Platonic critics break up (but still remain good friends)

We tried. We really did.

For quite a while fellow-critic Jenn McKee and I have been trying to come up with creative ways to provide both theaters and theatergoers with an alternative platform for theater news and criticism. Our first proposal (a unique, twice-monthly, online-only theater magazine that focused on news, previews and interviews rather than reviews) went down in flames for reasons too detailed to go into here. Other ideas we explored together or separately, such as short video reviews, podcasts and a weekly half-hour video series, all bit the dust, as well.

Then, Jenn had an idea she thought would be fun: Since we sometimes found each other at the same shows, how about co-writing reviews – but as a conversation between us rather than the same old tired format we’ve all become accustomed to?

And thus was born the Platonic Theater Date series. It debuted at the end of March, and the immediate feedback we received was very encouraging; apparently, some found reading our chats was as much fun for them as it was for us writing them.

But after nine dates, Jenn and I have decided to break off our engagement (so to speak); that is, to end our little experiment.

It’s not that we didn’t enjoy doing them. Rather, we looked forward to sitting down – her at her house in front of her computer and me at mine doing the same – and letting our “chat” on Facebook Messenger travel in whatever directions our conversation took us. There were never any discussions beforehand; what you read is how the conversation transpired (with a couple rounds of editing and polishing, of course).

So why, then, are we discontinuing the series?

In part, for the same reason the above-mentioned projects never took off: We haven’t found a way to get paid for all of the time and effort we put into the project.

Pretty much every media outlet today is struggling to figure out how to monetize online content. Not even the big behemoths have discovered the solution, and for new endeavors like ours, it’s especially tough. And forget advertising; we’re too small at this point to be noticed, even by Google. Nor will we consider asking theaters to help fund this project due to “pay to play” and “favoritism” concerns.

But more importantly, we face the paradox Jenn recently discussed on Facebook: because mainstream news sites have neither the resources nor the will to feature much local arts coverage, those of us in the “flyover states” are largely left with only blogs. And unless artists and companies share these obscure blog reviews via Facebook, websites, social media, or email blasts – which many won’t want to do when the assessments are critical, of course, which just makes sense - we can’t gain traction in the marketplace and build something more sustainable.

Bottom line: very few people are reading our reviews. Of the first eight published, only one made it to four digits; the others averaged a measly 347 views. And our last one? It finally hit 122. We’re expending all our energies for only a handful of readers, the numbers of which are trending downward.

So we’re calling it a day.

We sincerely thank the theaters that reached out and invited us to their shows, who gave us free tickets, and seemed to appreciate our efforts on their behalf. And we also thank our readers who offered words of encouragement, or said positive things about our work.

But now it’s time for us both to move on to other things.

For Don, he’s limiting his reviews to brief comments on Facebook for the time being. Future blog entries will occur when the spirit moves him. He will, however, continue writing show previews and interviews for Between The Lines and elsewhere as opportunities arise. And he’ll continue to think about ways to promote theater in this new age of media uncertainty.

Jenn will still write occasional reviews for Pulp, We Love Ann Arbor, and any other sites that will pay for her work, in addition to a couple of Patreon-funded indie reviews for her blog per month. Otherwise, she hopes to dive further into the script she recently starting writing - when she’s not carting her kids around to day camps and working part-time shifts at her local library.

Platonic critics: Characters bloom in Rep season closer

As the final installment of Jenn McKee and Don Calamia’s Platonic Theater Date review series, the two critics attended the same performance of Detroit Repertory Theatre’s “Ghost Gardens” on June 7, and followed-up with a conversation about the show. Here’s their joint review:

New life, especially in the face of hard circumstances, always offers hope.

This is the reason people are happy to see baby pictures in their social media feed. They provide a break from the anger, posing, and tragic news that otherwise clog our daily lives; and they suggest that no matter what, life will out. Steven Simoncic’s play “Ghost Gardens,” now playing at Detroit Repertory Theatre (directed by Lynch Travis) through July 1, builds its story around this notion.

