"Broadway" comes to town. And there was much rejoicing.

Hallelujah! The Legitimate The-ay-ter has finally come to town. The Lion King is on tour and we poor benighted souls in Central Virginia can finally get some culture. It's "Broadway in Richmond" at the Landmark Theater, and now we can spend a fortune on it just like real big-city folk. All it takes is $80 for each ticket and $15 for parking and you, yes, you can have a real honest-to-goodness theatrical experience!

(Sheldon Cooper alert: The above paragraph was, indeed, sarcasm.)

Every time one of these big shows comes to town I get the same slow, cynical burn of anger. Whether it be not one but two productions of Wicked in an 18-month span or the current tour of The Lion King, the local media behaves as if heavenly choirs have descended from the clouds, singing the praises of the Angel of Theatre, finally come to save us all from our regional culturelessness. "Praise Thespis!" cries the local media, beckoning families to spend Christmaslike sums of money on "Broadway in Richmond."

To put my frustration into perspective: The Times-Dispatch has no fewer than five links to Lion King articles or video on their website right now. But local theatre reviews are often relegated to inner pages of the paper facing obituaries. No wonder we theatre folk feel like our art is dying.

It's so frustrating that I find it difficult to even determine who or what I'm mad at. The fact is, I love The Lion King. I saw it on Broadway in 1998 and wept like a child when the elephant appeared in the aisle. Julie Taymor's direction and design were not only gorgeous and moving, they were something the like of which I had never seen. Then Timon and Pumbaa appeared and engaged my cynicism circuit with their entirely commercial duplication of the movie's character designs, voices, and even line readings. I started the show transported, and then Di$ney callously added the dis- to my enchantment. I certainly enjoyed the show, but was left with a very clear impression of what the production's priorities were, and insane profit was at the very top of the list. In the end, Taymor is a master of spectacle, of mime and mask, but the show is far more flagrantly commercial than we tend to think it is.

We all love spectacle. It's why the awful Star Wars prequels and Transformers movies are among the top-selling films of all time. But you know what's more impressive to me than the multimillion-dollar spectacle of a production with the financial might of Disney behind it? The bear in Richmond Shakespeare / Henley Street's The Winter's Tale. The spiral staircase from Theatre IV / Barksdale's Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. The running water and incredible bravery of Richmond Triangle Players' Take Me Out. The gripping contradictions of This Beautiful City. The hysterical fearlessness of the cast of A Midsummer Night's Dream. The entire worlds created by Jill Bari Steinberg in The Syringa Tree and Scott Wichmann in This Wonderful Life. The lively urgency of Cadence's Kimberly Akimbo and the unapologetic boldness of The Last Days of Judas Iscariot. The Firehouse's consistent commitment to craft. Did you notice when I stopped being impressed by technical aspects and shifted into the ineffable wonders of theatre that no amount of budget can buy? That's because those wonders are, in the end, all that theatre is. What's more, they are the things local theatre does that no other art form can approach.

By all means, go to the Landmosque and see The Lion King. Next to 1988's The Phantom of the Opera in London it's the best spectacle I've ever seen on stage. It's certainly the best thing Disney and Taymor can throw millions of dollars at while requiring their actors to impersonate the voice inflections of a 20-year-old movie cribbed from Hamlet and made for children. (Sarcasm: yes.) But please take this admonition for what it's worth: If you can afford to see The Lion King, you can afford to see many many shows by local arts organizations this year. And the money you spend on local companies is better than money spent on touring shows in a multitude of ways. Here are just a few:

1. Money spent on touring shows goes largely to out-of-state megacorporations who frankly don't need it. Your $80 ticket is a drop in a drop in a bucket.
2. Money spent on local arts organizations goes straight into the local economy. Damn near every penny of it. The companies benefit, and their actors, directors, designers, technicians, administrators, and sponsors all benefit. Your $120 season subscription buys an actor's entire wardrobe for a show, or enough gas for a sexual abuse prevention play to drive to Roanoke and back, or a new headset microphone that will be used for the next five years.
3. Touring Broadway musicals are re-creations of productions that were originally designed to make as much money as possible in New York City for audiences primarily composed of tourists. Irony, that: the show was made in New York for non-New Yorkers, and touring shows are made to seem as much like New York theatre as they can. The result is quite literally the most generic theatre experience possible.
4. Local theatre is created by local artists for local audiences. That means your neighbors are creating their art for you specifically. The issues on your mind are on their minds, and their work is informed by it. The artistic directors, as well, select their seasons for you and for your community. Local theatre is designed for you, to make you think and feel as much as possible. That shared context is something no big tour can approach.
5. Touring shows are here and gone. You will likely never see the artists or technicians again.
6. Local shows feature local talent with deep ties to the community. You can easily end up sitting in an audience with an actor or director or designer whose work you like, and get a chance to talk about it with them. Better still, you get to see artists progress, learn whose work you like and make it an event to always see their shows. Is your favorite actress growing as she works? Is a director you like challenging himself, and you, with his choices? Are that designer's costumes as beautiful as the ones she produced last year?

So The Lion King has come to Richmond. So what? It's a great show, there's no denying it. But if you like The Lion King, if you like "Broadway in Richmond," if you like theatre, I guarantee you're going to absolutely love what your local theatre company has to offer.

Support your local artist!

#tweatre

The Richmond theatre community has been abuzz this week in response to a post on Dave Timberline's blog on the subject of texting/tweeting/etc. (hereafter referred to as "texting") by audience members of live theatre events. I was drawn into a continuation of the discussion into the wee hours of last night on, ironically, Twitter. In fact, long after I had put aside my phone (thus proving that it is, in fact, possible to put your phone down and stop typing on the thing), my mind was churning with thoughts on the subject. Finally I concluded that I would darn well have to write a blog post on the subject.



This is what happens when you text in the theater.

As soon as you turn on or open your phone in a darkened theater, the blue light from the screen is visible to every single member of the audience next to or behind you. If you are in the back row, the light reflects off the back and side walls and is perceived in the peripheral vision of audience members in several rows in front of you. Physiological reflex responses cause virtually everyone who sees the light to look at it, which has two effects: 1) their pupil dilation decreases, which blurs their vision and color perception for the next several beats of the play, and 2) whatever emotions they may be feeling in response to the show they are seeing are immediately subsumed by their irritation with you. So your phone has now created a breach in both the visual and emotional connection between performance and audience.
 
Even if your phone is on silent and is neither seen nor heard, the fact that it is on has several effects. To begin with, no one is 100% effective at remembering to silence their phone; if you habitually refuse to turn your phone off before curtain, as almost all theatres require, the time will come when yours is the phone that rings in the middle of the play. It's a statistical near-certainty, one that can only be remedied by your following the incredibly simple instruction to turn your phone off before curtain.

Your phone doesn't need to be open, active, or even in your hand to disrupt a theatrical performance. It receives texts, calls, and data constantly while it's on, much of it on radio frequencies overlapping those singers use for their wireless microphones, musicians use for digital electronics, and sound engineers use for signal processors. Stage managers communicate using walkie-talkies, and board operators often use remote controls for lighting and video equipment. Have you ever heard funny sounds come through the system while an actor on a mike was talking or singing? Much of that interference is caused by cellular phone signals.

Theatre artists themselves are also strongly affected by your active cell phone and texting. The wonder of theatre, the thing that makes it different from TV, movies, and internet entertainment is the simple fact that the performers are sharing the same space as the audience. Simply put, the actors are as aware of you as you are of them. Stage actors are not your TV. They are trained to perceive audience response and to alter their actions accordingly. Konstantin Stanislavski, the father of modern acting, coined the phrase "dual consciousness" to describe it: actors are simultaneously aware of their environment as characters and as performers. So when that blue light flashes in the audience, actors have exactly the same automatic reflex response as audience members who see it: their eyes dart to the source of the light and their emotions are automatically engaged--usually with extreme irritation. This immediately pulls part of their attention away from their task at hand, which is to create the most honest and engaging performance possible, and to do it for you, gentle texter. And it doesn't matter if you are texting "zomg this show is sooooo great!!!!!1111oneoneone" because the actors can't possibly know that. All they can see is that you have a higher priority right now than paying attention to the performance they are putting their heart and soul into.

Perhaps more importantly, active phones in an audience are a legitimate safety issue for many performers. Dancers and stage combatants often engage in actions involving spotting, i.e. fixing their gaze on a point, turning swiftly, and re-orienting themselves on the same point. A suddenly-appearing new light source in the midst of an otherwise-darkened audience area within a dancer/combatant's field of vision can be an extremely dangerous distraction. Even non-spotting choreography requires focus for safety, focus which is diverted by the appearance of sudden light sources. This is part of why pre-show announcements also include the admonishment that "No flash photography is permitted." The fact that your cell phone is not as bright or sudden as a camera flash makes it only moderately less hazardous.

Last month I saw a show in Richmond wherein an audience member seated in the front row answered a phone call, stood up, and to my complete befuddlement walked into a dark area next to the stage. She stood directly in front of a curtain which had been used earlier in the show as an entrance for actors and set pieces, and engaged in a hushed but clearly audible and visible phone conversation for a full minute before hanging up and sitting down. The audience was flabbergasted; it was all people talked about during the intermission, and we were still discussing it after the show ended. Please understand me clearly when I say this: An audience member reading or sending a text is only marginally less of a disruption for actors and audience than this woman's actions were.



New standards and paradigms for new technology

An argument can be made that society evolves with new technology, with new standards and mores, and that the fact that 80% of Americans text should cause us to adjust our expectations for audience members. Yes, that argument can be made, but it shouldn't, because it's irrelevant.

First of all, the standards have not, in fact, changed at all. I know of no theaters that don't ask their patrons to turn off all cell phones before shows. The phone being on is required for texting, ergo the standards are already in place. If anything, I would suggest that the language we use should express the reality of the situation more clearly, i.e. replacing "Please turn off all cell phones" with "All patrons are required to power off all electronic devices at this time. Silent or airplane modes are not acceptable. All electronic devices must be turned off at this time." No phones on, no texting. Bazinga.

