Archives for January 2010

The winner of the 2009 Will Glickman Award for best play to have had its world premiere in the Bay Area is playwright Sarah Ruhl for In the Next Room (or the vibrator play). The work premiered last February at Berkeley Repertory Theatre in a production directed by Les Waters and then transferred to New York.

It’s always such a privilege being part of the panel of local theatre critics that selects the winner of the prize each year. I am absolutely thrilled about our decision, though there was some tough competition from such contenders as Charlie Varon for Rabbi Sam and Ann Randolph for Loveland (both of which premiered at The Marsh.)

The Vibrator Play was one of the theatrical highlights of 2009 for me for its combination of brashness and delicacy, its exploration of the pros and cons of so-called “technological advancement” and its playful-soulful take on human sexuality.

The Will Glickman Award has been given annually since 1984. Created to honor playwright and screenwriter Will Glickman, the goal of the award is to encourage new plays and their production as invaluable investments in American theatre. Theatre Bay Area, the nation’s largest regional theatre service organization, has administered the award since 2004.

Berkeley Rep debuted three previous winners: Hurricane / Mauvais Temps by Anne Galjour; The People’s Temple by Leigh Fondakowski with Greg Pierotti, Stephen Wangh, and Margo Hall; and Yankee Dawg You Die by Philip Kan Gotanda. Other playwrights who have been honored include Liz Duffy Adams, Adam Bock, John Fisher, Brian Freeman, Doug Holsclaw, Dan Hoyle, Denis Johnson, Cherrie Moraga, Brighde Mullins, Peter Sinn Nachtrieb, Octavio Solis, Charlie Varon, and Erin Cressida Wilson.

The selection committee for this year’s award included the following journalists: Robert Avila, SF Bay Guardian; Karen D’Souza, San Jose Mercury News; Robert Hurwitt, San Francisco Chronicle; Sam Hurwitt, Marin Independent Journal; and yours truly.

Here is my review of the play from SF Weekly.

Patti Smith only heard the news about her friend Howard Zinn’s death shortly before going on stage at the Herbst Theatre in San Francisco last night to talk about her new book, answer questions and sing a couple of songs.

Most people in the audience including myself, hadn’t yet caught wind of Zinn’s passing. A wave of sorrow and shock spread across the City Arts & Lectures audience when moderator Kevin Berger mentioned Zinn.

Many people know about Smith’s close ties with the likes of Robert Mapplethorpe and Sam Shepard. But her friendship with the activist and author of The People’s History of The United States was less familiar. Smith stayed composed throughout her presentation, even though, according City Arts & Lectures director Sydney Goldstein, she had reacted strongly to the news when she first heard it.

In the most touching moment of her talk, Smith recited the lyrics to her song “People have the Power” in honor of Zinn. Smith said Zinn was particularly fond of that song and would often ask her to sing it or recite the words when their paths crossed.

Smith’s recitation came from deep within her. As the verses rolled on, her breath became deeper and the words more rounded and full. What started off as a quiet poem ended up as a full-blown incantation.

Backstage after the talk, Smith remained calm. Slumped on a couch in a wool beanie over her long wavy brown hair, baggy blue jeans tucked into scuffed worker boots and several shapeless sweaters, the great singer and poet was on the phone when I entered. Eventually she looked up. “I was just texting my daughter with the news about Howard,” she said, before politely shaking my hand.

People Have the Power

I was dreaming in my dreaming
of an aspect bright and fair
and my sleeping it was broken
but my dream it lingered near
in the form of shining valleys
where the pure air recognized
and my senses newly opened
I awakened to the cry
that the people / have the power
to redeem / the work of fools
upon the meek / the graces shower
it’s decreed / the people rule

The most palpable thing about watching Yo-Yo Ma and Emanuel Ax perform a recital of works by Schumann, Chopin and Peter Lieberson last night at Davies Symphony Hall was the rapport between the two artists. They behaved like they were sitting in the living room of one of their homes playing together for fun. They looked at each other almost more often than they looked at their music. Beatific smiles crossed their faces every now and again. The pleasure of their music-making was as evident as the gorgeous, sensitive sound they made together.

The second most palpable thing about the concert was how the pair managed to transform Davies Symphony Hall (which was packed to the gills) into an intimate space. Having witnessed many recitals in the venue in the past, I did’t think this was possible — I’d written it off as one of the least convivial spaces for small ensemble or solo music in town. Now I am forced to reevaluate my opinion.

I’m on a campaign to document street art in San Francisco. There is some beautiful work out there but it comes and goes so quickly that I fear that if I don’t document it, it will be forgotten. At the moment, it seems like the lifespan of most of the pieces I see is between one and three weeks. One of these pictures (the one with the two women embracing) was gone the day after I snapped it.

It’s so often the case out here on the West Coast that by the time an arts happening reaches us, it’s been so talked about that it can feel stale or overexposed before it even arrives. This happens a lot with touring Broadway shows (e.g. Doubt and August: Osage County.) The hype can have an adverse affect on the productions, setting expectations too high which often leads to disappointment.

