When being a professional matters

I’ve likely said this in earlier posts or elsewhere, but in my not so humble opinion, Northville’s Tipping Point Theatre ranks among the area’s top professional theaters when it comes to consistently producing shows of the highest quality. Under the leadership of producing artistic director James Kuhl, I know before walking into the theater that the following expectations will be met in full: The show will be well cast and expertly staged; all of the technical elements will be first rate; the house staff will be friendly and courteous; its longtime beloved stage manager will once again avoid the eye of my camera; and I’ll have a very entertaining evening.

That was certainly true of the performance of “A Comedy of Tenors” by Ken Ludwig and directed by Angie Kane Ferrante that I attended last week.

It’s what I learned after the performance that impressed me even more!

“A Comedy of Tenors” is your typical door-slamming farce, with pretty much each of the familiar accouterments that comes with the genre. So I knew to expect a love-triangle or two and a series of mistaken identities and other mishaps – which means it’s the type of show Tipping Point does well, and one its audiences seem to love.

It’s also a breathtakingly fast-paced show, and with this particular genre, it means entrances and exits must be made very quickly, as must changes from one costume to another. There’s no time to screw up or slow down.

As anticipated, all went well throughout the performance. Not a single miscue was noticed. But after the performance I heard that the actor playing world-famous opera star Tito Merelli, Richard Marlatt, was not feeling well that night. Without giving much away – and hence, not requiring a spoiler alert – it’s a major role, and a difficult and juicy one at that for an actor of Marlatt’s caliber.

Yet not once did I ever get the feeling Marlatt was giving less than 100 percent. He seemed to be at the top of his game (and having a blast, quite frankly) from the moment of his first entrance through his final bow at show’s end.

So, too, was everyone around him – especially the always wonderful Sarab Kamoo who plays his beautiful and loving wife, Maria, with an equal amount of Italian fire and fury. They were wonderful together.

Because split-second timing is so important to comedies such as this, anything less from Marlatt would have been detrimental to the show. (Even more so would have been an understudy filling in for him!) But being a professional actor means you give it your all despite whatever adversity is placed before you – and that’s exactly what he did. And as a result, his Saturday night audience was treated to yet another laugh-filled night of theater at Tipping Point.

As I fully anticipated.

(As an aside, last weekend was an unexpected “Dave Davies weekend” for me, as on Friday evening I saw a show he directed, on Saturday a show he was in, and on Monday a show for which he did some voiceovers. He seems to be the busiest thespian in town right now, and deservedly so!)

SHOW DETAILS: “A Comedy of Tenors runs through Dec. 23. For complete show information, CLICK HERE!

Richard Marlatt, Sarab Kamoo
Hope Shangle, Nick Yocum

The Mighty Hicks returns (and he's excellent)

This past television season, one of the things I looked forward to as I watched “Detroiters” – the weekly sitcom created by Detroit improv favorites Tim Robinson and Sam Richardson – was to see which familiar faces would show up in each episode. Other than the very funny Mort Crim – yes, he showed a side of himself local TV news viewers never knew existed - one face appeared more than any other, that of improviser Quintin Hicks. I’ve been a fan of his work, if my aging memory is correct, since his days with The Second City, and to see him behind the bar interacting with his old pals at their favorite watering hole always brought a smile to my face. And a wish: that he’d return to the stage with yet another follow-up to “Fish Dinner,” his 2011 original show at Planet Ant Theatre that earned both him and director Dave Davies a Wilde Award for their efforts.

In his review of the production, critic John Quinn wrote, “'Fish Dinner' is a series of monologues by oddball characters sprung from Hicks’s fertile imagination. But don’t be surprised if you run across someone you know. The characters may be over the top, but they’re firmly anchored in reality. The individuality Hicks brings to his ‘cast’ is deeper than just changing a costume or donning a wig. The characters take on a life of their own as the actor disappears – one of the best of experiences for audience and performer alike. It’s one of the hallmarks of the genre.”

After seeing the production myself, I whole-heartedly agreed with his assessment.

Sequels followed in 2013 and 2016, and when I heard that a fourth was on the drawing board, I was thrilled. And so what did I think of “Fish Dinner 4: Thanksgiving” that I attended this past Friday night at the Ant’s Black Box Theatre?

Damn, Hicks knows how to serve a tasty evening of live theater!

Quintin Hicks. Photo courtesy of Planet Ant

Just like its predecessors, “Fish Dinner 4” is a series of monologues delivered by what initially appear to be random, quirky characters. But as the production flows along, the genius of Hicks’ creativity begins to shine, as a detailed tapestry of seemingly unrelated people, objects and events weave together to create an interconnected whole. Nothing happens by mere chance; every action and every character is but part of a much bigger, more beautiful picture – even that of a squirrel in search of its next meal.