Secondly, it isn't as if theaters are the only place in the western world where texting is considered inappropriate. Just off the top of my head, churches, synagogues, mosques, libraries, movie theaters, doctor's offices, schools, art galleries, government chambers, police stations, and courtrooms all have strict "no cellphone use" policies. Many of them will kick you out or even jail you for disobedience. A theatrical event is just as disrupted by a phone as church or court, and far more than a movie. The expectation is clear and understood by all but the most recalcitrant or inconsiderate.

We make the rules for new technology, the rules don't just default to the low standards of the laziest or most inconsiderate users. New technology doesn't come with ready-made rules and regulations. When the automobile was invented, there were no laws to govern its use. It took years for such issues as which side of the road to use, how to determine right-of-way, and even how to use lights and horns to be determined. Laws weren't written to suit the whims of what drivers wanted, they were written in order to govern safe, responsible use. Smartphones, even standard cellphones, are still very new technology. Now is not the time to cave to the whims of early adopters, it's time to write and codify the standards and protocols by which such devices will be operated. Rule 1: Do not operate your phone while you drive. Rule 2: Do not operate your phone in an environment wherein its use negatively impacts both the observers of a show and the show's performers.



History and future

An argument can be made that the propriety of audience response has changed over the years. In particular, the example of Elizabethan audiences throwing vegetables and talking to the performers has been cited. This is true, but is again largely an irrelevant argument for several reasons: 1) Theatre had only been professional (paid practitioners, paying audiences) for about two decades when Shakespeare started, so audiences were still figuring out how to behave. The fact that the throwing ceased in the decades after it started is similar to audience texting stopping a few years after it started (which it must). In Shakespeare's day, playhouses and five-act drama were the "new technology." 2) The lighting for both actors and audiences was shared in Elizabethan theatre, so audience disruptions didn't create a large visual aberration for performers and audience. 3) The audience expected yelling and throwing, as did the performers, and the actor training was designed to prepare for it. No one in the audience was offended or distracted by a yeller. Theatre doesn't work that way now, and hasn't for centuries. Current theatregoing audiences don't want to see those blue lights any more than the actors do. 4) In some theatre, the American "Chitlin Circuit" and children's theatre for example, there's plenty of yelling at the stage. These forms are designed and prepared for it. They are a very small minority. And texting is rude there, too.

The argument to which I turn the most sympathetic ear is the economic one. Theatres are losing audience members, the subscriber base is almost gone, and we need to find ways to reach out to more potential patrons. This is the tricky one, because I certainly want to reach more people with theatre, and I desperately want people who never thought they would like theatre to fall in love with it. However, I simply can't understand how allowing people to text and tweet in the theatre is at all a solution to this problem.

Audience members aren't staying away from theatre because they ask you to turn your phone off (else they would also be staying away from movies). No one puts on their coat on a Friday night and says "Where can I go tonight that will both entertain me and allow me to send text messages?" I understand the desire to make the theatre more accessible to a new generation, but I draw the line where this perceived "accessibility" comes at the expense of product quality and interferes with other audience members' ability to enjoy the show. The same argument could be extended to smokers, with one exception: unlike texters, many smokers actually will make their evening plans based on whether or not they will be able to smoke at the venue. You want a box office boost? Add a smoking section. And a cigar lounge. And a section for parents with small children. And a bring-your-own dinner section. And a section with the football game playing on a discreetly-placed TV. And a talk-out-loud-to-your-friend-during-the-show section. At least one of those is a million-dollar idea.

Many theatres, our own Richmond Shakespeare included, have experimented with "tweet seats" or social media nights. This is an intriguing idea, so long as the affected seats are in the very back of the theatre, and so long as all patrons are made fully aware of where the distracting blue light will be centered. I'd like to know when these performances are going to be so I can skip the show that night. And I'd like to know which theatres are going to relax their "phones off" policies so I can stop attending their plays.



Theatre is special

Audiences aren't staying away from theatre because they can't text there. Audience members are staying away from theatre because they prefer other, cheaper, less intellectually and emotionally challenging entertainments. I want them in the theatre, make no mistake. But I want them to sit down knowing that what they are about to experience is different, more immediate, more alive. I don't want them to turn off their phones grudgingly, I want them to turn them off because theatre is special, and it is so much better when you apply your full attention to it. Audiences are staying away from theatre because they haven't fallen in love with it. Yet.

There are pages of personal emotional arguments I can make against texting in the audience, arguments regarding how insulting it is as an actor to work for weeks or months crafting a performance, memorizing lines, rehearsing and engaging all of my skills and crafts to create a reality and a connection with my audience, only to have one or more members whip out their phone to update their Facebook status, or to do any number of other activities that can damn well wait for intermission. But those arguments, valid concerns though they may be, pale in comparison to the triumvirate of irrefutably logical reasons texting is and should remain forbidden in theatrical audiences:

1) It distracts other audience members.
2) It diminishes the artistic product.
3) It is potentially dangerous to the performers.

When the audience activity in question creates a decrease in the quality of product, the quality of experience, and the safety of the workers, there is no reasonable compromise or discussion to be had. This is a black and white issue. We don't text in the theatre.

Arkansas Times: "As You Like It" is "a gracious romp".

"As You Like It" a lively production
by Bernard Reed
Arkansas Times
July 6, 2011

Shakespeare, for being the untouchable granddaddy of English-speaking arts and culture, can be remarkably lowbrow. For some, his name makes them yawn and think of incomprehensible soliloquies to skulls and a confusing mess of "thees" and "thous," highfalutin drudge much like opera or Russian literature. Of course, back in his day, the bard wasn't thinking about academic immortality or what Harold Bloom would eventually say about him. He was a simple playwright with the rabble of Renaissance London to entertain — no doubt a tough crowd.



Dan Matisa as Jaques.



Therein lies the amusement of "As You Like It," which has remained a crowd-pleaser since 1600 or so. Much like traveling thespians of yore, the Arkansas Shakespeare Festival took its production of this comedy from Conway to the Argenta Community Theater in North Little Rock for its final weekend of shows.

It's a lively, fast-faced production, with a crew of bumbling, romantic characters who are all ironically fated to go head over heels for each other. Orlando (David Huynh), appropriately wide-eyed and optimistic, is a gentleman of the kingdom who is tormented by his older brother. After defeating the court wrestler in an uproarious and anachronistic showdown, Orlando is exiled by Duke Fredrick (Robert Dillon) and must flee his home into the Forest of Arden, but not before falling in love at first sight with Rosalind (Amy Fritsche), the daughter of a usurped duke. Conveniently, and without reason, Rosalind is likewise banished shortly after. She and her cousin, Celia (Christa Whitlow), along with a bouncy court fool, make haste as well to the Forest of Arden. For protection (but really to line up your typical gender-bending, mistaken-identity Shakespearian gags) Rosalind assumes a man's disguise, adopting the name Ganymede.

Superbly acted and directed, the rest of "As You Like It" is the typical lighthearted pastoral romance. "Ganymede" does "his" merry best to unite a pair of lovesick shepherds, one of whom falls in love with "him" instead. Ganymede also runs into Orlando, who unwittingly confesses his love for Rosalind. An assortment of other forest characters, blessed with their author's sharp-tongued wit, amorously pursue each other, while back in the kingdom Duke Fredrick calculates his revenge against all those characters in the play who are having more fun than him. Finally tiring of her charade, Rosalind drops her disguise and works on making sure that everyone ends up coupled and happy. Spoiler alert — everybody gets married in the final scene.

As enjoyable as he can be, Shakespeare is also dauntingly complex — one wrong move can make him boring and impenetrable. Although at times a bit lightning-quick, this is not a trap that the Shakespeare Festival falls into; it's a gracious romp on the playwright's more high-spirited side. Instead of pondering "To be, or not to be," they frolic in the good news that "All the world's a stage"— a monologue that in this production is both melancholy and humorous, not forgetting its comedy with the fame of its lines.

Unless you're an actor, you may hesitate to say that any work of Shakespeare's is fun; most of the time, that doesn't seem quite the word. But this production of "As You Like It" could be described as such. The actors seemed to be genuinely enjoying themselves, delivering their speeches and asides as much for the audience as for themselves. Scattered with references to the modern day, as well as a live soundtrack of a few eighties pop classics, a purist might not have been amused; but what is Shakespeare if not eternally accessible? It is for the people, the hardscrabble crowds that thronged the Globe Theatre to stand in the mud and get drunk. If Harold Bloom doesn't like it, that's because he was never supposed to.

Here's a link to the original article.

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: "Othello" is "a wonderfully vivid and lively experience."

"Othello" pivots on villainous, camo-clad Iago
by Werner Trieschmann
June 27, 2011

LITTLE ROCK — Good productions should, at the very least, make an audience understand why a play is great. That Shakespeare’s Othello is a great play is beyond question, but the Arkansas Shakespeare Festival production, which opened at the Reynolds Performance Hall in Conway on Saturday, makes the tragedy a wonderfully vivid and lively experience.

It is helped in great measure in this by the performance of David Alford as Iago. Alford, who also happens to be the director, is electric in his malevolence and guile.

With his shaved head and dressed in camouflage, he is utterly believable as a soldier of second rank who can charm at parties (even performing a rap of Shakespeare’s surprisingly suitable verses) while putting together the pieces of his plan and sowing the seeds of doubt for poor Othello (Derrick Parker).

Alford transports this Othello to the modern Middle East, and this kind of setting-shift can be fraught with danger, often drawing unintended conclusions or simply distracting from the play itself. But the impressive set design by Chet Longley - a blasted place with ominous ruins and sandbagged fortresses - and incisive sound design by Matt Choirini make for an ideal setting where love can so easily and so quickly turn sour.

The wild, drunken party where Casio (an excellent Chris Crawford) loses his reputation is expertly staged. After it is done, you understand that this debauchery is part of the bargain in a war-torn land where soldiers are going to blow off steam after battle.

As Othello, Parker makes a convincing case for being a leader only too ready to be led to the madness that is jealousy. Parker, who sometimes speaks too softly in his first scenes, is especially effective in the second act when clutching at his head as if trying to rid himself of the thoughts Iago has planted there.

