between the mobile app on my phone and the software on my laptop, via iCloud. My assumption was that I was going to have to open the script up on my laptop then reformat that new dialogue to meet the proper formating for a play script. As it turns out, however, the new dialogue was properly formatted. My guess is that the software reformatted it automatically when I opened the document on my laptop.

This automatic synchronization/updating (with adjustments) between the two devices is a great thing!

As for progress on the manuscript, it's going sort of slowly, but, there is progress all the same. There's work being done, it's just that the pages are not advancing quickly. I've been tweaking previously written dialogue, including adding material to previous sections and making other areas more concise, or changing the wording.

Also, in looking though my story bible for something specific, I realized that I got something else wrong (or, inconsistent) with the bible. Some writers would contemplate ignoring that. I will not. Nor will I alter the bible to conform with what I'm writing now. As far as I'm concerned, I'm adhering to historical fact. Fortunately, it was an easy fix, just an addition to a sentence and the alteration of another ‐‐ all in the same paragraph.

The slow pace has to do with the fact that I have reached the climax area of the story and decisions about exactly what's going on and how to write it are becoming more challenging. Still, I think I will have a finished first draft in the near future and will be ready to have a table reading.

I'M NOT A REAL FORENSIC TOXICOLOGIST....:

The case problem was one of a young woman who is charged with DUI and vehicular manslaughter. The problem does not make it cut and dry for either side. There are, I believe, purposeful flaws, errors, and inconstancies built into the materials (the deposition transcripts, and the varies police, medical, and lab reports). There may also be a few errors that are simply inadvertent. The aspiring lawyers had the challenge of presenting their case and either avoiding or exploiting those flaws as was in their best interest.

During the course of Friday evening and Saturday during the day, the team I was assigned to competed in three matches, two as defense, one as prosecution. Unfortunately, they did not go on to the final round on Sunday morning. As is always the case in these mock trial competitions there was a lot of talent and a lot of stiff competition. It's always a joy to be a part of it and see great young talent at work.


We had a production meeting last week, during that polar vortex weather and have launched into various degrees of preproduction. The production team is pretty much put together. Auditions are still slated for Monday and Tuesday, March 4 and 5, at the theatre, 7:00 pm until 9:00/9:30-ish.

We've also determined the cut-off year for pop songs that we'll use for pre-show, intermission, and production music. Let's just say: "mid-80's." I haven't started to actually curate but I do have a few specific ideas already.

I've also not yet been able to secure clearance to use dialogue in the promocast. I am going to give it another try.

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

PLAYWRIGHT WORK:

This playwriting thing has been painstakingly slow, as I have written here already, yet, there has been steady progress. As the wise saying goes:

"It's okay to take one step backward then two steps forward."

Not only are those points important to consider, but also how to best get these arguments onto the page is a consideration. In at least one such section, there are a lot of these overlaps and interruptions that involve all three of the characters, each engaging in at least one, and often two, of these dialogue elements at the same time. Communicating, on the page, the placement, timing and pacing of the lines to the actors and to a director is not as straight-forward as some might imagine.

I've also been having mixed emotions and differing opinions in my head about the energy level during a section that I've recently written. One of the characters finally gives a truthful reveal of what's going on with them, in an angry burst. There's a seething anger and then an out burst, but then, because of where the dialogue goes, the character calms down. I'm not completely sure I want that to happen, but here's my dilemma: I want the dialogue to go where it's going at that moment, it's the right place to go, and muting the angry energy at that moment is what should happen. I have built the character back up to an angry energy again as the scene progresses from this point, though I'm concerned that it may not be enough.

I'm also very aware of how the whole section could slip into something maudlin and cliché. There needs to be a lot of sadness and pain, a lot of built up, deep hurt, and the line between something effective and something that rolls the eyes is a finer one than some might imagine. I have a similar concern about an earlier section, in another scene, where there's a danger of melodrama. I've occasionally gone back to that section to scrutinize and do a little tweaking.

Going back to earlier parts has been the norm. When I'm at the end of the manuscript and I come to a wall about what's next or how to get down what I know I want to be next, I have often gone back and gone through the whole manuscript, tweaking and tightening, on a couple occasions adding things I realized needed to be there, and cutting things I saw should be cut.