What’s more, favorite characters from past shows make return visits, as Hicks grows, expands, updates and possibly concludes their stories (although I suspect aging wrestler The Mighty Quinn could make a come-back at some point).

And because of how carefully Hicks constructs his characters, the audience comes to care about them. We can identify with them, or laugh with them (and never at them). As critic Quinn said, Hicks thrives at creating life’s oddball characters, but he imbues them with heart, dignity and wisdom. And he does so with a gentleness that proves how much he loves and respects them.

As a result, the audience does, too!

Not all of the show is scripted, however. Part of the charm of the “Fish Dinner” series is how Hicks relates to and interacts with his audience – right from the very start. With a wealth of improv experience, Hicks is quite at home talking directly to individuals in the audience and coaxing them into participating in a scene. And because anything can happen under such circumstances – and generally will – Hicks is adept at “going with the flow” and seeing where the interactions take him. These are often among the highlights of the performance.

The Bottom Line: So while I absolutely loved every minute of “Fish Dinner 4” – including the appearance of the angelic Mikey Brown in once scene and video cameos of other familiar faces in another – I left with one regret. Rumors say that this is the last in the “Fish Dinner” series. I, for one, certainly hope not, as each and every visit is a warm reminder of how one uber-creative artist, one insightful director and a team of talented technicians can create such a unique and charming world the likes of which we rarely see.

Therefore, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Hicks and Davies will return yet again to serve us another scrumptious meal – this time including my favorite character of all, the Bear! (I just had to work that in there, Quintin!)

Unfortunately, “Fish Dinner 4: Thanksgiving” closes Saturday, Nov. 24. The production is the second of two shows on the schedule. The other is “Quickening,” an original comedy about the secret behind Detroit’s most famous mortgage company. Show details can be found HERE:

Bailey and Payton and Jacokes, oh my!

Anytime you put Joe Bailey and Richard Payton on stage together, one can expect comedic mayhem to break out. And when you add Suzy Jacokes into the mix – well, you get “Clue on stage” at The Ringwald Theatre in Ferndale, which runs through November 5.

Bailey – The Ringwald’s founding artistic director – and Payton have appeared on stage together so many times that they work like a well-oiled, laugh-generating machine. One only has to glance at the other – a warning sign, to be sure – and a comedic melt-down of epic proportions is sure to follow.

And that’s what happened more than once at this past Saturday night’s performance of the riotous comedy adapted from the screenplay by Jonathan Lynn.

Now, it’s a theatrical legend that the second performance of any run is generally a let-down from the night before; that all the anticipation and pent-up energy generated throughout the rehearsal process is expelled on opening night with little left to power the show the following night.

That certainly wasn’t the case with this production. That’s partly because director Bryan Lark puts his actors through such a vigorously draining pace from start to finish that it’s easy to believe the cast will shed a collective 900 gallons of sweat at the very least throughout the run of the show.

But it’s also because Bailey and Payton took advantage of both their love of one-upmanship and a few goofs to such a degree that I suspect most in the nearly packed audience couldn’t have cared less that a few lines of dialogue were flubbed or props didn’t end up where they were supposed to be.

Instead, we laughed our butts off. And when Jacokes chimed in – she, too, gets that certain gleam in her eye and sly grin on her face when inspiration is about to hit – it became obvious we were watching masters of their craft take the show to an unanticipatedly high level of comedic entertainment.

If there’s a comparison to be made, Saturday night’s performance was like watching an episode of “The Carol Burnett Show” when Harvey Korman, Tim Conway and Carol went off script and the results were hilarious. Yes, The Ringwald Trio were that good!

Also good – no, great, actually – was Donny Riedel, who plays Wadsworth the butler who serves as the show’s ringleader. In “Clue,” an oddball group of people are invited to a dinner party thrown by the mysterious Mr. Boddy. Once there, they learn they all have one thing in common – and that’s when the bodies start dropping. Riedel’s is a masterful performance, one in which every nuance of his character is so thoroughly examined, explored and expelled at such a high-octane level that one expects him to physically and emotionally collapse long before show’s end.

The Bottom Line: So while some nitpickers may find fault with actors who have some fun when things go awry on stage or when one simply looks at another and hilarity ensues, at The Ringwald that means one thing: We’re about to have an even better time than we initially anticipated.

For complete show details, CLICK HERE!

Donny Riedel

What I Love

I love plays that surprise me.

I love playwrights like Lauren Gunderson who take theatergoers on a journey they don’t expect and couldn’t foresee. I love directors like Krista Schafer Ewbank who have a vision for a script like “Ada and the Engine” and execute it with precision and care.