Paige Reynolds’ Desdemona is a touching figure, a soul who is completely unaware of the darkness that is enveloping her new husband. Likewise Emilia (Heather Dupree), who unwittingly helps her husband, Iago, set the trap for Othello. Adam Mincks as Roderigo has many nice moments where his displays of ignorance come in comic form.

But this Othello pivots on Iago, and Alford makes him so real and alive, you are on the edge of your seat at the end wanting a full explanation for his vile deeds. Shakespeare leaves that question hanging, not unlike a piece of tantalizing but bitter fruit. That the Arkansas Shakespeare Festival makes that question plain is but one measure of its success.

Othello continues as part of the Arkansas Shakespeare Festival through Sunday. Call (501) 450-3265.

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: "As You Like It" is "a spirited take on the comedy"

Setting clicks for spirited "As You Like It"
by Werner Trieschmann
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
June 17, 2011

LITTLE ROCK — Plan to perform "As You Like It" outdoors in June in Arkansas and you can expect to like it hot and steamy. But just when the Arkansas Shakespeare Festival was about to kick off its fifth season at The Village at Hendrix in Conway, what must have been the only black cloud in the state parked itself over the stage as well as the waiting crowd sitting on blankets and chairs in front of it.

The black cloud didn’t produce any rain Thursday. The strong wind that came with it did push some curtains around, but then the weather settled down. The happy result was a cool evening in which the game performers offered a spirited take on the Shakespeare comedy that goes to the forests of Arden to tangle and untangle many romantic knots.

The production, directed by Andrew Hamm, was playful and managed to walk the very fine line of being funny without falling completely over into corny. An early wrestling match between the fearsome Charles (Dan Matisa, wearing a Mexican wrestling mask) and fearful Orlando (David Huynh) was a highlight. The wrestlers even used the old hit-the-opponent-with-a-folding-chair trick.

"As You Like It" is pretty much about the love affair between Rosalind (Amy Fritsche) and Orlando. Fritsche brought a recognizable zeal to the part, especially when disguised as a man and spurning the advances of Phebe (Caroline Mincks). Huynh played the lovesick puppy part to the hilt.

As Orlando’s brother, Oliver, Derrick Parker did some nice double-takes and stares of disbelief in the second act. Matisa, playing in the second act the melancholy Jaques (who delivers the famed “All the world’s a stage” speech), is a natural comedian and offered a fresh spin to his lines throughout.

While the entire company of actors did have to compete with thunder rumbling in the distance and microphones that cut out from time to time, they held the sizable crowd’s attention.

The enjoyable evening was capped by a song about the spring in which the cast incongruously but hilariously danced the macarena. Put that together with the lovely setting of Hendrix Village and cooperative Arkansas weather, and the Shakespeare Festival’s decision to take it outdoors was a smart one.

"As You Like It" continues today and Sunday with pay-what-you can-performances at 7:30 p.m. at The Village at Hendrix on the Hendrix College campus, 1600 Washington Ave., in Conway.

"As You Like It 3: Like with a Vengeance!"

As You Like It opens next Thursday, inaugurating the green at The Village at Hendrix as a theatre space and launching the 2011 Arkansas Shakespeare Theatre season. Yesterday was a day off, concluding our second week of rehearsal, and it feels like the whole show teeters on a balance point. Behind us lie two weeks of learning blocking, music, combat and dance choreography. In front stand five days for us to play, refine, specify, sharpen, clean up, and shave some time off the show, followed by next week’s tech rehearsals and finally opening night. Throughout the process, the amazing artists I’ve worked with continue to remind me why directing theatre is my deepest and most joyful artistic passion. Every single day leaves me exhausted and thrilled in equal measure.


Theatre is by nature the most collaborative of all art forms.  A playwright gives words to speak and life events to perform. A director takes that text and casts it in the context of a vision of performance and meaning. Designers create environment and mood, locating the show in a specific place and time. Actors interpret the words, guided by the director’s idea and the designers’ context, into action. Everybody throws an ingredient or two into the resulting artistic gumbo, and then the audience shows up with a spoon and the spice of their own perspective, the last addition and the one that makes the whole thing, officially, into theatre.

Theatre is collaboration above all else, and the company members of As You Like It have all added their own uniqueness to the show. In several cases, an actor’s or designer’s work has made me completely junk my own ideas about the play in favor of theirs. Touchstone (Adam Mincks) and Audrey (Rachael Small), for example, are so cute together that I couldn’t bear to let Shakespeare’s intimation of an unhappy ending for them stand unchallenged; in this production, they may work out after all.

Over and over, the actors teach me anew what the play is about. In this, my third time directing As You Like It, I feel like I’m just beginning to really understand what the play is about. Different directors and different companies will have different ideas, but for me, this summer’s production is about truly being yourself. Every character who tries to create an identity for themselves end up in trouble at best, miserable at least. Duke Frederick (Rob Dillon) puts on the manner of a conquering lord, and loses his family. Orlando (David Huynh) puts on the trappings of a wrestler and almost gets himself killed. Rosalind (Amy Fritsche) puts on a man’s clothing and wreaks havoc in the Forest of Arden. Oliver’s (Derrick Parker) pretensions at being in charge, Phebe’s (Caroline Mincks) strained shrewishness, Touchstone’s city snobbery; it just goes on and on. And then there’s the melancholy Jaques (Dan Matisa), one of Shakespeare’s most enigmatic characters, who refuses to be happy in the face of four weddings and the very god of marriage herself. It is only when these characters allow themselves to simply be who they are, in the presence of someone who accepts them as such, that they are happy.

And such wonderful happiness it is! As You Like It is full of music, romance, silliness, excitement and reconciliation; the play is full to bursting with the simple joy of simply living. I can’t wait for you to see what the amazing artists of the Arkansas Shakespeare Theatre have cooked up for you.

Every one of the four shows at Hendrix Village is pay-what-you can, so bring the whole family. Bring the whole block. Come early to stake out a good seat; live music starts at 7:00 each night.

Auditioning essentials!

UPDATED 4/30/11!

Among the many things that make me weird, near the top of the list has to be the fact that I love auditions. Auditions are the most compressed, highest-stress part of the craft of acting. I love auditioning as an actor, I love coaching actors to audition, and I love being a casting director more than almost anything in theatre. I love the unique energy of auditions, I love getting to know new actors, and I love imagining the possibilities of the upcoming show.

In January, we three directors for the 2011 Arkansas Shakespeare Festival watched scores of actors audition for us. I originally prepared this document for AST's website for those actors to read, and have since expanded it from notes I wrote during those auditions and suggestions from the other directors. Thank you all for your horrible mistakes. Be assured, several actors were cast who didn't get it all right. There are exceptions to every rule. Well, most rules.

Different directors are looking for different things from actors, so I can only speak for myself. But here are a handful of things I think every actor should know before they audition. It comes down to two major principles:

1. Control the things you can control.
2. Completely and totally let go of the things you cannot control.
   

In more specific terms:

Be yourself. The message of your audition shouldn’t be “I am the best Juliet you will ever see,” it should be “I am the best me you will ever see.” I will either see you as Juliet or I won’t. Sorry about that. Typecasting is both a necessary evil and a powerful tool, and either way you will never make it go away. So don’t worry about it.

Choose monologue and song material that allows the amazingness of you to shine, rather than something that projects which role in the show you want. I don’t want to see you as Juliet, I want to meet you. You can show me Juliet at callbacks. From your slate through your “thank you,” the central message of your audition should be “Hi. This is me. I am very glad to be here. And I will be awesome to work with.”

A related anecdote, though not one applicable to all situations: I once auditioned an actor for Julius Caesar. He came in with an incredibly intense look on his face, performed an incredibly intense monologue from Hamlet, and he was so scary that I almost didn’t call him back. I had just done a show with an actor who was had displayed some borderline psychopathic behaviors behind the scenes, and I was half-convinced that this auditioner was going to be crazy trouble. My artistic director shared my concerns, but after some discussion we called him back with much hesitation. He turned out to be a delightful human being and a fine actor; he was cast as our Antony. But the fact that he was projecting the image of a tragic hero at his audition rather than projecting any of the image of himself nearly sabotaged his audition.

Be awesome. Believe me when I tell you this: we want you to be amazing. Every single person who auditions for me I want to be exactly what I need. We’re on your side. You are entering a friendly environment. In a related item:

Don’t make assumptions based on my behavior. It is a very long day for casting directors, and just because we’re sitting doesn’t make it less exhausting. I may not look at you much. I may not smile. I may not laugh. I am probably focused on taking notes or imagining what to read you as in callbacks.

Don’t look at me. Once your slate (which is totally appropriate to direct at me) is over, find a spot on the back wall of the theatre and look at that. Looking at me does two bad things for you, 1) it makes me sympathetically want to look back, which makes me take fewer notes, resulting in my having a harder time remembering you in seven hours when the directors are all discussing you, and 2) if I do take notes, it distracts you and makes you wonder what I’m writing and why I’m writing it.

Don’t apologize for anything. If you mess up, just fix it and move on. If you have a frog in your throat, work around it and move on. Actors who make excuses in auditions project as actors who will make excuses in rehearsal and performance.

Dress appropriately. No words on your clothes, no holes in your clothes, no distracting logos, no inappropriately exposed skin, no outlandish hairstyles, no enormous jewelry, no six-inch heels. Your clothing should draw attention to you, not away from you. Wear practical shoes, and avoid noisy heels that will drown out your voice. Get your hair out of your face

Dress to move. Assume that I'm going to ask you to roll around on the floor at your callback, and gird your loins appropriately. I don't want you holding back because you don't want to mess up your clothes, and I really don't want to see your underwear up your skirt or above your beltline.


Dress to work. It's business time. No ridiculous cleavage, no foul language on your T-shirt, no words or logos of any kind that might distract me while I'm watching you work. Your audition is a job interview. Dress like a professional.

Dress for your body. This is a delicate subject. Don't wear that form-fitting cocktail dress you had to squeeze yourself into. It is not attractive, it restricts your movement and breath, and it makes you look like you have no body awareness. You may be in the middle of a 20-pound weight-loss diet and workout plan, but this is what your body looks like today. Own your body with pride, fearlessness, and a sense of reality. This is a note for life, not just auditions. I have a belly; everyone in my family has a belly, and I will always have a belly. I'm not squeezing myself into a man-corset vest to conceal it for auditions. I will be much happier if I am cast for who I am. So will you.