Set in a Detroit neighborhood that stands in the shadow of an old, chemical-spewing plant, “Gardens” begins with Lorelie (Leah Smith) at her baby’s grave on what would have been her tenth birthday. Lorelie’s been trying to get pregnant again for the intervening years, without success, and she’s not the only one. No children have been born in the neighborhood in years. So when Lorelie, on this tenth anniversary, announces that she’s pregnant, her underemployed husband Tryg (Aral Gribble), sassy best friend Myra (Jenaya Jones Reynolds), ailing mother Helen (Linda Rabin Hammell), and the local pimp-turned-preacher Powder (Cornell Markham) rejoice.

Indeed, a man named Lonnie (Will Bryson), just released from prison, who’s now working alongside Powder, hatches a plan to use social media to raise money and hopes around Lorelie’s good news. But as Tryg continues to sometimes go missing for days at a time, and Helen grows sicker – despite her new, blossoming relationship with Powder – Lorelie begins to buckle under the pressure of her community’s collective hopes.

DC: In my opinion, the Detroit Repertory Theatre is ending its 61st season with the type of show they excel at: stories about ordinary people struggling with their everyday lives. And what they also do quite well is cast their shows with a mix of longtime favorites and new faces to keep their shows fresh and energized. This show embodies both ideals.

JM: This was the first time I'd been back at the Rep since I last reviewed a show there a few years ago, and it reminded me of how focused they are on telling the kind of stories you describe.

DC: It's also a theater I love going to because of how welcoming it is. At how many theaters can you find the founding artistic director still manning the bar after 61 years? And another cheerfully greeting you in the box office? And where else can you buy tasty cookies freshly baked based on recipes from yet a third co-founder?

JM: First, WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE COOKIES?! And second, these touches are definitely part of what charmed me most the last time I visited Detroit Rep. But we should get to talking about the show. What were your overall impressions of "Ghost Gardens"? I wasn't previously familiar with the work of playwright Steven Simoncic.

DC: That makes two of us – at least I don't recall seeing any of his other plays. I enjoyed this one, though. While it didn't have a really big dramatic arc, it was filled with numerous intimate moments in which we got to learn about the characters, their hopes, their dreams, their problems - and what happens when a community unites together for a cause despite their differences.

JM: For me, the play spreads itself a little thin. Though everything's connected, the sheer number of stories within the play results in them all getting short shrift. We have the story of a beleaguered blue collar marriage, an ailing parent, a mature romance, an ex-convict finding his way in the world, an unexpected pregnancy, the deep friendship between two women, an examination of how hope gets commercialized and marketed online - there's a lot. Maybe too much.

DC: While I can see your point, it didn't particularly bother me. We had a lot of characters and relationships to sort through and understand, and I thought we were given just the right amount of information we needed about each character’s story arc to follow the plot and keep all the interconnected dots straight.

JM: There were some really nice moments between the actors, but the script itself felt like someone throwing all kinds of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. My point is, with so many different elements, I never felt invested in any particular one of them.

DC: I'll agree with you on that last point. Because of how each character is given so much time in the spotlight, you're never quite sure whose story is the primary one. I think it’s Lorelie's because it's her pregnancy that starts the ball rolling, but there's some competition for that honor. The focus; not the pregnancy! (laughs)

JM: Right. And that's the driver of many events and conversations. Oh! I forgot that the play's also got a public health thread, by way of the chemical-spewing plant located near this neighborhood. The surprise and hope her pregnancy provides everyone stems from that.

DC: But like you said, the story meanders across so many plot threads, that it takes focus away from Lorelie. She almost becomes a sub-plot in her own story.

JM: Yes. I agree. That having been said, what performances did you find most affecting?

DC: That's a tough call, since this was a pretty strong cast. Personally, I loved Cornell Markham as Powder, the pimp-turned-preacher. He had such honesty in his characterization, always with a twinkle in his eye. Jenaya Jones Reynolds as Myra was the show’s comic relief, yet you could totally feel her love for Lorelie, her best friend. And who couldn't love Aral Gribble's very convincing Tryg? He plays these “blue collar everyman” roles to perfection. And Leah Smith, one of my favorite actresses, brought such sensitivity to her role!

JM: Yes, and the actors have an extra challenge because filling in a lot of blanks (regarding character) in the script is ultimately up to them. That's one reason why Gribble wowed me. He wasn't on stage all that much, but when he was, he poured way more into his scenes, just by way of his choices. Similarly, Hammell imbues Helen with an irresistible feistiness that made her, as a character, come more alive, too.