I love actresses like Sarah Hawkins who create such a glorious and vibrant character as Ada Lovelace that her facial expressions alone add several layers to her already-deep complexity. I love actors like Lindel Salow who is his co-star’s equal in telling Charles Babbage’s story through a careful glance here, a brief gesture there and perfectly shaded words and thoughts throughout.

I love actors like Kez Settle, Joshua R. Brown, Cynthia Szczesny and Matthew Wallace who fully support the production through expertly developed performances.

I love it when top-notch designers such as Harley Miah, Eric Niece and Cheryl Zemke come together to create theatrical magic. And I love it when Open Book Theatre in Trenton once again not only meets but surpasses my already-high expectations for a night out at the theater.

The Bottom Line: And I’d love it more if houses were filled for this weekend's final performances.

For complete show details: CLICK HERE!

Sarah Hawkins

Who will YOU believe?

There’s no way Adriane Galea could have known 17 months ago that the script she chose to open Outvisible Theatre Company’s 2018-19 season would be so timely that one could understandably suspect it was sneaked into the schedule to take advantage of the heat generated by the latest news cycle. But the universe works in strange and occasionally miraculous ways, and so the producing artistic director’s decision all those months ago to present the world premiere of Jeff Stolzer’s “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” while Americans are choosing sides in our latest political quagmire can be chalked up to a fortuitous act of serendipity that stamps the production with a “must-see” label as it grapples with a subject that threatens to tear apart an already fractious country.

Written about six years ago after a series of high-profile sexual assault cases caught his attention, Stolzer’s story opens as a young woman wakes up in the bed of a high-profile football star who brought her back to his hotel room after she approached him in a bar following his appearance at a fundraiser the night before. From there, the playwright – in a manner you’d expect of a trial lawyer – begins unfolding the aftermath of that fateful night. And he does so in a way that “we the audience” become “we the jury” – with the first half of the play detailing the morning after and what leads to a charge of rape, and concluding with the court testimonies of Kaylie and Noah.

Jeremy Kucharek and Danielle Wright

Who’s guilty and who’s not is never revealed –and that’s the genius of Stolzer’s concept. Instead, he first gives us insight into his characters’ characters as they go about their one-and-only morning together. Then, in what could be described as the play’s third act (the show runs 70 minutes without intermission), we observe for the first time through their individual testimonies what happened on the infamous night in question.

But is that what we’re truly seeing?

As in most – if not all – cases in which there are no witnesses and little proof-positive corroborating evidence, “we the jury” must make our decisions based on the details we are provided. But as their “he said/she said” testimonies unfold, two things become evidently clear: Each is trying to shape their story in the most positive light; and both aren’t totally truthful.

So who’s right and who’s wrong? What’s true and what’s not? What’s a jurist to do?

Talk. Think. And vigorously debate – which is what we Americans should be doing as the Kavanagh-Supreme Court fiasco plays out. And while there was no talk-back following the opening night performance, I did overhear theatergoers reacting to what they had seen – some whispered in hushed tones – and that led me to believe Stolzer’s evil plan to stimulate a much-needed discussion one performance at a time is succeeding.

And that’s a good thing.

About the production

Danielle Wright and Jeremy Kucharek

Although the above paragraphs provide a very high-level analysis of Stolzer’s script, I focus mostly on its overall theme and the concept he used to tell his story. What I did not do is dig into the nitty gritty of the script; that is, I did not provide any in-depth analysis of it, such as whether or not his dialogue rings true, or how successful he is at creating realistic and believable characters.

I also didn’t discuss the production itself.

There’s a reason for all of that.

It’s called “conflict of interest” – and that’s what prevents me from actually talking in detail about “Unsportsmanlike Conduct.”

How? Why? Because I was part of the process that helped Galea decide to produce and direct the script – and as a member of the American Theatre Critics Association, I believe that disqualifies me as an objective critic of the work, even in a setting such as this.

Back in April 2017, Stolzer was one of five authors whose work was produced as part of Outvisible’s first-ever Detroit New Works Festival, and I was honored to be one of the small team of judges she asked for feedback. As such, I attended all five staged readings and offered verbal commentary at the festival to both the audience at large and privately to Galea. In addition, I also provided individual written feedback to each of the authors. Plus, I was in full agreement that of the scripts given a reading, Stolzer’s was ready for production with little or no additional work needed. (It also helped it was the one Galea really, really wanted to direct herself!)

So while I suspect nothing I contributed made a bit of a difference in the end result, I must refrain from offering any additional commentary about the show other than what’s above and in The Bottom Line below.

The Bottom Line: A timely and thought-provoking show that is guaranteed to generate much needed discussion – heated and otherwise.

“Unsportsmanlike Conduct” continues through Oct. 7. For complete details, CLICK HERE!