I have had people emphatically tell me that I should not do it this way, that I should get a whole draft done then go back. But I what I'm doing works for me. I have on occasion realized that I need to refer back to something from earlier. Now it's clear I would have made that discovery by doing it the other way, but here's my thought. It seems terribly likely that I\if I were to get through one draft then go back through and fix that drafts (in Draft #2), then go back and fix that draft (in #4), or if I do what I'm doing, go back and tweak when I come to a wall, then work may way back to the wall, by which time I know how to break through that wall, I am likely to wind up with the same result with me first finished draft as I would have with #4 the other way, and in likely about the same time period. So, I'm just fine with my method, thank you.

TO TAINT A MOCKINGBIRD:

Some other theatre people have a tainting of their own to deal with. In my own neighborhood that would be the good people at the Dayton Playhouse who, until recently, expected to open a mounting, this past Friday evening, of the original stage adaptation by Christopher Sergel. However, less than a week before the production would have gone into tech rehearsals they had to pull the production, as many reading this will already know.

For those who don't know the story, DPH and more than a half-dozen other non-professional theatres around the country, who were on track to mount the Sergel version, recently received cease-and-desist letters from Atticus LLC, set up for the new Broadway production by the main producer of the new production, Scott Rudin, through his company, Rudinplay. The letter claimed the theatres were in violation of a provision of the original license agreement that precludes them from performing the play within 25 miles of any city with a population of 150,000 or more, "if a 'first-class dramatic play' based on the novel were playing in New York or on tour" (*Miller) ‐‐ "first-class" meaning, major professional production. The theatres were told they had to pull their productions or face legal action. Atticus LLC even threatened a planned tour of the Sergel adaptation by a professional company in Great Britain, and the tour was cancelled.

I have heard of rights being pulled for local productions in the past. I don't know the details, but one of our long-timers at The Dayton Theatre Guild once told me that one of our shows had its rights pulled because a professional theatre had picked the play up for its season, and it was close enough in proximity to be able to do such a thing. I know that a few years back we had a production of Neil LaBute's Fat Pig slated, and just about the time we were going into rehearsal I saw that a Broadway production was going to be mounted shortly, starring Dane Cook. I was waiting for the shoe to drop, for use to get notice from Samual French that the rights had been rescinded by request of the B'Way producers. It could have happened. For some reason that B'Way production was scrapped. I just wonder what would have happened had it not been.

But that was a production of the same script. Here we are dealing with two adaptations of the novel, two separate derivatives of the original work. It's easy to see how at least some of the parties involved could see no issues with the two different scripts being produced at the same time. I saw one person equate this to more or less like My Fair Lady verses Pygmalion.

The first sign I saw of the Mockingbird trouble was when a facebook notification popped up that the fb event for the DPH production had been cancelled. I assumed there was some sort of problem with the event page and the social media person was going to rebuild it from scratch, or something. A few minutes later I saw the DPH posting that they had to cancel the production.

Their announcement, in part, said that though they had properly acquired the rights to the Sergel version, and had done so 14 months previously, "the opening of the new production in New York has changed the business landscape and appears to have rendered [our] rights no longer valid." Their statement went on to say that they had sought legal counsel and determined that "under threat of substantial legal action from Rudinplay the decision was made to cancel the production" and that the theatre was "not in a position to risk an expensive legal battle that could threaten the corporation's future viability." Clearly, comparable statements were issued by the other theatres who have had to cancel their productions.

At this point in the story, Scott Rudin looked like a major asshole and the absolute bad guy in the scenario. On our local front, and I would guess on the other local fronts, the cry by some was "Fuck Rudin!" and some were adding "Fuck Sorkin!" Rudin, as it has turns out, is not the only bad player in this game, though he still comes off less than stellar in the end.

For me, at the top of this fiasco is how ridiculous is the notion that the new version, enjoying record-breaking attendance for a straight play on Broadway, would have any competition from the non-professional productions of a different adaptation. To begin with, the B'Way production is sold-out into June ‐‐ when I bought my ticket in early January for the May 11 matinée, there were about a dozen seats left, maybe fewer. I also know that I was planning on seeing both versions, and I know several other people in Dayton with tickets for the Sorkin version who were planning to see the Sergel version at DPH. Granted, everyone I'm referring to is a theatre person (all actors), and all people who have a tendency to support local theatre whenever we can, so there is a bit of a skew going on, I admit. I am still betting that any ticket that would have been lost from the B'Way production because of a local mounting of the earlier script, would be swiftly absorbed by another ticket buyer.