This weekend’s appearance of Morphoses/The Wheeldon Company at San Francisco’s Yerba Buena Center for the Arts could have had the same negative results. The starry British choreographer’s company has been the toast of the London and New York dance worlds since being founded in 2007. But despite the hype, I found myself completely engrossed in the company’s performance.

With the exception of the poor acoustics which made the recorded music in two of the pieces sound very tinny, the four works presented by the company consumed the senses. Live piano and harpsichord accompaniment in the Wheeldon-choreographed “Continuum” and “Rhapsody Fantasie” created a sense of fullness and spaciousness. There’s a wonderful mix of refinement and earthiness in Wheeldon’s approach to choreography. At one moment, limbs are fully extended and toes perfectly pointed; the next, the dancers are flexing their feet in crumpled postures or moving around on the floor like insects.

I also was completely engrossed by the variety of the program, which veered between the purity of line in “Continuum”, the lush romance of the duet “Distant Cries” (choreographed by Edwaard Liang), humor and bravura in “Bolero” (choreographed by Alexei Ratmansky) and the fiery boldness of “Rhapsody Fantasie.”

Believe the hype: I hope the company comes back this way again soon.

It seems odd to me that an artform should be defined by the space in which it is presented rather than anything intrinsic to the art itself. But this seems to be the case with cabaret. The word literally means “room”. Here’s the definition from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

Main Entry: cab·a·ret
Pronunciation: \ˌka-bə-ˈrā, ˈka-bə-ˌ\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Middle French dial. (Picard or Walloon), from Middle Dutch, alteration of cambret, cameret, from Middle French dial. (Picard) camberete small room, ultimately from Late Latin camera — more at chamber
Date: 1655
1 archaic : a shop selling wines and liquors
2 a : a restaurant serving liquor and providing entertainment (as by singers or dancers) : nightclub b : the show provided at a cabaret

There’s only a small scene here in San Francisco. Mostly it’s based out of a venue called The Rzazz Room, a low-ceilinged nook in a corner of the Hotel Nikko downtown. But other venues host cabaret-like events such as Yoshi’s, Bimbo’s, The Exit Theatre, The Eureka Theatre and the Marine’s Memorial Theatre.

It’s really a very amorphous artform that seems to feed on the outer edges of other more well-defined genres such as musical theatre, jazz and singer-songwriting. Few artists these days can be said to be truly indigenous to cabaret. I suppose that’s not surprising when the word itself means a container for art — the walls between which it exists — than the art itself.

Yet at it’s most pure, cabaret isn’t a place to get tipsy while watching washed-up Broadway people slug their way huskily through “Summertime” and “Somewhere Over a Rainbow.” Although cabaret attracts artists from many, many different backgrounds, there are in fact specific parameters to presenting a cabaret performance that help to define the artform beyond its existence in a particular space.

One factor is the structure of a cabaret show which often, though not always, vacillates between comic and serious songs.

Another consideration is the choice of a signature song which comes to define an artist and acts as a sort of calling card for him or her.

A third staple of many cabaret performances is an overarching theme. This helps to give a show shape and sends over a strong message, instead of being a meandering collection of songs, which would make the experience a concert rather than a cabaret. For example, a recent show I attended at the Rzazz Room by Andrea Marcovicci, focused exclusively on the composer Johnny Mercer. Meanwhile, a performance I saw by Carly Ozard took a more personal theme — the artist built her lighthearted “Bewitched Bothered and Bipolar” program around the highs and lows of being bipolar.

And another defining characteristic of cabaret is the artist’s rapport with the audience. Speaking is as important a feature of a performance as singing. The best artists can effortlessly riff with their audiences and find the perfect segues into and out of each song.

These days, cabaret seems to attract an older or gay crowd. It’s largely ignored by everyone else. This is a shame. There’s something so special and intimate about sharing a performance with a true cabaret artist. “Share” is the operative word here — I can’t think of another type of performance that enables the audience to be as closely entwined with the artist as does cabaret.

Today I’ll be a guest on Sound Check, WNYC’s daily talk show all about music. Sound Check is currently doing a series all about singing and today’s show is focusing on men who sing high, which is a lovely coincidence as I’m devoting tomorrow’s episode of VoiceBox to the very same topic! I’m excited to be on air with one of my favorite countertenors, Philippe Jaroussky. Listen in at 93.9 FM or via the live webstream on the WNYC website.

I’m probably going to make myself very unpopular with this blog post. For what kind of cold-hearted arts critic would say anything negative about Youth Speaks, one of the the leading (if not the leading) nonprofit presenter of teen-oriented spoken word performance, education, and youth development programs in the country?

Founded in the Bay Area in 1996, Youth Speaks has done an amazing job of reaching out to young people and helping them to channel their thoughts and beliefs into text, which the youngsters (mostly teens) can share aloud at various Youth Speaks events like poetry slams and youth poetry festivals. The organization has achieved considerable fame around the US. According to the Youth Speaks website, it works with 45,000 teens per year in the Bay Area alone, and has created partner programs in 36 cities across the country.