Danielle Wright and Jeremy Kucharek

Edited for clarity Oct. 6, 2018

An affecting journey

While many (if not most) plays strive to generate a reaction from its audience, none has been so affecting in recent memory as Kickshaw Theatre’s season opener, “Milvotchkee, Visconsin.” And for many, I suspect, it will hit way too close to home for comfort.

That was certainly case for my friend who accompanied me to the performance.

The oddly titled “Milvotchkee, Visconsin” (which will make total sense as the plot unfolds) tells the story of a woman’s descent into dementia (likely Alzheimer’s disease) vividly told from her point of view. A mother and long-time tour guide, Molly finds that she can no longer remember the detailed facts behind the rather unusual park at which she’s worked for many years. And as her story unfolds, that’s not all she doesn’t remember.

Anyone who’s ever watched as a family member, loved one or friend slipped away as a result of a dementia-related disease will likely nod their heads in quiet acknowledgement as Molly’s world slowly slips away. It’s a frustrating experience, not just for her daughter, son and others with whom she must interact, but also for Molly herself. Especially for Molly.

Michael Hays, Nancy Elizabeth Kammer

And that’s what playwright Laura Jacqmin’s unorthodox approach to the subject matter excels at revealing. Subtitled “a comedy about a tragedy,” Jacqmin presents her story as seen through the eyes and deteriorating mental state of Molly herself. As such, the audience observes what transpires in Molly’s life as interpreted by a brain no longer anchored in reality. Hence, her mental state becomes the result of a hole in her head caused by lightning, while her children interact with her in rather unflattering ways.

It’s the disease, then, that is telling the story, not Molly. And it’s not a happy or hopeful one.

Luckily, though, it’s a rather well staged and acted one. In conceiving her production, director Lynn Lammers embraced the odd-ball nature of the script, yet maintained within her concept a sense of realism to the world inside Molly’s head.

As such, you almost want to smack her son and daughter (played so well by Aral Gribble and Sonja Marquis) for how poorly they seem to treat their mother. And you begin to wonder why the family would allow such a quack of a doctor (brilliantly played by Dave Davies) to treat their mother. But then you remember: That’s how Molly interprets their actions and behavior; we’re not privy to what was really said and done.

Although additional fine character work is provided by Michael Hays and Brenda Lane, the focal point of the show is Molly. If you don’t believe she’s experiencing a breakdown in her mental faculties, the show falls apart. Simply put: Nancy Elizabeth Kammer nails it.

And I think that’s what disturbed my friend most on opening night. What Molly revealed through Kammer’s spot-on facial expressions, tone of voice and behavior mirrored those of his parent who’s been living with dementia for a handful of years. It’s been tough for him, and this night at the theater was not what he expected. (I knew he was troubled by the show when he didn’t want to stay after and visit with one of his favorite actresses.)

However, I think he’d agree that Kickshaw’s season opener is a powerful one. Just come prepared for an experience all of us – especially those of us getting up in years – may face in the not-so-distant future. It just won’t be as humorous or well executed.

The bottom line: I went in to the show knowing nothing about it – I didn’t read the press release beforehand – and left impressed by the care and creativity the author, director, technicians and actors put into presenting this most difficult subject.

“Milvotchkee, Visconsin,” which runs through Oct. 7, is presented through the generous support of Glacier Hills Senior Living Community and Saint Joseph Mercy Health System. Also participating are Michigan Alzheimer’s Disease Center and Alzheimer’s Association. For complete show details, CLICK HERE!

Brenda Lane, Dave Davies, Nancy Elizabeth Kammer

All photos by Sean Carter Photography

Not so lost at Slipstream

As I posted on Facebook last night, I was at the Friday evening performance of “Lost in 3 Pines” at Ferndale’s Slipstream Theatre Initiative, which is playwright Maxim Vinogradov’s second script to win the prestigious Hopwood Award and the Dennis McIntyre Prize from the University of Michigan, where he currently double majors in English and film, and minors in playwriting. (Given the tough competition he was up against, winning one of those awards is amazing enough; winning both twice is stunning.)

So on the way home, my guest – who frequently joins me in my theater travels and who especially loves Slipstream – asked me, “So…what are you going to say about this one?”

“I haven’t a clue,” I replied.

As we drove back to my house, he said he was on the fence about the production, mostly because he hadn’t figured out how all the pieces fit together. “I just didn’t understand it,” he said with a deep sigh.

To be honest, I didn’t either – at least certain aspects of it. And neither did many (most? all?) of the patrons who stayed around after the performance to participate in an informal talk-back – which I normally don’t do. But since I was there as a theatergoer and not a critic, I decided to see what everyone else thought of the production. What I learned is this: My friend and I weren’t alone in our confusion. Or more accurately, I suspect, is this: Everyone interpreted what they saw through their own lenses and filters and viewed the results a bit differently. And that includes the actors and the director.