DC: That's why it's so tough to pick a favorite or highlight a specific moment to discuss. They all do such great jobs filling out and giving heft to what the playwright gave them. There are so many little touches...

JM: I loved Reynolds' no-nonsense sassiness, and Smith has some really powerful moments. But again, unfortunately, it didn't add up to cumulative impact.

DC: That's indeed a problem when a playwright uses somewhat of a scattershot approach to storytelling: the focus becomes the many rather than one or two clearly defined lead characters, so you’re not sure whom to root for.

JM: What did you think of Harry Wetzel's set? It looked as if the "garden" of the title had taken over every inch of this world, including its interiors.

DC: Yes, indeed. I interpreted it to mean that seeds planted in the hearts and minds of this neighborhood took root and spread throughout the entire community. But I could be wrong. (laughs)

JM: Huh. I saw a darker meaning - which may just be my twisted personal filter at work. But it seemed to me to emphasize how in this neighborhood, there was no separation between outside and inside. What's happening "out there" - with the nearby plant, and the harmful things coming from it - long ago infiltrated everything. Though things are verdant and green, and somewhat beautiful, there's also something haunting about the way the greenery is pervasive.

DC: Could be. I didn't see that, but I guess I didn't give it that deep of a consideration. I just know it’s another of Wetzel’s well-executed designs.

JM: Meanwhile, Thomas Schrader's lighting design had a colorful, watery quality at times.

DC: It sure did. I was quite impressed with his work.

JM: Quite a lovely effect. And Sandra Landfair Glover’s costumes place us more firmly in this blue collar Detroit neighborhood – but the real stars of her work were Helen and Lorelie’s red dresses, of course. Both frocks convey an air of individual defiance and pride.

DC: I loved the scene where we see Gribble’s Tryg quickly change clothes to show his life’s progression up to this point. It was very creative and required some careful planning on Glover’s part, since he had to get in and out of various items very quickly. So overall, what's your bottom line?

JM: Some good performances, with solid direction from Travis, but there's only so much the artists can achieve with a scattered script.

DC: I found it to be entertaining, more so because of the performances, direction and tech work than the script, which is ultimately not a very memorable one. But overall, it was yet another enjoyable evening at the Rep, and I can’t wait to see what they have on tap for season 62!


For complete show details, CLICK HERE!

Return of the Platonic Duo: Critics follow Johnson to Milan; Zettelmaier added to stalking list

As part of Jenn McKee and Don Calamia’s new Platonic Theater Date review series, they attended the same performance of Roustabout Theatre Troupe’s “All Childish Things: The Special Edition” on June 1, and followed-up with a conversation about the show. Here’s their joint review:

If you recently felt a tremor in the Force, something you haven’t felt since … well, the last time Joseph Zettelmaier’s “All Childish Things” was produced … it’s likely because the Roustabout Theatre Troupe (co-founded by Zettelmaier, Joey Albright and Anna Simmons) has mounted a new “special edition” of the “Star Wars” collectibles heist comedy that runs through June 17 at Milan’s McComb Performing Arts Center.

“Childish” marks the first full production staged by Roustabout, and like “Star Wars” editions available on DVD, it’s received several tweaks and updates since its 2006 world premiere production at Hamtramck’s Planet Ant Theatre.

Set in a basement apartment where “Star Wars” memorabilia occupies every shelf and surface, “Childish” is the story of three longtime male friends (and one girlfriend) who, after months of meticulous planning, aim to rob a nearby Kenner Toys warehouse. Reportedly, the ultimate stash of classic “Star Wars” collectibles is hidden there, and because an anonymous buyer is willing to pay two million dollars for it, each nerdy and unlikely heist participant starts daydreaming and making plans. Dave (Dan Johnson), who lives in the basement, aims to get his own place; Max (Andy Gaitens), a single dad, wants security and a better life for his four year old daughter; and Carter (Jacob Hodgson), who works a low-pay job at Kenner, plans to cut a record with his rock band and show Kendra (Meghan VanArsdalen) – a film studies grad who works at a nearby cinema and isn’t all that into “Star Wars” – he’s serious about their future together.

DC: I find it interesting that two of the last three shows we've reviewed have scripts by Joe Zettelmaier, and oddly enough, both are from earlier in his career. So for me, taking a fresh look at "All Childish Things," of which I saw the world premiere in 2006 and also a handful of subsequent productions and sequels, gives me a chance to see how well the script holds up a decade later. But more importantly, I wanted to check out the first full production produced by Roustabout Theatre Troupe.