I don't even think the argument flies that there'd be competition for the national tour, which Rudin has on the docket. I know several people, some local, some theatre connections closer to New York, who have seen the new version and all of them have declared it an amazing script. The reviews of Sorkin's script have been consistently rave, with only one that I've seen having any negative critiques. The buzz is hot. People are going to go see it. My thought is that many will go because they are curious about how it is different from the original play and from the film adaptation. Again, the idea of serious competition by the non-professional theatres to the Broadway production, and eventual tour, is ludicrous. This is why Rudin was immediately branded as "a greedy bastard." I saw that specific label more than once on social media.

The initial assumption was that Rudinplay/Atticus LLC was the 800-pound gorilla coming in and foisting a legal ploy without likely having the legal standing to win in court, but having the pocketbook to out-manuever the little theatres who wouldn't be able to financially sustain the fight in court to the finish line. Rudin certainly appeared the big-ass bully.

As more information has come out, he's not looking like the only one who's at fault, and he may not be all the much at fault ‐‐ though he still ain't comin' off with the kindness and demeanor of a Fred Rogers by any stretch of the imagination. I haven't seen the text of the cease-and-desist letters that Rudinplay was sending to the small theatres, but I know of several accounts that describe the letter as aggressively threatening. If those accounts are so, one must ask, was it not possible to relay the same message with less antagonism? Still, Rudin's aggressive threats aside, he may not have been totally out of left field in terms of asserting rights. But he still hasn't shaken that bully image.

It's looking like a complicated mess, and the publisher of the original adaptation, Dramatic Publishing co. (DPC), seems to have possibly made at least one misstep, if Rudin is to be believed. As one article quotes Rudin:

"We had let Christopher Sergel's grandson and DPC know months ago they had no longer any right to license it under the conditions," Rudin [said]. "They basically ignored about a half a dozen cease-and-desist letters and continued to license it, then we started to see these productions pop up and we said to the people who were doing them, 'You don't have the right to do this.'"
(*Rooney)

The Miller article says:

Why did Rudin go after the theatres rather than Dramatic Publishing? "We don't do anything about enforcing these rights issues without the estate's participation and consent," Rudin said, adding that the Lee estate has put Dramatic Publishing on notice "a dozen times" about their violation of the original licensing rights. He added that while Atticus LLC isn't in a position to confront Dramatic directly, the Lee estate ‐‐ and the theatres who suffered losses here and in the U.K. ‐‐ do have legal standing.

[Mr. Sergel] accused the estate of the "Mockingbird" author, Harper Lee, acting in concert with Mr. Rudin, of causing financial losses to Dramatic Publishing by making "false statements" to local theaters.
(*Alter and Paulson)

If Miller's article is correct, DPC may have some problems, since Rudinplay or Atticus LLC was demanding that the stipulations of the original agreement for the Sergel version be adhered to. If Rudin is telling the truth that he and the Lee estate have been warning DPC for months, DPC may end up holding the bag. It makes it appear that DPC was issuing rights when they knew it might be a problem and there was, at the very least, question as to whether they still had the authority. It's clear they believe they did, but they did not even warn any of the theatres there was a potential issue as they were continuing to grant performance rights. It also appears that they didn't contact theatres they had previously issued rights to but who had not mounted the play yet, such as The Dayton Playhouse, to give them a heads up, which is the least they could have done.

There's been a lot of talk bantered around on social media about a class-action suit. The question is who would that suit be best aimed at? My guess is, when this all plays out, the Lee estate, DPC, and Rudinplay are all culpable of something. The thing is, who's culpable in a manner that would be credibly actionable? The only ones who are clearly not culpable are the theatres who applied for rights in good faith.

Mind you, this is all a layman's opinion on my part, so, I don't suggest using this blog post as a citable source.

Then of course, late in the story, as the Rooney article describes, Rudin has offered up a solution, but one that for some theatres is not presently practical. He will allow them to mount the new script, so long as it's one of the theatres involved in the dispute. For DPH this gesture will not solve the immediate problem of the dark theatre at the moment. There was no way they would have been able to get the new script on its feet by the scheduled opening night of March 8. It's quite a different script and the cast of characters do not line up completely with the version they had rehearsed. And they have another production slated to go up on May 3, a musical, which needs to start rehearsals shortly. Though DPH chairman Matt Lindsay has said that he will investigate the offer and speak with the Playhouse's board of directors (*Evans). So, it's not impossible that DPH mounts the new version at some point. I am not clear on whether this Rudin offer has a royalty fee attached or a time limit. At one point I thought I'd read that it was free and there was no time limit, but I am not finding that information, so I may have misread something.