So as everyone compared notes and shared their observations, the puzzle pieces started coming together for me. But not totally.

The picture got clearer as my friend and I got closer to home. As we talked about things one or the other of us weren’t sure about – again, something that’s verboten when I’m functioning as a critic – more lights came on and Maxim’s vision got clearer. But so did something else.

As theatergoers, we’re used to being rather passive when we’re watching a play. Yes, we laugh or clap or sing along, but rarely do we exercise much brain power as the story unfolds; we simply sit back, observe and let it all soak in.

With plays such as “Lost in 3 Pines,” however, Maxim challenges his audience to not only watch and observe, but also to actively concentrate on every word that is said – even words or lines that seem unimportant at the time. To miss even a syllable could lead to confusion as the story roller coasters its way to its unexpected conclusion. As such, it’s part cryptogram, part word seek and part mental acuity test all rolled into a 90-minute dilemma that the great Sherlock Holmes would surely deem to be not-so elementary as he attempted to sort through its many piece parts.

By now you’re probably wondering what it's about. Here’s the best, basic, one-line summary I can think of: A young, married woman who feels trapped and lost in the life she’s living is asked a not-so-innocent question by a stranger she meets at a dinner party – “What do you do for a living?” – and the resultant existential quest to answer him takes her on a personal journey (real or imagined) she never expected.

Yes, that’s vague. Purposely so. But bear with me.

As I was shaving this morning and processing what I had seen the night before, a thought popped into my head that doesn’t really explain the details of the plot, but rather the show’s unusual concept and the form Maxim uses to tell his story. So here goes:

Imagine you’re a young college student sitting alone in a dimly lit, somewhat-seedy bar located in an old, run-down neighborhood few people frequent. It’s early evening, the sun has just gone down, when in walks author L. Frank Baum. He stops after taking a few steps inside, and once his eyes are adjusted to the darkness, he spots fellow-author Lewis Carroll sitting alone and nursing a drink. So he walks over, is invited to sit down, and the two begin a quiet, yet animated conversation. Within minutes, from another room inside the bar, walk Anton Chekov, Henrik Ibsen, Bertolt Brecht and Samuel Beckett. The two groups spot each other immediately, say their hellos and quickly grab a large, round table close to where you’re sitting. As the night progresses, drinks flow freely, tales tall roll off their tongues, and – thanks to the liquor taking its toll – an amusing challenge is suggested. "Just for the fun of it," one says to the others, "let’s take the archetypal characters of Dorothy and Alice on a self-exploratory journey unlike any other, one in which she’ll find herself surrounded by people and set in unique situations and places only those of us at this table could concoct for her." They all love the suggestion, of course, and the ideas quickly percolate. As the evening gets later and the stack of empty booze bottles grows larger, the story takes shape. Intrigued by what he observes is a lone figure sitting at the bar. But when the authors hit a stumbling block, the gentleman stands up, pays his bar tab, slowly saunters towards the group, offers a suggestion, and leaves. “Tennessee Williams, you’re a genius,” the six laugh. At dawn, the now-sleepy men rise from their now-filthy table and walk out into the sunlight, pleased with themselves and the story they created – knowing and accepting that it would never be told again. What they don’t know, however, is that the young man sitting nearby absorbed every word he heard. And he knows a time will come to bring their unusual tale to life.

While that scenario didn’t actually play out, of course, it helps explain what happens when concepts and elements of such childhood favorites as “The Wizard of Oz” and “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” are ripped apart and reshaped through the lenses of authors who worked in a handful of different, specific genres of Maxim’s choosing. The result, then, is a story told through four short acts staged and performed in four very different styles of theater.

As such, like every absurdist play you’ve ever attended, patrons will leave the theater unsure of what they’ve seen. They’ll have questions – possibly lots of questions. But that’s what good theater is supposed to do: challenge you and leave you to resolve unanswered questions for yourself.

For as it became clear at the talk back, no one – not even the actors in the play – viewed or interpreted the script the same way. Identical conclusions were never drawn. And I suspect absolutely no one in the audience anticipated the show’s final act.

Although our discussion about the play took us almost all the way home, my friend sat quiet as we drove the last few miles. As we approached my driveway, he looked at me and said, “I’ve changed my mind. I really liked the play.”

I did, too, although I still haven't resolved all of my unanswered questions. I also loved the performances – all of them, none of which I’ll talk about individually because it would be unfair to discuss one or two and not the others. Plus, this isn't meant to be a review. But I will say that because of the style changes required of each act, each actor was faced with the difficult task of figuring out how to negotiate each new change without negating what went on before. And they did so quite masterfully. And entertainingly.

