• Some Things Never Die. For all the work being done in newer programming languages such as Java, it is either comforting… or scary… to realize that the old languages never die. I don’t know if ALGOL or APL are still in heavy use, but I know FORTRAN is (and in fact, it was recently updated, and has supported object-oriented programming since 2003). Also recently updated is COBOL for mainframes, which can now support  cloud and mobile platforms. Here’s a hint for those going into programming — everyone knows the new languages. Become an expert in the older languages (FORTRAN, COBOL), and you’ll be a rarer commodity.
• Some Things Do. Santa Monica is looking to tear down the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium and replace it with… hell, not even they know. The Santa Monica Civic is a 1960s box structure that is essentially a large multipurpose room. No one wants to do concerts there anymore, and it has been reduced to the level of hosting table-top craft shows.
• Some Things I Don’t Want To Do. The Rio Hotel in Las Vegas is planning a new thrill ride: a zip-line ride running from the top of the tall Rio towers to the main Rio building. The attraction, dubbed the VooDoo Skyline, is expected to open in Summer 2013. Rides will start from the VooDoo Lounge, atop the Rio’s 50-story Masquerade Tower. Via the zip-line (which is 450′ in the air), guests will travel down 845 feet to the top of the 20-story Ipanema tower, reaching speeds of up to 33 mph. Riders will then make a return trip — upward through a motorized pulley system while traveling backward at 25 mph — to the starting point. The total ride covers nearly one-third of a mile and takes 1 minute and 10 seconds from start to finish. Cost is expected to be $25.
• Some Things I Do. The LA Times has a really interesting article on a new course at UCLA: Physiological Sciences 7 – Food and Science — that looks at the chemical interactions that make our food what it is. The goal of the recent class was to do experimentation on the science behind apple pies to create an even better apple pie.
• Some Things Technology Doesn’t Affect. An article from Kapersky on Credit Card security provides a nice discussion on the non-technology risks of credit cards. I’ve always said that people don’t understand risk — they are scared to use the Internet for a credit card, but willingly give it to a server they don’t know who takes it away for a while. This article explains some of those concerns pretty well. As for me, as long as I’m using a reputable site, I have no problem using a credit card on the net. But never a debit card.
• Some Things Technology Does Affect. USA Today recently had an article on the tan losing its luster in Hollywood. However, one thing in the article caught my eye: “In Hollywood, technology gets some credit. When women like Blanchett started out in the industry, “it was tough,” Dougherty says. Studio lights washed out light faces and limbs, losing texture and depth — hence the desire for “everyone on set to be these neutral honey colors,” a la Jennifer Aniston. But “technology has come a long way,” Dougherty says. “Now, they can really light for these skin tones.”" In other words, tans for actresses are not out for health reasons or artificiality, but because they are no longer necessary to have faces show up 0n film. Those who are sufficiently old may remember odd makeup and color choices for actors specifically designed to pop on black and white film. Technology marches on.

Hmmm, maybe they did form a theme after all

• “This is NPR”. Looking for a new job? Here’s one for you: you can be the announcer who reads the sponsors and says “This is NPR” at the end of Public Radio programs.
• Paperback Writer. QANTAS airlines is commissioning paperback books. Specifically, they are commissioning books designed to take a single flight to read. Though the books for short flights are meant to be read continuously, for long flights, they are factoring in the thought that passengers will most likely put their book down for food and naps. The target audience for the campaign is Qantas’ Platinum Flyers, who tend to skew male. A range of popular airport genres including thrillers, crime and nonfiction are included, with titles such as “City of Evil” and “Australian Tragic.”
• Feeding the Trolls. If you’ve been reading my posts, you know I find reading comments on news articles infuriating because of the trolls. Here’s an interesting article where one fellow got fed up sufficiently that he went and interviewed the troll.  What I found interesting was that the troll was just like you and I, and he was doing it just because he found it fun.
• Cutting Up Paper. Last weekend was the congregational meeting at our synagogue. The outgoing president was presented a beautiful papercut by the husband of one of our Rabbis (the official title is “Mr. Lucky”, derivered from something the now ex-husband of one of our favorite rabbis said when asked what you call the husband of a rabbi — his response… “Lucky”). Isaac, the artist, posted a picture of the papercut on the website along with an explanation. I particularly like how he used cut-up synagogue promotional material.

Bonus Media Item: “Star Trek: Into Darkness” – The Spoiler FAQ. I hadn’t had a strong urge to see this picture, even though I grew up with Star Trek and loved the franchise. Reading this, I think I’ll wait until it is on the small screen.

What got me thinking about this were two articles I saw recently. The first dealt with our feet, and the wide variety of fungi living thereupon. It appears that microbial life doesn’t like the environment of the feet… but fungi do. The goal is to encourage the good fungi, and discourage the bad fungi. This is similar to what we do with the microbes. We want to encourage the good ones — by eating fiber, eating yogurt, eating other fermented foods that help repopulate the good stuff in our guts — while creating an environment hostile to the bad ones. The important thing is not to be germ-free — in fact, our overemphasis on germs is one thing that has led to the large number of immune system problems today.

The other article that caught my eye had to do with the introduction of Soylent. The substance is intended to provide all the nutrients and calories a human body needs—in other words, to replace food. Mix the powder with water and drink. The creator buys most of the 32 components of Soylent in bulk from chemical supply companies, synthesized in forms the body can absorb. (He detailed the formula on his blog.) Some of the chemicals are derived from real foods (olive oil supplies the fat), but many aren’t. For example, the calcium comes from limestone.  My question: What does the biome think of it.