Of course, for me the question is: if he's going to let the theatres do the Sorkin script, why not let them go ahead with the Sergel script? It causes me to think that I did indeed misread something and he's charging the performance royalties. Not an evil thing, but not doing anything to push him closer to Mr. Rogers territory, especially since the theatres are taking the financial hit for their unscheduled dark theatres, most of those to the tune of far more than $10 thousand.

Also bantered around on social media is a call to boycott not only Rudin's production of Mockingbird but any other productions he backs. Once again, I'm starting to think he may not be the one to boycott, or not the only one. DPC looks quite irresponsible in all this, too. As I wrote above, I think the universe of the new script is in little to no danger from productions of old script, so, I don't believe Rudinplay has needed to take any action. But, there may be legal cause there in his favor. That idea that he was coming in like the 800-pund gorilla and asserting something that wasn't valid just because he gambled that he could be the bully that got away with it may not be true. That doesn't address the alleged aggression of the cease-and-desist letters (again, "alleged" because I am not privy to the text of the letters).

Moreover, it looks now like the local theatres were caught unawares because DPC was holding out information that they could have shared, hoping the problem would go away. DPC may, themselves, have had the right to issue the performance rights, as they certainly have concluded, but shouldn't they have informed the theatres they were dealing with that there was a legal conflict brewing that the theatres should be aware of, that might directly affect their productions?

Did Harper Lee, before her death (or did her estate), grant Rudinplay rights she should not have in violation of the agreement with DPC? Or, is the letter of the agreement quite clear, as it seems it may be, that non-professional theatre companies cannot mount a production within 25 miles of a city with a population of 150-thousand or more "if a 'first-class dramatic play' based on the novel were playing in New York or on tour." Is the estate in the wrong for siding with Rudinplay against DPC, or are they legally sound in their stance?

Some people are also in the "boycott Sorkin" frame of mind. I had a debate with someone, with me stating the fact that Aaron Sorkin was commissioned to write the new adaptation, so his control over the rights is likely non-existant and may not revert to him at any point. The argument from the other side, not without some merit, is that he still has a bully pulpet and could speak out against what Rudin is doing. Except, that, first, he may be contractually or otherwise legally gagged from commenting; second, the assertion that he should and could speak out against Rudin was made in the early period of this when DPCs lack of action and possible culpability was not yet out there ‐‐ Sorkin may not find Rudin's interpretation of the legalities incorrect, and, as I've written above, I can see that as a valid thought.

And I'm going to give Jeff Daniels a big pass for not commenting publicly. Letting himself get mixed in this fray can invite some serious interference into his work on stage as Atticus. My guess, completely based on my idea of where I would be if I were in his position, is that he's staying as removed from this as he can for the sake of Atticus.

Yeah, it's a mess. As I wrote previously, everyone seems to have screwed up on something here. But some may have made minor transgressions compared to others. Who is the one with the biggest act of bad faith does not seem absolutely clear-cut to me ‐‐ though, despite the seeming unpopularity in the theatre communities of this notion, I'm leaning away from Rudin. And I'm betting by the time it's truly sorted out, a lot of the attention on the story will have long since died.

As for me boycotting the Broadway production? ‐‐ that ship has sailed, at least a financial boycott. I can't financially boycott them because I bought my ticket in January and the Shubert ain't giving my money back, not unless the performance is cancelled, and who's dumb enough to take that bet? I also have a non-refundable hotel reservation in a 4-star hotel. Plus, I am not holding malice toward the cast and the crew of the show. I'm personally not holding malice toward Sorkin. I'm not even completely faulting Rudin, though I do believe he handled things terribly and has taken some unnecessary actions ‐‐ he could have played far nicer, even in the gesture of his "solution."

Plus I have other plans for that trip. I'm seeing another play, off-Broadway, that evening: Sam Shepard's Curse of the Starving Class at the Signature Theatre. I also am planning a visit the next day to The Met. I don't know how I stay two miles from that museum and not take the 45 minute walk through Central Park to visit and spend some serious time there. At this point it's the only thing on my agenda for the day, so I can spend plenty of time there ‐‐ and, no, I won't be strolling through the park in the evening or at night. I'm definitely visiting the main museum, and I may also check out The Met Breur. There are a lot of things to check out in Central Park, too, but of great interest to The Beatlefreak in me is Strawberry Fields, the John Lennon memorial. And I know I am fitting in a lunch or dinner, or whatever, with at least one of my New York City theatre people, and between now and them I might line up some more such rendezvous.