Now, there’s only one question left to answer: Will YOU like the show? Maybe. Maybe not. One person I talked to hated it. But I suspect anyone one who loves theater that is different and unique and is open to work that challenges its audience to pay close attention and sort through its many details will find it intriguing. And fun. And thought provoking. And timely. And well acted. And well costumed.

Or: Just go to see ripped Brenton Herwat in a very shiny, skimpy, revealing outfit. I'm OK with that, too. (How Tiaja Sabrie kept a straight face at certain times is beyond me! A WILDE-r Award would surely be given them if such a thing still existed!)

“Lost in 3 Pines” runs through Aug. 5.  Show details can be found here:

(Photo at top by Jan Cartwright; all others by Nick Rowley.)

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!

Platonic critics celebrate DPT's 'Birthday'

As part of Jenn McKee and Don Calamia’s new Platonic Theater Date review series, they attended the same Saturday performance of Detroit Public Theatre’s “Birthday Candles” on May 26, and followed-up with a conversation about the show. Here’s their joint review:

After moments of extreme duress, people often say, “my life flashed before my eyes” – but in Noah Haidle’s drama “Birthday Candles,” now having its world premiere at Detroit Public Theatre through June 3, we instead bear witness to a highly compressed version of someone else’s long, eventful-but-ordinary life.

Specifically, Ernestine Ashworth’s (Claire Karpen) life. We first meet Ernestine on her seventeenth birthday, as her mom (Hallie Lee Bard, who plays multiple roles) is performing the ritual of making her daughter a cake, and also helping Ernestine run lines for her school’s feminist production of “King Lear.” Kenneth (Daniel Pearce), a nerdy neighbor boy smitten with Ernestine, drops by with a gift – the first of what will be a long series of goldfish – and a prom-posal, but after Ernestine turns him down, Matt (Michael Brian Ogden) drops by, causing Ernestine to visibly swoon, despite her stated commitment to live an unconventional life that will “surprise God.”

The scene ends with a audio cue, like a bell, that signals the passage of time to a near-future birthday of Ernestine’s, wherein she’s assumed responsibility for making her own cake in the exact way her mother did, citing the importance of this ritual. And this jump forward in time happens repeatedly throughout the 80 minute play (directed by Vivienne Benesch), so that we see Ernestine’s life play out in bursts as she gets married, raises a family, suffers loss and heartbreak, launches a business, re-discovers her independence, and experiences both profound joy and terrifying loneliness.

DC: So you've finally been able to visit the Detroit Public Theatre. Since it's your first show there, what were your first impressions?

JM: I was glad I was coming with a veteran attendee, because I think I might have initially been confused about where to go - especially since other events were happening in the same building. But once we were in the right place, my first thought upon seeing the set was "Wow." I liked the space a lot, and was impressed with the presentation before the show even got underway.

DC: I've heard a number of people say the same thing about their first-time visits there. With mobs of people funneling through the doors, it's not obvious in which direction Detroit Public Theater patrons need to go when so many are heading the opposite way. But I also agree that from that point on, the powers-that-be do a fine job creating a very welcoming environment and a professionally run space. They've quickly become a force to be reckoned with - not only here, but nationally as well.

JM: Once again, I was going in with a completely blank slate, not realizing that DPT had commissioned the play - nor did I know anything else about it. What did you think of "Birthday Candles"?

DC: If you had asked me that question about half way through the show, you'd have gotten a totally different response. Playwright Noah Haidle is pretty damn sneaky in how he made us care more and more about his characters as the story moved forward.

JM: Yes. I mean, the basic structure of the show feels familiar. Seeing a life's progression from youth to death by way of an annual event, like a birthday, is certainly something we've seen variations of before. And the device initially felt cloying to me. But I, too, fell more under the play's spell as it progressed. There were still repeated, stiff bits of dialogue here and there that felt more "writerly" than organic, and that grated on me a bit, but overall, by the end, I'd become much more emotionally invested.

DC: To be honest with you, I didn't see much of a raison d'être for this play until we were getting close to a quarter or a third of the way through, for precisely what you said. But then as the years and decades pass and "real life” begins to intrude more and more into their world, the show finally came together for me. I was hooked.

JM: That's right on the money. I didn't know why this particular story needed to be told for the first several scenes, either. It doesn't operate with a clear narrative hook, so you just have to go on faith - which is fortunately, in the end, rewarded.

DC: I kept thinking to myself, "Where is this story going and why should I care?” - until it became obvious and I did. It just took a while to get there for me.

JM: Me, too. And it didn't help matters that characters purported to be seventeen looked considerably older in those opening scenes, and I thought, "What's with this casting?" Of course, it becomes clear quite quickly that they'll be embodying these characters through long lives, but it was one more initial point of distraction when trying to settle into the play.