JM: Yes, it's always exciting to see the first full production from a new company. And weirdly, given how much Zettelmaier work we've taken in, I was just assigned to review the upcoming Penny Seats Theatre production of his play "The Gravedigger.” So the Year of Joe continues! As with actor Dan Johnson, it feels like we're stalking Zettelmaier...

DC: It does indeed. Dan's been everywhere this season, it seems, and now here we are with almost back-to-back Zettelmaier shows. The stalking list grows! (laughs)

JM: So you said you were interested in seeing how the material held up 10 years later. What's the verdict?

DC: I still love the script. And since “Star Wars” is still such a major cultural phenomenon and huge money maker - and since nerds are still with us and always will be - it holds up quite well.

JM: That's interesting, because - light sabers down, everyone - it didn't hold up as well for me.

DC: Was it the script or the production itself? For me, it was the latter.

JM: Well, I caught most of the riffs on and allusions to “Star Wars,” and chuckled a few times and thought, "That's cute," but I never felt completely plugged in. I wasn't swept up in it - which good heist narratives do, of course. And to answer your question, I've been thinking about whether it was the script or the production a lot, but I'm still not sure. As we dig into this, I'm hoping it will become more clear. What were your issues with the production?

DC: It took me a while to warm up to the show as well, and I think it was because of some of the performances. As much as I love Dan Johnson, who seems like he'd be the perfect nerd, I felt his and Andy Gaitens' performances as Dave and Max, respectively, were a bit too wild, too out of control at times, so much so that I sometimes had trouble understanding them when their emotions and anxieties soared. And Gaitens, especially, seemed a bit all over the place with his performance; it wasn’t a polished performance, in my opinion, which distracted me at times.

JM: I think getting the tone exactly right for this show is pretty crucial, and yes, that was part of what was off for me. It's hard to gauge. You have to be true to their nerd-dom, yet we have to be able to relate to them, too.

DC: Yes, and that was my problem with them: I couldn't relate to them - which as a fellow nerd, shouldn't be difficult for me. (laughs) I just wasn't "feeling" it for much of the first act.

JM: And as gorgeous as Milan High's theater space is, it felt too big, too open and airy, for this story. At Planet Ant, I kind of felt like I was in that claustrophobic basement with the characters – so there was a vicarious joy and thrill in being part of this ill-fated heist.

DC: I agree, even though Jennifer Maiseloff's set couldn't have been more basement like. She had a lot of space to fill, and she did it without sacrificing what it was meant to be – a lived-in basement.

JM: The attention to detail is impressive, from the shelving to the basic layout and furniture choices. It really does look like a basement apartment kind of set-up. But as I said, the size of the venue seemed to be adding an extra challenge.

DC: Agreed. This script needs to be done in a small black-box space in which - as you point out - the audience is squeezed into the space along with the characters. I think that helps the audience get invested in the characters; you become one of them - and you feel their energy and excitement and get caught up in it with them.

JM: It's so interesting to me how much the performance space impacts the show. In fact, the exaggerated acting tone, I'd guess, stemmed from the actors (and the director, Joey Albright) instincts to fill that expansive space with bigger gestures, bigger statements.

DC: That could be. But then the performances of Jacob Hodgson and Jon Davidson as Carter and Max show you don't need to go over the top to fill the space. Now, I totally understand the differences in how their characters are conceived and written, but they gave very slick, controlled, nuanced - and polished - performances that drew and focused my attention to them. Their performances were far more in line with the cast from the original production at Planet Ant than with this one.

JM: What I found odd was that this time, I kept feeling like these characters seemed more pathetic, and less sympathetic, than they had been previously. I know that sounds harsh, but the small-ness of their lives, and their obsession with what are, in the end, children's toys, just seemed less compelling to me this time around. Maybe that's also a function of the times we're living in. But it's definitely how I was feeling.

DC: No, I felt that too. In earlier productions, you couldn't help but root for these guys. They may be a bit misguided, but they were likable. Even Meghan VanArsdalen's Kendra - the icky girlfriend who intrudes into the all-boys’ club - seemed a little harsher than I've seen in past productions.

JM: In the spirit of Princess Leia, Kendra has to be spiky and hard-edged, of course. But I also didn't connect all that much with her this time around.