Warm up. Don't work cold. Warm your voice up, warm your body up. The tension of adrenaline and emotional pressures will tighten your body and voice; you may not feel like you need to warm up, but you do.

Fill the space with your voice. If I think you can’t project enough to be heard in a large theater, I will not cast you in a production in a large theater. This is an absolute deal-breaker; if I think the audience won't be able to hear you, I can not use you.

Nail every note. Choose a song you know you can knock out of the park. I'm not interested in hearing the highest note of your range, I'm interested in hearing the best notes of your range. Pick a song that hits the sweet spot. If you have any doubt that you can sing the song perfectly every time, you have picked the wrong song.

Leave me wanting more. If the audition notice is asking for a 60-second monologue, prepare a 50-second one. For crying out loud, don't pick that 70-second monologue you love and rush through it to squeeze it in; you look like a fool. Save it for the 90-second audition notices, or cut it. Cutting pieces to make them fit is always appropriate. It is always better to end early than it is to be cut off. Bear in mind that the person timing your audition is often pretty low on the stage management totem pole; they may start the clock when you begin your slate.

Bring everything you might need. A whole group of actors came to audition for us from one school. All of them had musical theatre on their resumes, and none of them prepared a song or brought sheet music. What??? We were doing Joseph that season, for crying out loud. Do you want a job or not? It's one thing to have decided to audition last-minute; that's fine as long as you are a smart, prepared actor who always has four monologues prepared at all times. It's another to have a resume that screams "song-and-dance man" but bring no sheet music or dance shoes. Many of those actors did not get cast for the sole reason that they refused to show us they could sing.

Don't shock me. If you're auditioning for a theatre company with a history of producing Shakespeare, musicals, and Neil Simon, your monologue full of F-bombs and incest references is not likely to win you any fans. Trust me; the shock-value audition is ten times more likely to hurt you than help you. It makes you look like an anti-social twit with no sense of the appropriate. For companies doing more edgy, contemporary work, you can push the envelope a bit, but it's safer to pick something less likely to offend.

Avoid emotional peaks. It's really easy to play anger, and usually feels quite cathartic for the actor. It's also quite boring to watch, and usually comes across as entirely self-indulgent. I simply don't believe that you can sincerely reach that huge emotional peak of screaming or anger in 60 seconds, so don't try. Pick a monologue that reaches a 6 on an emotional scale of 1-10, not a 9.

Show me something new. Do a monologue from a play I've never heard of, or do a monologue I've never seen from a play I know. If you do something I've seen, directed, or acted, you're competing with all my preconceptions. If you show me something new, you get to be the one to which I compare everyone else. "To be or not to be?" Bad. "If we shadows have offended?" Bad. "Think not that I love him?" Bad. Measure for Measure, Henry VI, Richard II, The Two Gentlemen of Lebowski? All excellent sources. 

Don't do a piece from the play you're auditioning for. There are two schools of thought on this. My school is right. Don't do it, unless the audition notice REQUIRES it. I have my ideas of what the play is; you're not going to change my mind with your monologue. Save it for callbacks.

Take direction. If I give you adjustments, do what I told you to do. If it doesn’t fit in with your image of the character, convince yourself it does. Ability to take direction is one of the most vital things directors are looking for.

Go too far. If I give you adjustments, take them as far as is possible while still remaining in the realm of plausibility. One of my mentors was fond of the phrase, “Extend to the logical absurdity.” Show me that you will make bold choices. It is MUCH easier for a director to tell an actor to pull it back than it is for us to drag bigger choices out of you. 


Respond to your scene partners. Show me that you can actually, you know, act. Lots of people can recite lines in an interesting fashion; it’s your ability to be changed by another person, and to change them back, that makes you an actor instead of just a reciter of memorized lines. Sometimes your scene partner is a block of wood, sometimes they’re a stage hog, and sometimes they smell like salty garbage. Take what they give you, respond in the world of the character, and trust that if YOU can see that your scene partner is a dud that we can see it far more clearly than you can.

Play with me. Have fun, even if what we’re doing isn’t. Show me that you will be pleasant to work with. I will cast a less talented nice person over a surly genius any day of the week. I can coach up acting; I can’t coach up jerk.

Over-prepare. Remember this as a rule: The adrenaline of auditioning plus your nervousness will erase 25-50% of your preparation. That means you need to rehearse, memorize and prepare 125-150% as much for an audition as you think you need to.

You need to know your lines cold. You need to NOT have just memorized your monologue the night before or (shudder) in the car on the way. ESPECIALLY if it’s Shakespeare. I’ve probably directed, acted in, produced, or composed music for the show you’re doing a piece from. I know your monologue as well as you do.

When you blow your lines, I will know. When you are improvising your physicality, I will know. When you don’t know what your character’s goals, obstacles or tactics are, I will know. When you don’t know what the scene or the play are about, I will surely know. And you will not be called back.

Preparation: it’s the number one thing you can do to improve your chances of being cast, and the number one thing actors fail at the most. I can not stress this enough: I can tell the difference between a talented unprepared actor and a less-talented actor who really worked on their audition. And I WILL PICK THE HARD WORKER EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

My not casting you often has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Often, I’m looking for fit, for chemistry, for a certain height, build, or hair color, ethnicity, gender, or for any number of characteristics over which you have no control. My not casting you is in no way a judgment of your character, your future, or even your talent. Honestly, you may look like an ex-girlfriend I had a bad breakup with; I may be rejecting you for reasons of which I’m not even aware. It is not personal. Get back on the horse and audition again. By all means, audition for me again.

And finally, Shake it off. Actors have to be like NFL cornerbacks. Sometimes you get burned, and you have to forget it and move on to the next play with your maximum professionalism. You can’t worry over the could-have-beens; just don’t do again the things you did wrong.

I look forward to seeing your audition. I sincerely hope that every one of you amazes me, and I hope you make our casting decisions impossible.

Be your most awesome you! I can’t wait to see it.

Originally posted on Arkansas Shakespeare's blog.

What is "The Water Principle" about?

I'm directing a staged reading of an amazing play by Eliza Anderson called The Water Principle, which performs at the Firehouse on Tuesday night at 7:30. (Here's a link to the Facebook event. You're invited!) Jeffrey Cole, Stacie Rearden Hall, Sarah Jamillah Johnson, and Scott Wichmann are the cast, and I'm unbelievably thrilled to be directing them; they are four of my favorite artists and people, and I haven't directed any of them in years. In fact, the last time I directed Sarah, it was for a staged reading of The Water Principle at VCU in 2005, wherein she met her future husband. Neat.

It's a somewhat obscure play by a little-known writer, and the only people I know who are familiar with it are people I've exposed to it. So when I mention that I'm directing the show, people often ask, "What's it about?" I usually come up with some kind of plot synopsis about a woman named Addie defending her property from a real estate developer named Weed when a drifter named Skimmer happens into the area. That's an accurate surface description. But it's not what the play is about.

The Water Principle is about Addie, a woman defending the last vestiges of life in a barren land. She lives in a shack with a pan, an axe, a shovel, a rain barrel, and a few bird traps. Why she is alone there we don't know; why she feels compelled to defend the remains of life in her demesne we are not told. It's about Weed, a man who wants what Addie has, who may be willing to do anything to get it. It's about Skimmer, who walks from place to place with his hand out, spinning whatever story he needs to get a few moments of security--until he gets bored and moves on.

The Water Principle is about faith. It's about Addie, who believes fiercely and unquestioningly, about Weed, who believes only in what he can build, and Skimmer, who doesn't want to believe in anything. It's about betrayal. It's about how we make alliances with whomever can give us what we need this moment, without any thought for what it will mean for our lives in the future.

It's about snow, cheese, and what it means to be a beaver. It's about an axe, a gun, and a single bullet. It may or may not be a post-apocalyptic survival thriller.  It's a love story in which the words "I love you" are never spoken.

It's a playground for actors. The text is incredibly open to interpretation, and any number of choices can be justified and committed to. Sarah, Jeff, Scott and Stacie are all making wonderful and bizarre choices with this strange little play as we focus on the text and human interactions rather than blocking and stage pictures. The script reminds me of Sam Shepard and T-Bone Burnett, with a healthy dollop of absurdism.

It's the music of Sam Phillips put on stage, all fragility and betrayal and sensuality and torch songs. If you love Sam, you really have to see this play.

The Water Principle is my favorite play of the past 20 years and it's a privilege to direct a reading of it for a second time. I am incredibly thankful to Eliza Anderson for granting permission, and to Billy Christopher Maupin, Carol Piersol and the Firehouse Theatre for giving us a stage to play on. I hope you'll come see it.

Style Weekly: "This Beautiful City" is "what good theater should be."

Pious Peak


“This Beautiful City” takes on the gay marriage debate.
by Rich Griset

In 2006 Colorado found itself the ground zero of the national debate on gay marriage. Long a Christian stronghold, Colorado Springs was home to a series of megachurches, including the followers of evangelical firebrand the Rev. Ted Haggard. As in Virginia that year, an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage was on the ballot and passed.

A theater group from New York City called the Civilians descended upon the city before the vote, conducting dozens of interviews with residents. A play that chronicles the lead-up to and aftermath of the amendment (as well as the downfall of Haggard after allegations arose of drug abuse and a gay affair), “This Beautiful City” attempts to give a glimpse at the forces behind the gay marriage debate.

Borrowing an idea from the playbook of “The Laramie Project,” the script was culled from the interviews that the group made while in what is sometimes called the evangelical Vatican. Every word spoken in the play came from the mouth of a real-life person.

Richmond Triangle Players’ staging of this unusual production gives audience members the feel of being one of the interviewers, jumping from New Life Church’s Christian rock services to voodoo-esque visions in Manitou Springs, a nearby town. Triangle’s talented six-person ensemble brings to life dozens of characters. Whether it’s Tarneé Kendell Hudson’s three Baptist church members, Andrew Hamm’s militant Mikey Weinstein or Layana Burnette’s moving portrayals of a transsexual person and a former drug addict, the cast imbues even the smallest roles with dignity and warmth. The portraits are well-crafted, giving voice to both camps. John Knapp’s direction emphasizes the docu-drama tone. The audience never feels as though it’s watching caricatures — these are real people with real opinions.