DC: Again, totally I agree. For example, when Claire Karpen first appeared as Hallie Bee Bard's daughter, I wasn't buying it whatsoever. That was too much disbelief to suspend - until it became clear what was going on.

JM: That's just one of the inherent challenges of this script. There's little you can do when characters are going to be spanning that broad a range of ages.

DC: Exactly. And that's not to disparage anyone's acting. Playing much younger or older than your actual age isn't easy for an actor to do convincingly – especially without wigs and make-up changes. So because my eyes, ears and brain weren’t initially in sync with one other, it caused me to pause and take stock of the situation. It took me out of the moment a couple of times.

JM: I experienced that constant drumbeat of "Huh??" for a while. But on the other end, I was pretty damn wowed by the ways in which Karpen seemed to progress into old age before our eyes, with very few external props or costume changes.

DC: Again, I agree - although I thought she needed to slow down a bit more as she got into her late 80s. I felt she was a bit too spry for such an advanced age - and that's coming from someone who watched his two grandmothers and a first cousin live into their early 90s. While they were still able to get around and live on their own, I expected to see a more distinct progression of the aging process towards the end of Ernestine's life like I did theirs.

JM: Yes - again, tricky to keep the play moving at a reasonable pace and yet still convey the realities of aging. But I agree. She did seem rather spry for an octogenarian, but the addition of glasses, her expressions, the way her hair got a bit messier - all these things contributed to the illusion that I was watching a much older woman.

DC: And her voice. That sealed the deal for me. Yes, she COULD be spry enough physically to move like a 60 or 70 year old, but the subtle changes to her voice as she aged were perfect

JM: And she's the only one on stage the whole time, anchoring the play. A really impressive performance overall. It's got to take a LOT of focus, and be pretty draining, to make all those adjustments, and ride through that much life in 90 minutes each night.

DC: Yes, the only breaks she gets are the few seconds between scenes, and that's all it takes for her to move into the next era of the story. It's quite a masterful performance. Who else stood out in the cast for you?

JM: I adored Daniel Pearce's Kenneth. Quirky and funny and so, so lovable. I love the humor he brought to the production.

DC: Yes, he was certainly the show's comic relief. You couldn't help rooting for the guy!

JM: What about you?

DC: In all honesty, I was impressed by the entire cast. I've been a fan of Chris Corporandy and Michael Brian Ogden since their Hilberry days, and their considerable skills are put to great use here, as they too age and/or become other characters. And Hallie Bee Bard brings such honesty to all of her roles.

JM: One of the heart-stopping moments of the show for me happened between Bard and Karpen, when Bard's playing Ernestine's struggling adult daughter. Karpen simply says, "Stay" with such quiet urgency that you can practically smell the tragedy ahead. Also, for me, Corporandy’s performance in one of the last scenes is just marvelous – funny and genuine and sweetly touching in its compassion. And Ogden has a thankless (and therefore challenging) role, in that Matt isn't the most likable character.

DC: No, Matt’s not, and that ties into one of the show's heart-stopping moments for me, which I can't fully explain without giving too much away. But let's just call it his final few scenes. I think that's when the two women next to me started crying the loudest.

JM: It's easy to vilify and dismiss Matt, but Haidle complicates that too-easy choice by making his path a bit bumpy, too. And Ernestine's response to it, I think, is part of what's likely to bring on those tears.

DC: True. The playwright is right on the money when it comes to married couples who suffer a tragic loss like Ernestine and Matt do; many break apart. So it IS easy to vilify Matt, but it's not as simple as that. Men and women grieve in different ways, and if partners aren't cognizant of what their other half is going through and what their other half needs, situations like theirs can happen.

JM: I'd argue, actually, that each individual person processes grief in his/her own way. It's like the snowflake of the pain world, where no one's experience is quite the same as someone else's - which is yet another reason it can be so isolating and lonely. But something Matt says when the, uh, stuff hits the fan in his marriage to Ernestine seemed unnecessarily mean. Which is why I was ready to write him off. But Haidle didn't let me do that.

DC: Sure, as individuals, yes we DO grieve in our own ways. But men don't vocalize their feelings like women do. We’re problem solvers, and we want to fix things for our wives and mothers when they are hurting. And men need to FEEL wanted and loved – and for us, sex or intimacy is a way to provide comfort and to escape momentarily from grief. So when wives shut down emotionally or reject them altogether as Matt says Ernestine did, SOME men MAY respond to the warmth of another woman who will meet those needs. It may not be right, but some marriages never recover from a tragedy because of this. (pause) So enough about psychology. (laughs) Something else initially bugged me, but then I changed my mind about it. What did you think of the set - and the fact that the plot took place over the course of about eight decades and the kitchen never changes?

