I am going to be in "Vampe". My part is interesting but pretty small -- I seem to be sticking with my "I get about 10 minutes on the stage" habit. The key is that I wrote this part. I am the co-author of this play, and the only reason I'm acting in it is because we are pushing through and performing the thing at the end of February, and we needed to fill all the parts! Make no mistake: just like with "42nd Street", while my part isn't unimportant, no one will remember my part by the end! But, I'm doing this so that a play I wrote gets performed. If I want to get petty, I think that means I get a share of every "good job" said to anyone in the cast! If I want to get petty, that is.
And that is very exciting!
I read two interesting articles lately, both of which have to do with film.
Film is a different world than stage in many ways. In the world of stage I find the door slammed in my face repeatedly -- stage is very much a white man's world -- but I understand that there are far more options for people with "ethnic looks" in film. That's great, but these aren't major roles: lead roles in film tend to still be young white men. I'm a middle aged Indian man, short with a pot-belly. If anyone wants to finance a summer action blockbuster with that sort of character as the star, just let me know!
One thing I read recently was by George Lucas. He has just made a big-budget action movie with an almost all-black cast. He felt that Hollywood didn't give the script a chance because of the almost all-black cast. Say what you want about George Lucas' "Star Wars" prequels, but I think he knows what he's talking about. This is the freaking 21st century, folks, and yet this attitudes still remain! Remember that this isn't a case of black actors not getting a chance because all the major roles are written for white actors. The film was written for an almost all-black cast. If George Lucas is correct, this script was not given a chance because all the major roles weren't written for white actors!
A common "it isn't racism" denial is that "it isn't racism" because the roles are written for white actors. "What are we to do? The starring roles for black actors are just not there." If George Lucas is right, that excuse is bullshit.
Oh, and by the way, don't mention Denzel Washington as though that makes up for it. Denzel has it all: he's talented, handsome, and has one hell of a presence. And he had to work his way up to being taken seriously as a leading man. To counter that . . . Sam Worthington. I watch him perform and I hope that some day he will find something he might be good at. It clearly isn't acting. Maybe he'll discover he's a talented painter.
Another article had to do with Heather Donahue, from Blair Witch Project. I thought she was very good in that movie, but she simply did not have "leading lady looks". She found herself typecast as the "best friend". She found herself playing increasingly crappy roles until one night, laying there during the filming of a bad horror movie, she asked "is this what I really want to do with my life?" Apparently, she took everything in her life from acting, went out into the desert, and destroyed it all, to start clean.
She went through some difficult times, apparently, trying to find herself, but appears to be happier with herself now.
I remind myself that these are about professional film. Professional entertainment is a different world, and the visual element is front and center. For every Meatloaf -- someone not particularly good looking but who made his name by being a great performer -- there are a dozen Britney Spears. It's just the way things are. My love of theatre was never built on dreams of being a professional actor. I'm strictly an amateur. My love of theatre suddenly plunged me into a world where I saw that no matter how good I am, no matter how much I build my skills, no matter how hard I work, I will never get a chance because I just don't look the part. I had to ask: did I really want to chase something that repeatedly told me "you just aren't good enough"?
"Vampe" is a good play. I'm very proud of my work. At readings and at our first rehearsal, I saw people thrilled with things I had written. This reminded me that I am more than "good enough". Maybe I should be spending less time trying to prove myself to something that is clearly not interested.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Politics
The other day, I had a chance to chat with someone from a local theatre company, about some interesting politics they had encountered.
I didn't know the details, but something odd happened with their performance of "Rent" last summer. When I was there at the end of a rehearsal, the directors were giving notes . . . yet the person that was the "main director" was out of the room, and there was some new guy giving notes. Who was he? Later, chatting with that "main director", he most certainly made clear he didn't want to talk about "Rent".
I had heard rumors that some people in the cast staged a revolt. The "main director" wanted to perform the songs according to the score, and from what I heard some people in the cast wanted to perform it according to the Broadway soundtrack. Apparently, from what I heard, these people in the cast came in with a different music director and demanded he be in charge of the singing.
What?
This made no sense.
While I'm still very curious, I don't have all the details I would like. What actually happened was that the director's mother was putting on two youth plays, but she didn't have anyone to handle the lighting. The director agreed to do this, but this meant he would be missing a crucial week's rehearsal for "Rent". One of the cast members of "Rent" asked if she could bring in her voice coach, just for that week. The other director and he had an understanding: he was just there to help out that week. That understanding went out the window, and he took over. For whatever reason (perhaps the lack of time before opening night), the voice coach/faux director wasn't sent packing. The main directors just threw their hands in the air and let things go.