Triangle’s bare-bones production focuses more on the tale of Colorado Amendment 43 than glitzy stage values. Sometimes a backdrop and PowerPoint slides are all you need to tell an engaging story. Accompanied by piano, drums and guitar, Kim Fox’s musical direction highlights the beautiful voices of her cast. Philip Milone’s multitiered set is functional, but offers little else, and K. Jenna Ferree’s lighting design is as basic as possible.

“This Beautiful City” obviously has an agenda, but presents its viewpoints in an attractive and often humorous way. This is what good theater should be — something that engages the audience in a conversation about issues that remain quite relevant.

“This Beautiful City” shows through Feb. 5 at Richmond Triangle Players, 1300 Altamont Ave. Tickets are $20-$25. Call 346-8113 or visit rtriangle.org for information.

LINK

WCVE's John Porter: "This Beautiful City" is "a testament to the power of theatre."

This Beautiful City Shines at Triangle Players

It’s taken me a longer time to write a review of THIS BEAUTIFUL CITY, the Acts of Faith entry now playing at the Richmond Triangle Players. I always like to have a few days to think about a piece, formulate my thoughts, and then prepare what I hope will be a well-reasoned story celebrating the magic of theatre; but this piece has taken a week to scribble down, and I’m still nowhere near exhausting my thoughts on this powerful story.

Created by a group called The Civilians much in the manner of The Laramie Project, this group spent time interviewing the citizens of Colorado Springs, Colorado; which has been call “The Evangelical Capital of the World.” The group was examining what it meant to be evangelical and exploring the growth of mega-churches created by James Dobson and Ted Haggard. Yes, that Ted Haggard who was caught in a drug and sex scandal and then tried to lie his way out of it.

This Beautiful City managed to do something that is pretty rare these days – if fooled me with a change of direction as I thought the second act would be dogpile on Ted time, but the playwrights, while touching on the subject, actually developed a parallel story about a pastor who faced a similar crises, admitted he was homosexual, was banished from his church, and who rose again as a more powerful voice within the Christian community.

The ensemble that makes up the cast – each person playing several different roles, is very tight. Each person has more than one standout role, and they are able to create these characters with subtle changes in clothing and props. Andrew Hamm truly makes an impact with his different characters, moving chameleon-like through a Jewish Air Force officer, a balladeer, a writer trying to bring down the evangelicals, and others. Scott Melton is an eerie Ted Haggard, Tarnee Kendell Hudson does fantastic street girls, an Emmanuel Choir Member and Ben Reynolds. Christy Mullins and Lanaya Burnette show up in a variety of roles, and Jason Campbell gives the play its heart and soul in the space of one monologue.

Philip Milone’s set is all space and platforms – elevating positions while still allowing space for movement. K. Jenna Ferree’s lights are dead on – keeping her actors lit for emphasis, Ashley Davis’ costumes serve well as character definers, and Kim Fox does a great job serving as Musical Director and playing the piano during the show.

John Knapp’s direction is crisp, there is little if any lag time between scenes. The pace builds and takes you along on this journey of discovery. Notice too, the way he presents his performers – those that favor one political side enter on the right, others on the left, with some crossing the stage playing both sides. It’s a nice, subtle touch to help further reveal his characters.

THIS BEAUTIFUL CITY is one of those rare plays that are entertaining and still make you think and explore your own feelings. It is a testament to the power of theatre that will cause more debates than solve. The play has a short run, so do not wait to catch it – make the time to see this one.

For WCVE Public Radio, I’m John Porter.

http://mondojohnny.blogspot.com/2011/01/this-beautiful-city-shines-at-triangle.html

Raves for "This Beautiful City"!

Wow. It's REALLY wonderful to read criticism that appreciates your work, but it's much better when the critics UNDERSTAND it and express it in cogent language.

I said months ago that I thought This Beautiful City is the most important work I've ever done as a theatre artist. We knew we were working on a special project, and we quickly grew to realize that it was a special company of artists putting it together. While I always tell my actors when I direct that "We don't do shows for critics and we don't take notes from them," I have to acknowledge that it is gratifying to have your work understood and appreciated. All three reviewers thus far have really grokked what we are doing. That's really special.

Come out and see the show, y'all. I guarantee that it will make you think long and hard about a lot of your foundational philosophies, but not in a painful or judgmental way. What may surprise you is that this is also one of the funnniest darn shows I've ever been involved with.

This Beautiful City runs through February 5. Adam Mincks will be playing my roles for the final weekend. You should come see me, then come back to see Adam.

Editorial note: I've taken to copying-and-pasting full reviews into my blog because you never know when a publication is going to change their web server and erase years' worth of archives (*cough cough* Style Weekly and the Richmond Times-Dispatch *cough cough*). I hope no one is offended at the pseudo-copyright-infringement, and I have of course linked to each referenced article.

GayRVA: "This Beautiful City" is "A Must See to the start of the 2011 theater season."

“This Beautiful City” Review


Matthew Miller
Posted January 17, 2011 filed under Arts & Culture, Featured

Richmond Triangle Players “This Beautiful City” examines questions of religion and identity in a provocative but entertaining performance that kicks off the Acts of Faith Festival. A Must See to the start of the 2011 theater season.

The subject matter of religion and identity is harrowingly animated in This Beautiful City, written by Steven Cosson and Jim Lewis from interviews by the company The Civilians, which opened Wednesday night at the Richmond Triangle Players. Not only is this adaptation an inspiriting departure from the holiday season of saccharine pieces, but also sets the bar for dramatic excellence for the remainder of the Acts of Faith Festival.

The subject matter may be controversial, but the artistry on stage at the Richmond Triangle Players is wholly engrossing and cathartic. Simply put, director John Knapp creates a provocative but entertaining performance that is not afraid to unleash the soul of storytelling.

This 2-hour “docu-musical” catalogues a series of interviews conducted in 2006 with the citizens of Colorado Springs, CO, the epicenter of American Christian evangelicalism. Interviewees include members of the New Life Church, a megachurch founded in 1984 by preacher Ted Haggard as well as the liberal citizens who oppose the normative Evangelical lifestyle.

The interplay of documentary and musical elements invites the audience to partake in the conversation on the way religion impacts individual identity, either by free will (embodied by Lanaya Burnette’s affecting performance in “Urban Planning” as T Girl who is empowered by her faith despite the scorn she receives from it as a transgender sexual minority) or by social establishment (Tarneeé Kendell Hudson’s brilliant humor as Teenage Girl in Act I’s “Whatever” shows contradictorily how her imposed faith induces teenage anxiety).

John Knapp seems dutifully aware of the multifaceted and complex nature of the source material. His incisively resuscitated production intelligently executes both the documentary and musical apparatus while neither sacrificing one over the other for simple commercial appeal. This balance provides the framework for the characters to express their individual stories of struggles with identity and faith.

Demonstrating an intelligent awareness of the subjective life experience of each character – from the alternative liberal writer (played powerfully by Andrew Hamm) to self-hating gay evangelical Tem Haggard (portrayed admirably by Scott Melton) – Knapp’s approach leaves each character a protagonist unto himself and it is only each character’s inner conflict with faith as the antagonist. It is each character’s idiosyncratic story told through prose and music that produced the standing ovation on Wednesday’s opening night.

Where one might expect in an LGBT social issues theater the tone to be overly scathing toward Christian conservatism, it appears that it is balanced. Consequently, the moral of the story emerges most insightfully in the consecutive affecting performances of Act II’s “Freedom” and “Urban Planning”: Take ownership of your life whether within or outside your faith.

On a technical note, John Knapp is right to place the set/video design in the adroit capability of Philip Milone. The set mimics a pulpit that is seen at evangelical churches replete with the band on stage and with a slideshow in the background. Milone’s creativity is clever, and invites the audience to literally “witness” the performance and relate with the actors. While some actors trip at some points in the score, musical director Kim Fox nonetheless synthesizes the distinct individual voices of each cast member to unearth lyricist Michael Friedman’s serious social messages that are embedded in the score while maintaining its entertainment appeal. The artistic direction coupled with these technical assets makes this show a truly must see this quarter.

At its greatest depth, This Beautiful City exposes that faith, when abused, is no better than the narcotics people take to cope with (or rather escape) existence. On the other side, however, the narrative shows that faith can be used as a tool for self-empowerment embodied by Hudson and Burnette’s poignant performances of out gay pastor Ben Reynolds and T-Girl, respectively. Knapp admits that in this show “there are no succinct answers”, but his creation accentuates the individual dilemmas that induce genuine reflective thinking. Any theatergoer looking to engage fully in the Acts of Faith Festival will do himself a great favor seeing this RTP performance.

Highly Recommended

LINK

Dave Timberline: "This Beautiful City" is "reflective and thought-provoking, not to mention very entertaining."

From Dave T's blog:

City Story


I’ve been trying to avoid the phrase “Laramie Project Lite” to describe “This Beautiful City” because it sounds diminutive and not altogether laudatory. But I don’t mean it that way. Compared to the monumental, ambitious, sometimes harrowing “Laramie,” just about anything seems more lightweight. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. For instance, “This Beautiful City” is also light as in funny. Sometimes very funny. And that suits the subject given that the true story of Ted Haggard is sort of tragicomic – with big doses of Schadenfreude mixed in – versus the outright tragedy of Matthew Shepard.

Ultimately, I don’t think you can avoid invoking “Laramie” when talking about TBC because of a very good reason: both shows do an exceptional job of developing a sense of place, of presenting the story of a whole community, not just of a handful of characters in a specific setting. That broad-based sociological perspective is one of the things that make TBC a fascinating piece of theater. While essentially a documentary, the show enhances the dialogue lifted directly from interviews by wrapping some of it in song – spare, simply melodic songs by Michael Friedman – that are delivered exceedingly well by the cast in RTP’s production.