But in terms of me still attending the B'Way Mockingbird, I have to came back to how everyone I know who has seen the production has given high praise both to Sorkin's script and to Daniels and the rest of the cast. So, simply put, I have a ticket to see it and I want to see it. The boycott of the most value is out of my reach anyway, as I've said. Even if I were to sell my ticket, that ticket was still purchased. And, again, I am not as sold on the idea that a boycott is best leveled against Rudin in the first place. Plus, I go back to how the artists involved in the show are not involved in this mêlée. My refusal to see their work would not take any forceful stand against the stupidity that is this whole mess ‐‐ and I still laid down just shy of $1200 for my ticket and my hotel room.

So, any body who wants to give me grief: I'm more than willing to accept a check, but cash would be better.

It's still tainted for me. I would much rather not have this new legacy as part of the texture of the experience. To know that the cast and crew at DPH had the rug pulled out from under them at the last minute, that their excitement and anticipation was shut down, that their shared bonding was redirected to such a disappointment, and that other theatres share the same experience, it takes a bit of the giddiness out if it for me.

But when I hand Jeff Daniels my highlighted, marked-up, tattered actor's edition of Blackbird to autograph, (because Mr. Daniels and I share the role of Ray in that intense play), I will be just fine with it.

Following are a few recent news stories about the Mockingbird ordeal, some which I quoted from, above ‐‐ be advised that you may hit a paywall for some links.

*"Dayton Playhouse cancels 'To Kill A Mockingbird' after Broadway legal threat" by Dana Smith
*"Legal Threats From Broadway's 'Mockingbird' Sink Productions Around the Country" by Michael Paulson and Alexandra Alter
*"Community Theaters Kill 'Mockingbird' Productions After Lawsuit Threat" by Matthew S. Schwartz
*"Scott Rudin Responds to 'Mockingbird' Controversy With a Solution" by David Rooney
*"Scott Rudin Offers Community Theaters 'To Kill A Mockingbird' After Controversy" by Greg Evans
*"The Long, Strange Flight of 'Mockingbird'" by Stuart Miller
*"'Mockingbird' Play Publisher Demands $500,000 From Harper Lee Estate" by Alexandra Alter and Michael Paulson

THE CAST IS SET....LET'S GO!:

Auditions were last Monday and Tuesday evening. Three-quarters of the cast was picked Tuesday eve, shortly after the audition ended. However, we had no woman show up to read for the role of Francine (Jo's mother). We had to reach out to a few actresses that would be typed for the role. We held off announcing the cast until we filled that role.

Here is the cast:

Carly Risenhoover-Peterson as Josephine (Jo)
Cassandra Engber as Francine
Heather Atkinson as Sherry
Scott Knisley as Donny

Finally, after my most recent attempt, I was able to get in contact with Melissa Ross's current agent to seek clearance to use dialogue in the promocast. Friday I called the agency and spoke with the agent's assistant and after a some follow-up emails I got word from the assistant that approval has been granted. So, we have received approval for every show this season. More importantly, I don't have to come up with how to shoot the video without using dialogue! Though I was happy with what I came up with for Marjorie Prime, which was the last one that had to be handled that way.


I dropped by Troy Civic Theatre Friday night to catch their production of Neil Simon's The Sunshine Boys, featuring Saul Caplan as Willie Clark and Dave Nickel as Al Lewis. It was a fun night out with one of Simon's most popular scripts. Here's to The Sunshine Boys and their supporting cast and crew, Scot Atkinson (Ben), Barrie VanKirk (Vaudeville Stage Assistant), Dean Shipley (Vaudeville Director), Chuck Melvin (Patient), Julie Zalar (Vaudeville Nurse), Jessica Fox (Registered Nurse), Cathie Melvin (Director), Esther Marko (Stage Manager), and all the designers and builders.

I'll be seeing a few more shows in the near future, including the dramatic reading of Hand of God by Robert Askins, which is tonight at the Human Race Theatre Company. Originally I was going to have to miss this because there was a dialect coaching session for the cast of Nice Girl at DTG this evening, and I have to be involved, but that was rescheduled. There are a couple other professional productions coming up that I'll be seeing, and I'll get to them as they occur.