I’ve heard Youth Speaks poets on several occasions at various events around San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland. I’ve always been impressed by the poets’ level of commitment, passion and confidence. Every now and again, I even hear amazing poetry delivered so powerfully that the words cut right to the core.

But at the organization’s annual Martin Luther King celebration in San Francisco on Monday, where I was able to watch and listen to many Youth Speaks poets one after another, I found myself less caught up in the performers’ rabble rousing enthusiasm than I was by their lack of basic delivery skills.

An assortment of young poets, some of them with more highly developed artistic abilities than others, got up to share their work. What mostly got in the way of my engagement with the event was the fact that half of the time, I couldn’t make out what the speakers were saying. Some of them spoke too fast, while others managed to mumble, even though they were miked. Also, I’m fine with young poets using the stage as therapy if they feel the need — at least a few performers gave tortured diatribes on being abused by their parents as children.

But whatever kind of poem you put out there in the world, if you’re going to put it in front of people, it should be a real performance i.e. learn the poem from memory. Standing on stage staring at a sheet of paper and stumbling over words is not my idea of performance poetry. The Youth Speaks mentors and instructors should insist that the poets learn their work by heart and pay more attention to the performative aspects of live poetry. After all, even if some of the speakers consider what they’re doing to be therapy, the people out there in the audience are usually looking to be entertained.

For most people, the word “choir” evokes an image of a group of people standing together singing. Last weekend, I learned that the term can also apply do dance.

Of the many beautiful and innovative qualities of Janice Garrett and Charles Moulton’s rapturous dance piece, The Illustrated Book of Invisible Stories, the most memorable is the “movement choir.” The choreographers assemble a group of 18 women who appear on stage at the start of the work standing in rows on risers. When the work begins, they all make beautiful patterns with their bodies to the sound of a live musical score played by eight musicians as six soloists dance before them.

The texture of the movement choir is indeed chorus like. The work in harmony with and at some times in counterpoint to the soloists. At one point, a soloist gets swept up by the movement choir, as if she’s being carried off the ground by some powerful elemental force. The group carefully and almost imperceptibly shunts her body sideways and upwards. At another point, the movement choir becomes a long serpent of bodies bent over one another and moving in perfect synch through space unstoppably. Anything that gets caught in between its ever-trundling legs gets shaken up and destroyed. The effect of the hapless soloists getting caught up in the monster’s belly is at once comic and sinister.

Garrett and Moulton haven’t created a narrative work with The Illustrated Book of Invisible Stories. But I found myself thinking of the movement choir as a force of nature or an energy field that’s ever-present in our lives but completely unknowable. I guess the best singing chorales in the world convey the same feeling when they sing masterworks like Monteverdi’s Vespers, Tallis’ Spem in Allium or Mozart’s Requiem. Whether standing still and singing, or keeping their mouths shut and moving, choirs at their best can make us understand the word “harmony” in a profound way.

Just as it’s often the case that playwrights and screenwriters aren’t always the best people to direct their own plays and movies, so composers don’t necessarily do an optimal job leading performances of their works from the podium.

This hypothesis was borne out over the weekend when I saw the British composer George Benjamin conducting the San Francisco Symphony in two of his pieces — “Duet”, a work for piano and orchestra written in 2008, and “Ringed by the Flat Horizon”, which the composer wrote at the very start of his career in 1980.

Unlike the previous concert of Benjamin’s work which I saw last week under the baton of David Robertson, this composer-helmed concert lacked, for want of a better word, oomph. Benjamin conducted both of his pieces as if sewing a pair of delicate lace curtains. The soundscape shimmered and was extremely intricate. But it all sounded very much the same. Robertson, on the other hand, brought out the extreme contrasts in the composer’s works. We heard filigree and fire in Benjamin’s music as interpreted by Robertson. But the contrasts were subdued in the composer’s hands. Perhaps it’s a case of the creator “not being able to see the wood for the trees”?

PS: Read Stephen Smoliar’s response to my blog post here.

The media landscape is in such a mess at the moment that media organizations should be shoring up their energies, focusing on turning out high quality product and finding ways to make sure that that product reaches an audience. There’s strength in numbers, so it makes sense for media organizations of a similar kind to look for ways to partner with each other and help each other out.

The reality, however, is very different. I’m seeing nothing but bitterness and resentment across the board. Local media outlets here in the Bay Area are harboring pointless and petty rivalries for one another, rivalries which they can ill-afford at a time when resources are at a premium and time, money and energy ought to be funneled in more productive ways.

Interestingly, the main source of disgruntlement seems to be happening not at the level of the big players in town (who are all suffering just as much as the small fish), but rather in the terrain of alternative weeklies, blogs and public radio stations. This seems ridiculous to me. You’d think these Bay Area-based liberal-leaning organizations would have more of an open mind and want to help each other out. But a spirit of mean-spiritidness is rife.

If any of these organizations hopes to get through the next couple of difficult years in tact, they need to start being less insular and lose the misplaced camp mentality, which can only lead to their mutual destruction.