Some of the most riveting scenes involve juxtapositions of different viewpoints where the political is rendered dramatically personal. Each cast member plays multiple roles and, among the many exceptional portrayals by Andrew Hamm, the most bracing is of Mikey Weinstein whose stunning rebuke of the “churchification” of the military plays out next to a group of Air Force cadets earnestly declaring their faith as expressed in on-base prayer groups. And while I expect there is a field-day of parody that could be had in the explication of Ted Haggard’s hypocrisy and whack-job denial of his sexuality, TBC is ultimately more effective and intriguing by focusing on people’s reactions, from confusion to anger to glee.

However (did you sense there was a however coming?), the “research project” perspective also contributes to some of the shows problems. While a remarkable majority of the scenes present full-bodied, well-rounded characters, a couple still ended up presenting caricatures. And while that may be unavoidable, it left me feeling like the authors were trying to have their cake and eat it to, at least a little bit. We are clearly meant to empathize with the empowered trans girl (a flawless portrayal by Lanaya Burnette) but laugh at the Revolution House of Prayer zealots. There is reverence and respect in songs like “Freedom” and “Urban Planning” while a teenage girl’s confusion is wrapped up in the joke of a song, “Whatever.” It’s seems like if you are going to present these characters with dignity, don’t they all deserve respect?

But even as I write that, I realize I’m overthinking this a bit, which is also ultimately a good indictor of the value of this show, at least in my opinion. This is a show that could have been largely a joke at Ted Haggard’s expense or an over-obvious put-down of hypocrisy and, instead, ends up being reflective and thought-provoking, not to mention very entertaining.

I would be remiss if I didn’t highlight each member of the cast, since each has at least one moment – usually many moments – where they do great work. I loved the brittleness Christy Mullins gave to the Colorado Springs Economic Development Woman. Scott Melton’s Associate Pastor at Haggard’s church seems genuinely lost when Haggard’s “indiscretions” are exposed. Tarnee Kendell Hudson has many delightful moments but none so powerful as her turn as a New Pastor at the Emmanuel Church. And, in a scene both deceptively simple and insightfully complex, Jason Campbell renders Haggard’s son Marcus with refreshing regular-guy straightforwardness.

As far as its technical aspects, this is not a production I would place among RTP’s best. The set (by Philip Milone) is simply functional with pianist Kim Fox (who does a fine job as musical director) and a percussionist placed neatly in two islands. But having video and slides projected on a loose sheet evokes community theater, as does the somewhat flat and spotty lighting. The costumes (by Ashley Davis) were also fine, though I thought some, like the Emmanuel Choir Member outfit, were a bit cartoonish.

I hadn’t been planning to see TBC and was lucky that last night opened up so I could. If I were you, I wouldn’t count on luck; make plans to see it now or it’ll be gone before you know it.

LINK

Richmond Times-Dispatch: "This Beautiful City" is "a disarmingly fresh and thought-provoking theatrical experience."

'This Beautiful City' examines faith and values

By SUSAN HAUBENSTOCK

Published: January 15, 2011

I'll predict right now which will be the most interesting Acts of Faith Festival discussions: the ones about "This Beautiful City," Richmond Triangle Players' contribution to the series.

The festival's website says that Acts of Faith fosters "discussion about how faith and values shape our public and private life," and "This Beautiful City" examines just that. Created by The Civilians, a New York-based theater company whose process involves interviews by company members shaped into theater pieces, the play focuses on Colorado Springs, Colo., home to many evangelical Christian organizations.

"The company completed its investigative phase in 2006," according to the website of The Civilians, "compiling hundreds of hours of interviews.… Every leading church in the area participated in the project, as did numerous civic organizations, progressive activists and individuals from all walks of life."

The work Steven Cosson and Jim Lewis fashioned from the interview material, with songs by Michael Friedman, premiered at the Louisville, Ky., Humana Festival in 2008, and it makes for a disarmingly fresh and thought-provoking theatrical experience. It's simply and straightforwardly presented, with six singer-actors portraying a gallery of characters — some individual people, some composites of various Coloradans. And director John Knapp uses the same unadorned style, with able assistance from Kim Fox as musical director, effectively showcasing a multitude of viewpoints with a minimum of cynicism and snark.

The result is fascinating, from Christy Mullins' cheery economic development pro explaining how so many Christian nonprofits came to be in town, to Jason Campbell's energetic youth minister, to Andrew Hamm's angry alternative-newspaper writer. Scott Melton is particularly affecting as Ted Haggard's associate pastor (he plays Haggard, too), and Tarneé Kendall Harrison is especially funny as a teenager singing about Christian youth events. Lanaya Burnette is equally convincing as a former drug user.

Philip Milone provides the stripped-down platform set backed by simple projections, and Ashley Davis the ordinary but precisely right costumes, while K. Jenna Ferree's excellent lighting design handles the changes of scene and mood.

Those post-play discussions will follow the 4 p.m. Sunday matinees on Jan. 23 and Jan. 30.

LINK

Building "This Beautiful City"

Last night, I had the immense honor of performing in the opening performance of the Richmond Triangle Players' This Beautiful City. A few months ago I wrote about the script, its origins and its incredible importance. Now, with the show on its feet for audiences (through February 5), I want to touch on the experience of putting it up.

One of the key pieces of context for me in this show is that it marks my return to the stage as an actor after two years of teaching and directing. That's been very exciting, but also quite nerve-wracking. I forgot, for example, just how much the addition of new technical elements can mess with my muscle-memory; the first day we rehearsed on the assembled set I blew dozens of lines I had known cold two weeks earlier. I even made an entrance from the wrong side of the stage. Lights and costumes were less of an issue. I'm very much a foot actor; it's my connection to the ground that you can't mess with. Change my footing or adjust my blocking at a late date and I can guarantee trouble will ensue.

It's nice to be back in a multiple-character role, a genre I grew to specialize in during my years with Richmond Shakespeare. (In fact, RS devotees may even recognize the appearance of Moped Man during the second act.) It's an interesting and unique set of challenges for us to be playing real people rather than fictional characters. Two of my roles, military religious freedom activist Michael Weinstein and journalist Noel Black, are published authors, and several of us play people who can be easily found on YouTube and CNN. That said, I have to admit here that I refrained from looking up my characters. It's a bit snooty, but I'm not a fan of impersonation as a foundational acting technique, unless one is playing an exceptionally famous person. Scott Melton, for example, is playing Pastor Ted Haggard, and many of his lines are culled from national television footage; in his case, impersonation was necessary. By eschewing that requirement, I was freed up to create characters using more traditional actor tools.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention here that my Revolution House of Prayer leader has a little bit of Stephen A. Smith in him--mainly because I can't stand Stephen A. Smith.)

It's a fascinating challenge to be speaking the words of real people, people who are still around and who could conceivably show up to see your performance, as Ted Haggard himself did in New York last year. (You've gotta give the man huge respect for that.) Even more interesting is the contrast between Weinstein and an unnamed Catholic priest I play, each of whom has completely opposite perspectives on the issue of separation of church and state. As an actor, you must naturally always find something to love about each character you play, and you must certainly believe in the right of what they believe in. I've certainly played enough villains to have learned that. Playing a real person and speaking their exact words is a whole other level of responsibility. We must have complete respect for each role we play or the integrity of the show is completely lost.

Because the thing about This Beautiful City that makes it unique is its genre. It's a documentary, pure and simple, something almost never seen on stage. Yes, it's full of music (a musical documentary??), it's often moving, frequently hilarious, and occasionally somewhat terrifying. But it's non-fiction from start to finish, and we have to approach the show with a documentarian's eye. It's one thing to pursue the artistic or emotional truth of a script, to honor a playwright's intention and a director's vision. Honoring the personal truth of a city full of real, vital, dynamic, diverse people is an entirely different challenge, and it is one we took very seriously. Complete respect was our responsibility.

This Beautiful City is unlike any other play you will see in Richmond this season. It may be unlike any other play you have ever seen, or that you will ever see. I really hope you come out to see it. It approaches issues of faith and identity in a way that is more frank, more real, and more necessary than any piece of fictional theatre can do. It will make you laugh and it may make you cry. It will make you think and it may make you angry. I am immensely proud to be working with this cast and crew, and to be making my debut with director John Knapp and the ambitious Richmond Triangle Players.

Planting the seeds of "ArkansAs You Like It"

This post was originally written for the Arkansas Shakespeare website at arkshakes.com.

What an incredible honor it is to be asked to return to Conway in 2011.

I had not even been home a full month from last summer’s amazing Arkansas Shakespeare experience (Shakespearience?) when my phone rang, Matt Chiorini on the other end. And here’s a little inside baseball, a look into how things like contracts and seasons get put together. He asked me if I was interested in returning for a second summer as a director, composer and associate artist, and then asked for my thoughts on what kind of play I might like to direct.

Now let me tell you that this doesn’t happen a lot, a hired director being asked to give input on potential scripts. It’s quite flattering, an honor really, and a huge responsibility. I’ve been on the staff of a Shakespeare company before, so I’ve been part of the process of putting seasons together. I knew that whatever decision we made, it would have to be in the context of the rest of the summer, and it would have to be the best possible choice for the company first.

That said, I wasn’t about to ignore the opportunity to have a say in the matter. If Matt’s going to ask what I want to do, I’m going to tell him. My mind flashed back to my recent directing history:

• The Comedy of Errors, Summer 2010. Bigger faster funnier!
• A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Summer 2009. Bigger faster funnier with fairies! Award-winning five-actor ensemble cast!
• A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Spring 2009. Indoor first draft of bigger faster funnier with fairies!
• A Midsummer Night’s Dream, December 2008. Staged reading that planted the seeds for the above bigger faster funniers.
• As You Like It, Summer 2008. Big cast re-mount of hit Spring production; 15 actors’ worth of bigger faster funnier!
• As You Like It, Spring 2008. Five-actor production, boys playing girls and girls playing boys and a girl playing a boy playing a girl. Award-nominated bigger faster funnier!
• Doctor Faustus, Spring 2007.

Yes, I had to go all the way back to 2007 to find the last time I had directed a serious play. And in all fairness, it was a two-actor reduction of Faustus featuring (you guessed it) a surprising amount of bigger faster funnier. In fact, it genuinely may have been the funniest production of Doctor Faustus ever staged, and I realize that isn’t saying much. In fact, I have to go all the way back to 2006, when I helmed a five-actor Othello for Richmond Shakespeare, my first directing gig for that company, to find a production I’ve put together with an entirely serious intended effect.