A huge number of the cast were now blacklisted. The deal with the faux director was not the only issue: there was a great deal of unpleasantness, and a whole lot of egotism. The directors of that theatre company told me that they would never work with many of this cast, ever again. Not only that, the theatre company was working with another theatre company for this show, and people from that other theatre company were shocked at what they were seeing. These people were now blacklisted from both theatre companies!
The first word of "community theatre" is "community". We're not headlining a show on Broadway here. We all work together and we all pitch in. I've been in shows where a lot of members of the cast didn't help with set strike . . . this is inexcusable, in my opinion! I saw this theatre company's production of "Rent", and I saw a very enthusiastic and talented cast . . . but there was no reason for the overinflated egos! They weren't that good!
By the way, I'm on record as not much caring for the play "Rent". Yes, I see that it openly deals with HIV. Great. So does "Angels in America", a much better show. All through "Rent", I found myself looking at a bunch of intensely pretentious people that sit around whining. Not my cup of tea, thank you very much. The cast for this performance did a fine job (although the woman that played the exotic dancer had clearly never seen an exotic dancer), but in the end I said "yup, I don't like this play."
I didn't know the details, but something odd happened with their performance of "Rent" last summer. When I was there at the end of a rehearsal, the directors were giving notes . . . yet the person that was the "main director" was out of the room, and there was some new guy giving notes. Who was he? Later, chatting with that "main director", he most certainly made clear he didn't want to talk about "Rent".
I had heard rumors that some people in the cast staged a revolt. The "main director" wanted to perform the songs according to the score, and from what I heard some people in the cast wanted to perform it according to the Broadway soundtrack. Apparently, from what I heard, these people in the cast came in with a different music director and demanded he be in charge of the singing.
What?
This made no sense.
While I'm still very curious, I don't have all the details I would like. What actually happened was that the director's mother was putting on two youth plays, but she didn't have anyone to handle the lighting. The director agreed to do this, but this meant he would be missing a crucial week's rehearsal for "Rent". One of the cast members of "Rent" asked if she could bring in her voice coach, just for that week. The other director and he had an understanding: he was just there to help out that week. That understanding went out the window, and he took over. For whatever reason (perhaps the lack of time before opening night), the voice coach/faux director wasn't sent packing. The main directors just threw their hands in the air and let things go.
A huge number of the cast were now blacklisted. The deal with the faux director was not the only issue: there was a great deal of unpleasantness, and a whole lot of egotism. The directors of that theatre company told me that they would never work with many of this cast, ever again. Not only that, the theatre company was working with another theatre company for this show, and people from that other theatre company were shocked at what they were seeing. These people were now blacklisted from both theatre companies!
The first word of "community theatre" is "community". We're not headlining a show on Broadway here. We all work together and we all pitch in. I've been in shows where a lot of members of the cast didn't help with set strike . . . this is inexcusable, in my opinion! I saw this theatre company's production of "Rent", and I saw a very enthusiastic and talented cast . . . but there was no reason for the overinflated egos! They weren't that good!
By the way, I'm on record as not much caring for the play "Rent". Yes, I see that it openly deals with HIV. Great. So does "Angels in America", a much better show. All through "Rent", I found myself looking at a bunch of intensely pretentious people that sit around whining. Not my cup of tea, thank you very much. The cast for this performance did a fine job (although the woman that played the exotic dancer had clearly never seen an exotic dancer), but in the end I said "yup, I don't like this play."
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
1/3/2012
I'm contemplating going to an audition for Theatre Company D tonight. I think it might be counter-productive, though: it's a four person play set in the south, and there's only one male in the cast. I'm totally not right for the role, but perhaps I might go there just to see how they treat me this time. Keep in mind that I have refused to go to Theatre Company D because of how badly they treated me the one time I auditioned there, but I am seeing that I should give them another chance (I'm seeing indications that the bad treatment was more the "director" than the "company").
In a few weeks, I'll be hearing from Theatre Company E because of their acting classes. Last fall I signed up for two of their acting classes, both on Monday nights. IF I sign up this time, I will only sign up for one of the acting classes. I didn't get a whole lot out of the other acting class, and honestly I felt a bit out of my league. Besides, taking two acting classes is expensive! Still, I'm considering not taking any acting classes this time. The problem is that I feel as though I need some practical experience. I feel like someone that has taken a bunch of computer programming classes but has never actually written a program. One can learn a lot from the classes, but one will eventually hit a wall until one actually programs! I feel like I am at that wall with acting. I need to actually use the things I am learning.
I'm going to have to disappoint Theatre Company B regarding "The Producers". For this show, they are setting up little animatronic pigeons, and want me to operate one of them. Okay: contact me for tech week. But, they also want me to be in the chorus for one scene. I love this bunch, but that suddenly means "time commitment" and I'd rather not put in that commitment for that one chorus scene.