DC: So what did you like about the production?

JM: I really did like Maiseloff's set. Venue issues aside, I loved how I could keep looking at its many nooks and crannies and notice even more little things of interest on stage. I think that came to mind first, because the set had a sense of fun about it - and that's what I think the production needed more of.

DC: I loved the "vault" – inside which we never actually see, except for the superb lighting effect by Alex Gay. And I also wanted to go up and play with some of the toys - but I knew better. I bet props designer Ben Despard had a blast finding all this stuff!

JM: The vault put me in mind of the glowing suitcase in "Pulp Fiction" - which was an homage to the ‘50s film classic "Kiss Me Deadly," if you want to go all the way back. But it's a fun effect, definitely.

DC: It certainly allows everyone in the audience to imagine for themselves how enormous the vault is and what treasures are stored in it.

JM: I also appreciated that Despard, who designed the costumes as well, made pointed but not-too-self-conscious choices. I was happy to see Big Man not decked out head to toe in Darth Vader black, but in a colorful track suit. Though he gives off the air of danger, there's a casualness to his malevolence - and I thought that worked. The banality of evil and all that...

DC: (laughs) Oh, exactly. When one conjures up the image of a gangster, they picture a Tony Soprano type. That's not Davidson at all. Yet he truly becomes this geeky, yet dangerous thug in such a way that you can't help but like him, too. He's just another nerd. But a very dangerous nerd.

JM: And it fit perfectly with the way Davidson played the role, which I appreciated. The idea of a "Star Wars" fanatic mobster is kind of irresistible.

DC: It is indeed. What did you think of Hodgson's performance?

JM: This marked the first time I'd seen him on stage in a long time. I appreciated his performance, but it struck me that there's not a lot of meat to that role. More of interest gets revealed about his character late in the show, but up until then, we just have a few pieces to put together about him.

DC: Yes, the second act is where we learn more about the character. And it's where Hodgson's skill as an actor shines. I kept watching him after the gang returns from their adventure, and his eyes and face reveal quite a bit. it's a pleasure to have him back on a local stage.

JM: Carter's story arc gets much more interesting after he's wounded - and Hodgson did play that part really well.

DC: Agreed.

JM: Let me ask you about the title, which is becoming a thing with me. It's drawn, I presume, from the biblical verse about how, once you grow up, you put away childish things. So the idea seems to be that what we're seeing is a group of people who are at the point of needing to complete that transition into adulthood.

DC: I agree. And it's a transition that many males seem to resisting and taking much longer to do these days. The guys in Joe's play, though, take it to the extremes. I wouldn't recommend their plan of action to other basement dwellers. (laughs)

JM: It's a really perfect, concise summation for the story - even though I questioned one of the characters setting another up to work for "the dark side" at the end. But you at least get to see how things from that point will now change for each of them. Though that basement may never lose its tenant. Sorry, Mom!

DC: (laughs) He'll sure be richer, though! Actually, that ending was an interesting twist, I thought.

JM: Yes, I did, too. And I wondered if forgiveness would come that easily for those involved. I have to think lingering distrust among the friends would ensue.

DC: Maybe the sequels address that!  (laughs)

JM: Though as it is, we might have to start calling ourselves Platonic Theater Daters Who Only See Zettelmaier Plays.

DC: Old Zettelmaier plays! (laughs) So what's your bottom line?

JM: Hmm. I guess I'd say this production might be most appreciated by "Star Wars" geeks, and/or people who are closely following and love Joe Z's work. But overall, I felt lukewarm (um, pun intended?) about the show. I'm excited about Roustabout, and I look forward to seeing what they do next, but this was, in my opinion, more of a decent start rather than a wow-inducing one. (God, have you noticed we sound like the very nerds featured in this play? “The original was better!”)

DC: We do, don’t we? Well, I am known as the Cranky Critic, so I guess it fits! (laughs) I, too, would recommend the show to "Star Wars" fans. But I suspect some who see "All Childish Things" for the first time may walk away with a different impression than we have; they’ll have nothing to compare it to like we do. So I don't want to discourage anyone from checking it out. Especially since I think it's important to support our newest theaters. And I think Roustabout has the ingredients to become a popular voice in the region.

JM: May the Force be with them …

For complete show details, CLICK HERE!