So my answer to Matt was, “Well, Matt, I’m kind of comedied out right now. I’m feeling pretty pigeonholed as an artist, and I want to make sure my resume isn’t getting too one-dimensional. What does the 2011 season look like so far? Do you have any plays in mind?”

Matt said, “Well, we keep almost doing As You Like It. It seems like that play is the runner-up for the comedy slot every year. It’s a lovely play for the Natural State, with all the action in the Forest of Arden. And I think you’d be a really good fit with that script, especially coming off of Comedy.”
I thought for a second. “You know what, Matt? I can do some drama in Richmond between now and then. Let’s do it. Let’s do As You Like It.”

Here’s why it was so easy for me say yes to this script: I think As You Like It is to Shakespeare’s comedy what Hamlet is to tragedy. Not only do I think it’s his best comedy, I think it’s his best comedy by a mile. It’s a huge cast of memorable characters, a delight for audiences to enjoy and a feast for actors to sink their teeth into. It’s two pairs of brothers, their relationships broken by jealousy. It’s two women, closer than sisters, bound together in deception in a strange land. It’s two awkward country boys who can’t help but love two awkward country girls even in the face of all rejection. It’s dueling clowns, one mean-spirited and one melancholy. It’s love and romance and country-mouse-versus-city-mouse and music and family and redemption. It’s “All the world’s a stage.” And it’s a girl disguised as a boy pretending to be a girl who actually happens to be herself.

This is my favorite comedy written by anybody, ever, featuring my favorite cast of characters in all of world theatre.

In the meantime, I’m here in my home city of Richmond, Virginia, beginning to work on This Beautiful City with the Richmond Triangle Players, my first acting gig since 2009′s Amadeus. I’m preparing to direct a staged reading of Eliza Anderson’s The Water Principle, and Sycamore Rouge in Petersburg is looking to produce my play Awake in Pennsylvania in March. And I’m beginning to put together a program for artists with mental health issues in conjunction with the Firehouse Theatre Project‘s production of Something Intangible. I figure that’s more than enough drama to satisfy my limited need for seriousness between now and May. If you are so inclined, you can keep up with my local doings, as well as some truly awful NFL picks, on my own blog, Andrew Hamm: the Bipolar Express.

I can’t wait to be able to delight you, fair readers, with word of which wonderful actors will be playing these amazing roles. And as the months go by I’m going to continue to write about the preparation, the foundational ideas, and the process of this show, on which I’ve already begun working. I’ve already begun to talk music with Matt and costumes with Shauna Meador, who has instantly become one of my favorite artists to collaborate with ever. I know this much already: it can’t help but look and sound gorgeous.

The 2011 Arkansas Shakespearience is already beginning!

NFL Picks Week 8

Tally for week 7:

Peter King: 9-5 (60-44, a .577 win percentage)
Andrew Hamm: 7-7 (54-50, .519)
George Washington: 9-5 (49-55, .471)
Greyson's Dad: 10-4 (63-41, .606)
Rick Olson: 9-5 (55-35, .611)

This week's games, to the tune of Avenged Sevenfold:



Buffalo Bills (0-6) at Kansas City Chiefs (4-2)

• Peter: Chiefs. Words I never thought I'd write about a Bills-Chiefs game in 2010: The only game Sunday featuring a matchup between two top-10-rated quarterbacks in the NFL is Buffalo (Ryan Fitzpatrick) versus Kansas City (Matt Cassel). Harvard guy versus the USC benchwarmer. Fitzpatrick is second (102.0), Cassel ninth (91.5).
• Andrew: Chiefs. Come on, dude.
• George: Chiefs.
• Ryan: Chiefs.
  
• Rick: Chiefs. The Bills will keep it close. but the Chiefs will make it to 5-2.

Jacksonville Jaguars (3-4) at Dallas Cowboys (1-5)

• Peter: Cowboys. Speaking of coaches who might have a lot of time on their hands in 10 weeks, this game matches two of them. Good-guy Jon Kitna might not have started a game since the Bush Administration, but he'll have enough help from some good receivers to plow under the Jags.
• Andrew: Cowboys. The Cowboys will rally around Jon Kitna and start winning games, precisely because it makes absolutely no sense.
• George: Cowboys.
• Ryan: Jaguars.
  
• Rick: Cowboys. Let the Kitna era reign!

Carolina Panthers (1-5) at St. Louis Rams (3-4)

• Peter: Panthers. Two reasons. Matt Moore threw for 308 yards against a bad Niners team last week, showing he can play competently when he doesn't have the weight of the world on his shoulders. And Carolina finally rushed the passer.
• Andrew: Rams. Raise your hand if you thought the Rams would be at .500 at mid-season. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
• George: Rams.
• Ryan: Rams.
  
• Rick: Rams. If Jackson plays for the Rams, they should have no problems here.

Washington Redskins (4-3) at Detroit Lions (1-5)

• Peter: Lions. I don't trust Washington to score. I trust Detroit, even though Matthew Stafford hasn't played since Week 1, to score more.
• Andrew: Redskins. This is the week. This is the moment the Redskins franchise turns the corner from the misery of the past 15 years and shows that they have learned how to be a functional NFL organization. Not necessarily a "winning" team; I still see them finishing the season 8-8. But they should kill the Lions, and they will. I'm putting my fantasy money where my mouth is, starting Cooley, Gano, and even Anthony Armstrong. Besides, they've had their beat-down-by-a-massively-inferior-team meltown already this season against the Rams.
• George: Redskins.
• Ryan: Redskins.
  
• Rick: Lions. Let's see what Washington does two weeks in a row. Upset City.

Miami Dolphins (3-3) at Cincinnati Bengals (2-4)

• Peter: Dolphins. The strangest streak in the league continues. Miami can't lose on the road, can't win at home. If my call is right, the Fins will be 0-3 home, 4-0 away. If you've got Davone Bess on your fantasy team, I've got a hunch Dan Henning will be calling his number in the fourth quarter, and Chad Henne will find him a couple of times underneath coverage. Doesn't help the Bengals that Pacman Jones just went on IR. He'd have been nettlesome on Bess.
• Andrew: Bengals. This is my hunch upset of the week.
• George: Dolphins.
• Ryan: Dolphins.
  
• Rick: Dolphins. Because I don't know what to think of the Bengals anymore this year.

Denver Broncons (2-5) vs. San Francisco 49ers (1-6)

• Peter: Broncons. We've exported to London two teams with a combined 3-11 record. (Wouldn't Vandelay Industries be a better exporter to England right now?) One team is coming off, arguably, the worst performance in franchise history; Denver allowed 59 points to a previously 2-4 team playing lousy on offense. The other team is starting a quarterback, Troy Smith, who just started practicing 49ers plays with his team. Pick the winner out of a hat. I'll take the team with the better quarterback, thank you.
• Andrew: Broncons. Oh, London, I am so sorry that this is what we sent you this year. I'm completely done picking the 49ers. The meat thermometer has popped: Mike Singletary has popped.
• George: Broncons.
• Ryan: Broncons.
  
• Rick: Broncos. I feel bad for all of London for having these two teams as their NFL game for the year.

Green Bay Packers (4-3) at New York Jets (5-1)

• Peter: Jets. Jets have 45 takeaways in Rex Ryan's 22 games as coach. The Pack has turned it over 13 times this year, and Mike McCarthy's concerned. "Our giveaways are way too high. Our turnover ratio is minus-1. That's not where we want to be,'' McCarthy said this week. Green Bay is beat-up too, and New York is coming off the bye. Rested.
• Andrew: Jets. Green Bay is too beat up to do more than make a fight of it. The NFC North is bedlam.
• George: Packers.
• Ryan: Jets.
  
• Rick: Jets. This may be the game where the throw at all costs Packers lose Rodgers to injury.

Tennessee Titans (5-2) at San Diego Chargers (2-5)

• Peter: Titans. The strangest season in recent years continues. The Chargers can't be first in the NFL in total offense and total defense, and they can't have outscored their opposition in seven games by a combined 28 ... and be 2-5. Can they? They can given their turnovers. They can also be 2-6 if the no-name Tennessee pass-rush bugs Philip Rivers as much as I think it will.
• Andrew: Titans. Norv, Norv, Norv.
• George: Titans.
• Ryan: Chargers.
  
• Rick: Titans. Can the Chargers REALLY be 2-6? Yes.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (4-2) at Arizona Cardinals (3-3)

• Peter: Cardinals. "We're the best team in the NFC,'' Raheem Morris said the other day. "Yeah, I said it.'' I guess that's some sort of motivational thing, but it's hard to make a statement like that when, in the two games against big-time opposition (Steelers, Saints), you lost by 25 points each time. I'm not big fan of these Cards either. Might be time to bench Tim (Fumbleitis) Hightower and give the ball to Beanie Wells 20 times or more.
• Andrew: Cardinals. Upset of the week #2.
• George: Cardinals.
• Ryan: Buccaneers.
• Rick: Cardinals. I have no idea why. Just a hunch.

Minnesota Vikings (2-4) at New England Patriots (5-1)

• Peter: Patriots. I say Brett Favre plays, and I say Tom Brady plays better.
• Andrew: Patriots. Favre starts, Jackson finishes. Brady finishes the Vikings' season.
• George: Patriots.
• Ryan: Patriots.
  
• Rick: Patriots. Favre will play. When he plays hurt, he forces WAY too much

Seattle Seahawks (4-2) at Oakland Raiders (3-4)

• Peter: Raiders. What a beatdown of the Broncos. Totally unexpected, at least to me -- and the Raiders did it with their three top receivers hurt. This is going to come down to one of the league's hottest backs, Darren McFadden, denting a surprisingly strong run defense (Seattle's allowing a Steeler-like 3.3 yards per carry) enough to win. I say he can.
• Andrew: Raiders. Raise your hand if you thought the Raiders would be at .500 at mid-season. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
• George: Raiders.
• Ryan: Raiders.
  
• Rick: Raiders. Was last week in Denver a fluke? Probably at least a little bit, but they should still beat the Hawks.