Over the course of months I've missed a lot of these that I've wanted to recognize. So many that I'm going to break them up. Here are the ones from the last part of 2018 that I missed, in order of their passing. I'll do 2019, I Hope, in the next blog post.

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

PLAYWRIGHT WORK:

I had to print the scene out on paper so I could mark the beats (the sections) that should move, and number each section as per their new order. Then I was able to go in and highlight and cut-and-paste in Final Draft.

One other thing I've done is go through the whole manuscript and clean up some formatting things. I'd had this idea of putting a lot of internal parenthetical directions, those which appear in dialogue, on their own line if they appear at the start of the dialogue. I've decided to nix that with one exception of a specific direction that has to do with dialogue that overlaps a previous piece of dialogue by another character, or if the directions run more than halfway across the page.

Now to get back to the end of the manuscript and get the thing to its conclusion!


Monday evening I attended the dramatic reading of Hand of God by Robert Askins at the Human Race Theatre Company. The script is not unlike Christopher Durang's style: highly satirical, employing shock-value of language and sacrilege. I was also quite impressed with the performances from the cast. They all were stellar but I give big kudos to Colin Hodgkin, a Wright State University Musical Theatre major, who rocked it hard as the virtually schizophrenic Jason/Tyrone.

The other fine actors were Jeremy Farley (WSU), Gina Handy (Magnolia Theatre Company), Lauren Kampan (WSU), and John-Michael Lander. The reading was well-directed by Scott Hunt, whom I shared a dressing room with, if not any actual stage time, during Band from Baseball this past Fall.

This was a test balloon by HRTC to measure response toward a possible full production on their stage in the future. I vote "Yes!"

Since the new year has begun,There have been quite a few celebrity passings that I want to give attention to. I won't remark on them with the exception of Peter Tork. The Monkees were my very first "favorite" band. When they hit the scene in 1966 I was eight, so I was on the lower end of the commercial demographic that they would appeal to. I religiously watched the TV series and had their debut album memorized, despite that I misheard (mis-learned) some of the lyrics. During that period when The Monkees were number-one with me, before I crossed over into Beatleland, I had a great affinity for Peter. I'm not sure why. It was that performer's presence thing. Later I came to admire him because, as I got older and learned real things about him, though I was never an expert on his life, I found that he seemed an honorable and admirable man. Like all the others recognized below, I wish his friends and family all they need as they grieve their loss.

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

PLAYWRIGHT WORK:

Nah, I don't need to read it.

Here's the thing: I've been butting up against the ending of this play and finding it difficult to get the climax completed and then get into whatever resolution there will be ‐‐ if there will be one. Thus, I now have a deadline for a completed draft, one that we'll call "draft 1," though with the third-millennium ability to so easily rewrite any section at any time a "draft 1" has really already had a bit of rewriting and revision done to it; as example: my March 13 entry about rearranging Scene 1 of the play.

I hereby declare the deadline of midnight, March 31 to have the first completed draft.

I hope to have a table read coming soon after ‐‐ "soon" being vaguely defined.

*) updated, 01-19-2023 to reflect that the literary website ‐‐ The WriteGallery Creative Writing Website ‐‐ is no longer live on the web.

READING TOMORROW:

I'll be part of an in-class table read tomorrow for the Ohio Playwrights Circle. I was to do one last Saturday, but the playwright was ill, so that was postponed.

AND IN NEW YORK CITY, IN THE EVENING ON MAY 11....:

There it is, Row C, seat 105.

Yesterday I bought my ticket for the 8:00 performance of Sam Shepard's Curse of the Starving Class at the Signature Theatre, the evening of the same day as my matinée veiwing of To Kill a Mockingbird on May 11.

Here's some interesting math, the Mockingbird, Broadway ticket, after services charges, etc., ran me $440. Though I have a pretty great seat for Mockingbird, I'm nine rows back, my Curse, off-Broadway seat, after its services charges, etc., was $42, and as you can see from the chart on the right, I'm three rows back. That's one-third of the distance for less than ten-percent of the cost compared to Mockingbird.

By the way, I got an email from The Signature with the cast list:

Lizzy DeClement
Flora Diaz
Gilles Geary
Esau Pritchett
Andy Rothenberg
Maggie Siff
David Warshofsky

Meanwhile, in the present ‐‐ tonight I'm at the Human Race Theatre Company for Around the World in 80 Days, featuring, among others, Jared Joplin and Jake Lockwood. Jared is the brother of Jennifer Joplin, also an actor, and she whom I've taken several acting courses from. Jake is, of course, of the Dayton Lockwood theatre family, and is an amazing comedic actor who rocks at improv, and has just become a resident artist at HRTC.