JM: I thought about that in passing, but it didn't give me too much pause. If anything, I kept thinking about the many bowls they had back there to dump hunks of butter and cups of flour into.

DC: I kept thinking about the outdated colors of the appliances and how they'd never be able to find spare parts to keep them running so far into the future! (laughs) But ultimately, this wasn't about appliances, set pieces or anything like that. It’s about the human experience and how we grow and change over a lifespan.

JM: Yes, I did find myself fixating at times on the stove and other parts of the kitchen, thinking about how they looked like something from a time capsule, definitely from another era, but not so out of the realm of now that they jumped out at me, either. That's kind of an impressive feat. Just like the actors have to travel this decades-spanning journey, so do the set design and props. And I liked how a cosmic, astronomy-themed backdrop for this literal “kitchen sink” drama visually underscored the idea that this, when we take the long-view, is about how we spend our relatively short time on Earth. So some really thoughtful work by set designer Michael Carnahan and prop designer Pegi Marshall. You have to strike just the right balance, and they did a marvelous job.

DC: I agree. The set and props gave the production a consistency and a feeling of timelessness, much like the story itself. If there had been numerous set and prop changes, that would have stolen focus and dragged the pacing way down. I also thought Cecilia Durbin's lighting design was quite interesting, although it took me a couple of times to realize what one special effect meant.

JM: Yes, that, to me, is part and parcel of getting settled into the structure of this show. These tech elements are used to help signal changes in time, but it takes a few reps for this all to feel natural and clear.

DC: It sure did.

JM: We haven't touched on Shelby Newport's costumes yet. What did you think?

DC: They’re character defining. And you don't always see that done as sharply as it is here. And as an aside, when Ernestine first entered, I couldn't help but think," WOW! That looks new and freshly ironed." Again, you don't always see that throughout the industry here. Sometimes costumes look like they came right off the rack of the Salvation Army and onto the actor’s body.

JM: Not to put too fine a point on it, but dressing Ernestine in yellow seems a kind of theatrical highlighter. We know from the get-go that our eyes should follow her from scene to scene. And as with the set, the clothes have to somehow translate across eras - which they do. Again, this is something that demands a lot of careful thought.

DC: It does indeed, and Newport is totally successful in accomplishing that.

JM: Quick question: did you think of "Our Town" at all during that first scene? Or is it just me?

DC: Nope. I didn't. It's just you. (laughs) I think I was too busy trying to figure out what was going on.

JM: I think I was put in mind of "Our Town" because you've got this young woman with her family at home, and you're hearing about her big hopes and dreams, even though she lands right where she begins. And, of course, you see how her life plays out, with the focus on these ordinary people that aren't particularly special in any way. Wilder's play was more about capturing a time and a town, but I still felt some homage being paid by way of the playwright's approach and the play's content. But again, that may just be me!

DC: No, I can see that. But now I'm going to ask you the million-dollar question: As this was your first exposure to Detroit Public Theatre, did it meet, surpass or fail your expectations?

JM: Trick question! Because I know and really respect the folks involved with the company, I had high expectations going in. But that said, the production totally met my expectations. I even liked little touches like the white balloons hanging in the air, around the perimeter of the set. The lighting played off them at times, and they reinforced the birthday thing that undergirds the show. Just a nice little added touch that I appreciated.

DC: As you know - since we've talked about DPT a bit over the past three years - I'm a big fan of the company and the women who lead it. They keep making smart choices, and they seem to be rewarded with a very loyal audience base. For me, the choice of "Birthday Candles" as their first commission was a gutsy move, given how atypical a script it is; it could have been a train wreck. But director Vivienne Benesch did a great job pulling its elements together, putting together the perfect cast, and finding the right groove to reveal the story's touching, personal moments. And I have to say - to use an analogy related to the play - the ingredients she baked and served ultimately delivered its intended goods, as the two women next to me couldn't stop crying towards the end of the show - and even a certain Cranky Critic will admit to being a bit choked up towards the end. And that doesn't happen often.

JM: Yes, I thought it was impressive that during the course of this not-that-long show, I went from skepticism to being moved. Part of that, I think, stems from the fact that this is a show not about happy or sad endings - or even endings, really. It covers some really joyful and painful things, so that it's not tied up in a pretty bow. I really appreciate how Haidle handled the end. Because it was more truthful, frankly. There are moments when we're surrounded by loved ones as we age, and there are moments we feel existentially alone. Too often, the too-easy wrap-up gnaws at me, so I admired the playwright's choice to complicate the conventional paradigm.

DC: You nailed it, Jenn. And I think that's why we both grew to like the show so much: It became more truthful as the plot and years went by.

For complete show information, CLICK HERE!