Pittsburgh Steelers (5-1) at New Orleans Saints (4-3)

• Peter: Steelers. Halloween night in New Orleans. National TV. Michaels and Collinsworth. Feisty crowd. Very loud. Steelers without one of their five most valuable players, defensive end Aaron Smith. Saints are reeling and have to have it. Tough one to call. If I thought Reggie Bush were going to play and be near 100 percent healthy, I'd go with the Saints. But he's not and I can't.
• Andrew: Saints.  The Steelers' D is a fast-zombie nightmare. But I just can't see the Saints at 4-4 midseason. I have to believe that Brees's leadership trumps Rapistberger's.
• George: Steelers.
• Ryan: Steelers.
  
• Rick: Saints. Drew Brees is going to right the ship in a must-win.

Houston Texans (4-2) at Indianapolis Colts (4-2)

• Peter: Colts. This game will provide another reason you can't discuss the first-half MVP of this season without including Peyton Manning.
• Andrew: Colts. Bigtime revenge game.
• George: Texans.
• Ryan: Colts.
  
• Rick: Texans. The Texans show that their Week 1 victory was no fluke.

Posting on Arkansas Shakespeare's Blog

So Arkansas Shakespeare now has a new website (a long-overdue upgrade), and I've been asked to post on the process of next summer's As You Like It.

Here's my first entry.

NFL Picks Week 7

The tally:

Peter King: 8-6 in week 6 (51-39, a .567 win percentage)
Andrew Hamm: 6-8 (47-43, .522)
George Washington: 5-9 (40-50, .444)
Greyson's Dad: 9-5 (53-37, .589)
Rick Olson: 7-7 (46-28, .622)


The picks:

Cincinnati Bengals (2-3) at Atlanta Falcons (4-2)

• Peter: Falcons. Stat of the Week: Matt Ryan is 15-1 at the Georgia Dome, and Michael Turner rushes for 104 yards per game at the Georgia Dome. Factoid of the Week That Should Interest You: This game is at the Georgia Dome.
• Andrew: Falcons. Just the matter of the better overall team winning.
• George: Falcons.
• Rick: Falcons. Two struggling QB's, two decent D's....I think it'll be about 13-10.....which means it'll really be 35-34
• Ryan: Falcons.

Buffalo Bills (0-5) at Baltimore Ravens (4-2)

• Peter: Ravens. Poor Bills. I'll tell you the most amazing thing I discovered as I went about my exhaustive research this week making these picks. (I spend at least 45 seconds hours doing my research, you know. Call me the Ron Jaworski of pick research.) These two teams met fairly recently, in 2007, and Buffalo won 19-14. Newbies Joe Flacco, Anquan Boldin and Ray Rice will have something to say about this rematch.
• Andrew: Ravens. Puh-lease.
• George: Ravens.
• Rick: Ravens. This should be a big game for everyone on the Ravens.
• Ryan: Ravens.

San Francisco (1-5) at Carolina Panthers (0-5)

• Peter: 49ers. Aubrayo Franklin, Isaac Sapoaga, Justin Smith and Patrick Willis will be the big factors in this game, because the Panthers will have to run DeAngelo Williams to win. Glad to see Matt Moore get another chance to quarterback the Panthers and prove I wasn't a total ditz in saying he was going to have a good year. But I don't think he'll be the difference-maker this week.
• Andrew: 49ers. Both teams are a mess, but Carolina is much messier.
  
• George: Panthers.
• Rick: Panthers...... Next please.
• Ryan: 49ers.

Washington Redskins (3-3) at Chicago Bears (4-2)

• Peter: Redskins. Donovan McNabb returns to Chicago, where he's had some very good days as a visitor. Four of them, actually, in five career outings at Soldier Field. To win this one, he's going to be very happy to hand the ball 23 times to Ryan Torain.
• Andrew: Redskins. I find myself sliding precipitously off the Bears bandwagon, and not just because they're facing my Redskins. A big game for Ryan Torain and a couple game-changing big plays to emerging wideout Anthony Armstrong should ensue. I think Cutler is one hit away from visiting Dr. Gumby with the complaint, "My brain hurts." It will have to come out.
  
• George: Redskins.
• Rick: Redskins. The Bears are no good. The Redskins are relatively good.
• Ryan: Redskins.

Philadelphia Eagles (4-2) at Tennessee Titans (4-2)

• Peter: Titans. Here's a strange one for you: Tennessee is 11-0 against NFC teams in the past 24 months. I say it gets to 12, narrowly, even if Vince Young has to give way to Kerry Collins. In fact, after watching the Monday-nighter, that might be better for Tennessee.
• Andrew: Titans. A close one, but I like the Titans' efficiency.
  
• George: Eagles.
• Rick: Titans. Total Pick'em game. I'll go with the home team.
• Ryan: Eagles.

Pittsburgh Steelers (4-1) at Miami Dolphins (3-2)

• Peter: Steelers. Just between us, I think there are about 22 million reasons James Harrison won't retire.
• Andrew: Dolphins. Honestly, logic has gone so completely by the wayside this year that I'm just picking a couple upsets each week based on hunch and vibe. And I think James Harrison is going to hit someone hard just to make a point--and might find himself ejected for it to make a better one.
  
• George: Dolphins.
• Rick: Dolphins. Just a gut feeling that Miami is better than people think and Pittsburgh isn't as good as people think.
• Ryan: Steelers.

St. Louis Rams (3-3) at Tampa Bay Buccaneers (3-2)

• Peter: Buccaneers. I know this game seems like a clunker -- it is a clunker -- but the one thing about it I really like is that we'll be seeing two quarterbacks (Josh Freeman and Sam Bradford) who'll be among the top 10 in the league in 2017.
• Andrew: Rams. One of these teams is going deep into the playoffs--next year.
  
• George: Rams.
• Rick: Buccaneers. Two up and coming teams. but I'll take the Bucs in a close one
• Ryan: Buccaneers.

Cleveland Browns (1-5) at New Orleans Saints (4-2)

• Peter: Saints. Ben Roethlisberger one week, Drew Brees the next, and, after the bye, Tom Brady. Nice way to break into the NFL, Colt McCoy. (And if you're asking me if I think McCoy will still have the job two weeks from now, the answer is yes -- as long as this game against the Saints is not an abject disaster.)
• Andrew: Saints. I almost picked this upset. Then I remembered it was the Browns.
  
• George: Browns.
• Rick: Saints. Drew Brees should chew up the Browns.
• Ryan: Saints.

Jacksonville Jaguars (3-3) at Kansas City Chiefs (3-2)

• Peter: Chiefs. The Chiefs are getting good before our eyes. I said this week I think they'll win the AFC West, and after watching the first six weeks of the season, I think it might not be close.
• Andrew: Chiefs. Okay, I'm convinced. The Chefs are good. Great googly moogly.
  
• George: Jaguars.
• Rick: Chiefs. It's Trent Edwards, it's Matt Cassel. The NFL, where greatness thrives!
• Ryan: Chiefs.

Arizona Cardinals (3-2) at Seattle Seahawks (3-2)

• Peter: Seahawks. Watch for the dynamic duo of Justin Forsett and Marshawn Lynch (don't laugh; that's a heck of a 1-2 punch) to take over this game. The Cards are allowing 140 rushing yards per game.
• Andrew: Cardinals. How about that Max Hall?
  
• George: Cardinals.
• Rick: Seahawks. I like the Seahawks at home. Mike Williams for comeback player of the year.
• Ryan: Seahawks.

Oakland Raiders (2-4) at Denver Broncons (2-4)

• Peter: Broncons. Look at the Broncos' receiving corps. Jabar Gaffney 37 catches, Brandon Lloyd 34, Eddie Royal 32. Wait 'til Demaryius Thomas gets his pro legs under him. Denver's receivers will rival Indy's.
• Andrew: Raiders. With all the hype about the amazing Broncons offense, you'd think their win-loss record would be flipped. But no. They're a badly unbalanced team. So is Oakland, but still...
  
• George: Raiders.
• Rick: Broncons. Oakland made SF look good last week. I gotta think that Kyle Orton lights them up.
• Ryan: Broncons.

New England Patriots (4-1) at San Diego Chargers (2-4)

• Peter: Patriots. Tom Brady wins a shootout. Tough call, because the Chargers need this game badly (oh really?), Philip Rivers is on fire, and the Patriots' young secondary is amazingly generous, allowing foes to complete 71 percent of their throws. I'd pick the Chargers if half their offense wasn't on the sidelines at practice Wednesday -- and particularly if I could count on Antonio Gates being the real Gates with his toe injury.
• Andrew: Patriots. I just see them getting better and better, and I'm glad the Redskins aren't playing the AFC East this year.
  
• George: Patriots.
• Rick: Chargers. This has become a bit of a rivalry. I expect Rivers to chew up the Pats' secondary.
• Ryan: Patriots.

Minnesota Vikings (2-3) at Green Bay Packers (3-3)

• Peter: Vikings. The Vikes' defensive front will dictate this game. Very odd so far that Minnesota has six sacks in five games, and the dangerous Jared Allen has but one. I think you remember what Allen did to the Packers last year in Sackville: 7.5 in two games. Expect him to be very happy to see the Sunday night national TV audience (he likes the attention) and the Packers offensive line across from him.
• Andrew: Vikings. The Packers are a MASH unit, and the Vikings are slowly gelling. This is the week they start coming together.
  
• George: Packers.
• Rick: Packers. I don't care if injuries force the Packers to re-sign Tony Mandarich and Eddie Lee Ivory, I'll never pick Favre to beat the Pack.
• Ryan: Packers.

New York Giants (4-2) at Dallas Cowboys (1-4)

• Peter: Cowboys. At some point, Tony Romo's going to walk into his huddle and say, "This is #%&^*# ridiculous, you bunch of $%%#&@. Let's get our #$%$^ in gear and earn our millions." Or something like that. This is the night.
• Andrew: Cowboys. Once or twice a year an NFC East team wins a game against a divisional opponent they have no business beating. This is it.
  
• George: Giants.
• Rick: Giants. The D-Line of the G-Men should be on Romo all game long.
• Ryan: Cowboys.