One of the down-sides of Theatre Company B is that they charge, and sometimes they charge a lot. They're a theatre company constantly on the edge of financial disaster. It's not uncommon for community theatres to charge, but most of the time the amount is small. Theatre Company B used to charge $40 or $50 per show, which was expensive. The problem is that they would then expect fundraising. For "Godspell", we were all expected to come up with an extra $100 for fundraising, which would go to lighting. I was in the show with my ex-girlfriend. I did fundraising, she didn't, so we wound up paying $140 for her to be in this show! She was in "Hairspray" with my younger son, and for that fundraising with hundreds of dollars! Neither my ex-girlfriend nor my younger son did the fundraising, and in fact this was true of many in the cast. Because of this some corners needed to be cut in the staging. For "42nd Street", this got a bit insane. The fee was now $50, and I don't remember the exact fundraising number. I did fundraising, but neither of my kids did any. I was a bit annoyed that I did fundraising (and contributed a good bit of money myself) AND I wound up having to buy my own costume. The problem was that enough people didn't fundraise that we couldn't pay for the lighting. Performances were followed by pleas during the performance: could people donate money so we could keep the lighting? We managed, but I would wager the net result was the company didn't make a penny.
After that, Theatre Company B decided to not depend on fundraising. Instead, they would raise the fee to be in their show. It cost me $120 for my younger son to be in their last show, "Nutcracker Fusion"! And I will be putting out $70 for him to be in "The Producers"!
Now, Theatre Company B is going to put on "Vampe", a musical I co-wrote, in February. For this, we are renting out the theatre for Theatre Company H. We are telling people upfront: this is an original work, and we need everyone to supply their own costumes and put money in to pay for the theatre rental (we are estimating $60/person). I will be in this show, so that will be occupying my time and attention. In this case, I don't mind the fact that my part isn't huge (it's still interesting, however), and the fee is understandable (we need to fund this ourselves): I wrote this thing, damnit!
In a few weeks, I'll be hearing from Theatre Company E because of their acting classes. Last fall I signed up for two of their acting classes, both on Monday nights. IF I sign up this time, I will only sign up for one of the acting classes. I didn't get a whole lot out of the other acting class, and honestly I felt a bit out of my league. Besides, taking two acting classes is expensive! Still, I'm considering not taking any acting classes this time. The problem is that I feel as though I need some practical experience. I feel like someone that has taken a bunch of computer programming classes but has never actually written a program. One can learn a lot from the classes, but one will eventually hit a wall until one actually programs! I feel like I am at that wall with acting. I need to actually use the things I am learning.
I'm going to have to disappoint Theatre Company B regarding "The Producers". For this show, they are setting up little animatronic pigeons, and want me to operate one of them. Okay: contact me for tech week. But, they also want me to be in the chorus for one scene. I love this bunch, but that suddenly means "time commitment" and I'd rather not put in that commitment for that one chorus scene.
One of the down-sides of Theatre Company B is that they charge, and sometimes they charge a lot. They're a theatre company constantly on the edge of financial disaster. It's not uncommon for community theatres to charge, but most of the time the amount is small. Theatre Company B used to charge $40 or $50 per show, which was expensive. The problem is that they would then expect fundraising. For "Godspell", we were all expected to come up with an extra $100 for fundraising, which would go to lighting. I was in the show with my ex-girlfriend. I did fundraising, she didn't, so we wound up paying $140 for her to be in this show! She was in "Hairspray" with my younger son, and for that fundraising with hundreds of dollars! Neither my ex-girlfriend nor my younger son did the fundraising, and in fact this was true of many in the cast. Because of this some corners needed to be cut in the staging. For "42nd Street", this got a bit insane. The fee was now $50, and I don't remember the exact fundraising number. I did fundraising, but neither of my kids did any. I was a bit annoyed that I did fundraising (and contributed a good bit of money myself) AND I wound up having to buy my own costume. The problem was that enough people didn't fundraise that we couldn't pay for the lighting. Performances were followed by pleas during the performance: could people donate money so we could keep the lighting? We managed, but I would wager the net result was the company didn't make a penny.
After that, Theatre Company B decided to not depend on fundraising. Instead, they would raise the fee to be in their show. It cost me $120 for my younger son to be in their last show, "Nutcracker Fusion"! And I will be putting out $70 for him to be in "The Producers"!
Now, Theatre Company B is going to put on "Vampe", a musical I co-wrote, in February. For this, we are renting out the theatre for Theatre Company H. We are telling people upfront: this is an original work, and we need everyone to supply their own costumes and put money in to pay for the theatre rental (we are estimating $60/person). I will be in this show, so that will be occupying my time and attention. In this case, I don't mind the fact that my part isn't huge (it's still interesting, however), and the fee is understandable (we need to fund this ourselves): I wrote this thing, damnit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)