Haven't done them yet. I'm thinking there's a good chance I will owe this year due to the wonderful new tax laws. I had a few acting gigs last year and since most of the deductions have been disallowed, there was a bit of withholding that wasn't taken out that may present a problem for me.

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

PLAYWRIGHT WORK:

I posted the above on facebook about mid-evening yesterday. I am happy to say that later in the evening I found a good way to advance toward the right direction. It wasn't a lot of new materail, only eight paragraphs, but, progress forward all the same.

That midnight, March 31 deadline to have the "first" draft finished is still the hard deadline.

The table read, I hope, will be scheduled soon after this draft is complete; I'm shooting to have it before the end of April, if it's possible.


Around the World in 80 Days at Human Race Theatre Company -- Friday evening I was in attendance for this stellar production featuring nothing less than a top-notch ensemble cast. The production was impressive from top to bottom. I hate to single out one of the fine performances, because they were all excellent, but I have to give major kudos to Jake Lockwood for his tour de force performance as seventeen separate characters and his wonderful comedic execution of each and every one of them. But, as already stated, the rest of the cast gave strong performances, too: Jared Joplin (as Phileas Fogg), Lovlee Carroll, Patrick Earl Phillips, and Darlene Spencer, the latter three also performing as multiple characters. Kudos to them all. And kudos to Director Joe Deer for navigating such a great trip around the world. And the designers.....

Our Mother's Brief Affair at DTG ‐‐ I saw the closing performance of our Guild show yesterday. A really nice little story that the cast and crew told well. Here's to the cast (Cathy Campbell, Tim Rezash, Mark Sharp, & Kerry Simpson), Director Patrick Allyn Hayes, and designers: Patrick Allyn Hayes (scenic, costumes & props), Scott Wright (lighting) & Ryan Shannon (sound). Christina Tomazinis was our producer and Scott Madden was the stage manager.

This week: A Winter's Tale at CincyShakes ‐‐ Next up for me "in the audience" will be Wednesday at CincyShakes where I'll see my recent castmate Marc Moritz (Reuvan Katz in Banned from Baseball). Also in the cast is another former castmate of mine, Josh Katawick.

Adding to the NYC trip: Fiddler on the Roof ‐‐ (A Fidler Afn Dakh) at Stage 42 -- Another past castmate, Bruce Sabath (Caroline, or Change), has been appearing for a year or more in the Yiddish version of Fiddler on the Roof, which is directed by Joel Grey. Bruce has been in a role I played once, in high school, that of Lazar Wolf, though in this case, Bruce is Leyzer Volf. There's more than a 99.9% probability that I'll be seeing this production on the Sunday evening that I'm in New York City in May. I looked just a few days ago and there are plenty of good seats left for that performance. I'm waiting on the possibility of greatly discounted ticket for one of those seats.

I was at first thinking, do I want to sit through two and a half hours of a show in a language that I don't know? But then I had that DOH! moment: I've done the show twice, I've seen the damn thing several times; I kinda know the story. Plus, there will be English subtitles scrawling on a panel, but I may not attend to those.

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

PLAYWRIGHT WORK:

Of course, now there's a big monkey wrench thrown in. When I woke up yesterday, I had this thought that I tried to dismiss but could not. As the day progressed I pondered the idea more and more and it has now grown into a conundrum for me. The idea that came to me is to have one of the characters narrate, break the fourth wall, and I'm now at odds with myself about it.

One advantage is that I can more easily take a lot of exposition out of the in-scene dialogue and put it in the mouth of the character as he breaks the fourth wall and talks to the audience. It's actually much less awkward since that is almost always one of the purposes of such narration. The big danger of "slipping" exposition into the regular dialogue is how forced it can be. You can easily end up with a character uttering sentences that are not at all natural in conversation between people familiar with each other, that have no verisimilitude, that would not be uttered in a real conversation between two people who know each other and have a history together. In other words, people don't explicitly state facts of their lives that are well-known between each other. Audiences pick up on that, too. They will very quickly recognize something that is only being said for their benefit, and that takes them out of their suspension of disbelief because it makes them aware of the playwright giving them information.

For some reason, the conceit of a character breaking the fourth wall to address the audience and give them exposition does not interfere with suspension of disbelief. I guess it's that the character addressing them becomes a go-between, a liaison, between them and the playwright and this is an acceptable way to get the information out. It works well. Look at some of the strongest famous examples: The Stage Manager in Our Town, Tom in The Glass Menagerie, or Scout in To Kill a Mockingbird.

The disadvantage in my mind is that to have my character do this would change the mood and the tone in a manner that I am not sure I want. I do still find this new idea compelling, but I am in a big debate with myself about the pros and cons. My decision is to not start over at the moment, not do an overhaul. For one thing, to do so at this time would render the current deadline a lost goal. I'm going to proceed with the script in its present form. I'll invite in actors, at least one which I've already approached, have the table reading, see where I am after hearing that, and keep this particular new idea as an option for later in the process.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm off to start the first load of laundry, and multi-task with: a) finishing this blog entry; b) finishing the dishwashing I started last night; c) the rest of the night working in Final Draft in between them later trips to the laundry room.......

DIALECT WORK:

This is at least the third time that D'Arcy has taken a DTG cast to Boston, or, a script has taken both D'Arcy and the cast to Boston, whichever way you want to see it.

As a passing note, one of D'Arcy's mentors was the late, great Rocco Del Vera, a truly brilliant dialect coach, whom I had the great pleasure of working with, twice.

D'Arcy, Skyping from Cincy

D'Arcy, Skyping from Cincy ‐‐ 2

The Nice Girl cast, during the Skye session. L-R: Scott Knisley, Cassandra Engber, Heather Atkinson, & Carly Risenhoover-Peterson. In back: Director Debra Kent.

BILLY SHAKES AT CINCYSHAKES:

Wednesday, I saw A Winter's Tale at The Cincinnati Shakespeare Company (AKA:CincyShakes) with two past castmates walking the boards. As the Old Shepard and Archidamus was Marc Moritz (who was Reuvan Katz last fall in Banned from Baseball with My John Dowd); as Polixenes was Josh Katawick who a few years back, was Anthony when I did the C.G. Bond original straight-play version of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street; as well he was various roles in Wayne Justice's original tribute to Edgar Allen Poe, Edgar, including Montresor to my Fortunato in The Cask of Amontillado. This past Wednesday's Shakespeare was a fine production with several stellar performances including from these two fine actors.

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

PLAYWRIGHT WORK:

The midnight March 31 deadline for a finished first draft of the play (this coming Sunday evening) is looming large on the horizon. There has been a lot of progress on the manuscript this week. It's gonna suck hard when I have to go back and start "killing my darlings!"

TWO ACTING GIGS ON THE NEAR HORIZON:

I'm back at The Ohio Playwrights Circle this Saturday morning as one of the readers for the table readings of two works-in-progress by playwrights in the current class. I've read for both scripts before.

I have another U.D. Law gig coming up in a couple weeks. It's a classroom mock trial case that I've done a few time before. So, all I need to do is brush up on the case facts and particulars.

Meanwhile, I'm awaiting my renumeration for the 2019 National Trial Competition gig I did last month. I've been told that "The cheque's in the mail."

Blog Index

Home

Latest Post

PLAYWRIGHT WORK:

Along with a little bit of tweaking that's happened I also have retitled the play. Though at the moment I don't want to share the new title, I will now share the dead title: Who's Who in Andromeda and the Milky Way -- yeah, I liked it less and less as time went on. The new title is much better. It fits much better and is far more appropriate. I can't swear it'll be the title of the final draft, but, at the moment, the new title works for me.

Another thing that I did was time it. I read it out loud, paced as it would be if being performed and, at this stage, the damn play's two acts! My intention was a one-act, but it came in yesterday afternoon at an hour and fifty minutes. That's too long for a one-act. I'm sure there are some out there that long, but I find it too long.

Sometime soon I'll have a table read. Not sure when I can fit it in, but I'm hoping it's not too far into the future. I'll invite a few others besides the readers, people who can give me valuable feedback. As to whether or not I can get it down to a one-act, guess we'll have to see what happens after the kill-my-darlings slaughter, if it turns out to be a slaughter, rather than just an assault.


Did a table read, yesterday, at the playwright class for the Ohio Playwrights Circle, of Act 2 of a script I have been involved with reading several time. Was supposed to read another one later during the class session but they ended up not needing me.

So I came home and tweaked my own play manuscript.