P.S.: A couple more food items. It appears that hipsters are at it again. This time, they are creating a rise in the price of beer [ETA: Then again, maybe not.] However, perhaps not in New Jersey, where bar owners are accused of putting cheap liquor in premium liquor bottles. This was especially evident at TGI Fridays. Of course, this begs the question: what it is about liquor drinkers in New Jersey (or perhaps TGI Fridays patrons) that they don’t notice when they get the cheap stuff instead of good stuff? Perhaps this is the answer to the price of beer? After all, we already know that wine tasting is bullshit anyway.

1. Peace and quiet in the house.
2. Only having to do a small number of loads of laundry.
3. Having an empty sink in the kitchen… and having it stay that way.
4. Most of the lights in the house remaining off.
5. Only grocery shopping once a week.
6. The house staying picked up for more than 30 minutes.
7. Control of television and other electronic media.
8. Not having to worry about when someone will be coming home… or if… and who they might be with… and if they are spending the night…
9. Being able to run around the house in any state of attire, or lack thereof.
10. Having your car available when you want it… and having it remain clean and with a full tank.
11. Having confidence that all the doors to the house are locked when the house is empty.
12. Yes that. You know you’re thinking about it, and you never want to think about your parents doing it.

I’m a primary example.

I have very good spatial memory. I can travel somewhere once or twice, and I’ll remember the routing and layout forever. I remember the layouts of friends childhood houses; I remember how to get places; I can navigate in areas I’ve never traveled because I have the map in my head. I don’t need a GPS if I can look at a map ahead of time — I can usually figure out what I need to get around (except right around the airport in Orange County — that’s a maze of twisty passages, all alike). On the other hand, I’m horrible with names. I’ll remember that I’ve seen a face, but I often forget the name that goes with that face unless I work regularly with that person.

By the way, my skill at remembering layouts extends to remembering what is in a room. I was at the Colony Theatre over the weekend, and pointing out the various furniture pieces they had moved since the last time I had been there. The artistic director noted they were from various shows, but I didn’t associate the pieces with the show — I just recognized they had moved.

Now I know people that are the other way around. A former colleague of mine was so directionally challenged he could get lost going down a hallway. But he is brilliant and has great recall of all sorts of other facts. There are people I know that are great on remembering people, but horrible on maps.

I’ve developed the theory that everyone has one thing they are exceptional at remembering. Mine is spatial layouts. What do you remember best?

• I’ve Got a Little List. The Daily Cal has published a number of interesting lists apropos for this time of year: (1) 5 Things You’ll Enjoy Now That You’re Home From School, (2) Things That You’ll Miss About Cal, and (3) 10 Great Things About Leaving the Dorms for Good.  What they neglected was a list of the things the parents will miss now that the children are home! Top of the list: Peace and Quiet!
• SNAFU. The Daily Cal also has an article on the message that was graduation, where students were frustrated by the process that took multiple hours to get diplomas. They weren’t the only ones. Parents and non-graduating students were also frustrated by the campus traffic mess that resulted from graduation being concurrent with the requirement to be out of the dorms by 10am on graduation day.
• Notable Graduates. I’m always impressed when Hollywood folk actually get real degrees — that’s one reason I’m so impressed with Mayim Bialik and her PhD. So I’ll bring you the news that Eva Langoria just earned a Masters in Chicano Studies from CSUN, with a thesis looking at the value of Latinas in STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) Careers. Good for her!
• Medical Insurance. Berkeley has dropped UC SHIP, but premiums are still going up to over $2K/year. UCLA isn’t faring much better.  As for us, I think I’ll just keep my daughter as a covered dependent and not deal with SHIP.

• Evolution of … Televisions. For those of you who are old (like me), you may remember the TV sets of the 1960s. Big, elegant wood cabinets housing gigantic tube televisions … often in black and white, but increasingly in color. You remember how the sets changed over the years into the sleek designed monitors of today, with nary a wood box surrounding them. Television has gone from being a piece of furniture to being art on the wall. One of my various feeds led me to this article, which chronicles the rise and fall of Television Manufacturer empires. A very interesting piece, exploring how we went from black and white sets to the new color TVs, creating explosive growth of RCA… which then fell to the Trinitron monster of Sony… which then fell to the electronics of Samsung… which is now falling to the new manufacturing approach of Visio.
• Evolution of … Tumblr. With the recent news of the Yahoo acquisition of Tumblr, it is interesting to look at the origins of Tumblr and how it began as a site for Tumblelogs. What I found interesting in this article was the repeated comparisons of Tumblr to Livejournal, the seminal journaling site where I began blogging. I can see some comparisons with friends list, but I haven’t used Tumblr enough to see the creative free-form blogging, especially with the detailed commentary and discussion. Tangentially related to this is the evolution of language, and how teens are using what is called social steaganography, hiding meaning in banal and otherwise topical discussions. This is a movement of language from straightforward expression we saw in the USENET days to discussion explicitly designed to be public yet private, with one level of surface meaning and another level designed only for friends.
• Evolution of … Disney. We start with an article that links to the early history of Disneyland: the prospectus sent out to investors. Reading the linked prospectus one can see some of the original ideas; if one is familiar with the park in the 1950s one saw those ideas executed. Some of them failed (Recreation Park, Holiday Land), and some succeeded (Fantasy Land). The evolution of the park and of marketing led to the evolution of the Disney Princess. This concept is being shaken somewhat with the kerfluffle over Merida, and it has created the question of whether the notion of princess must evolve beyond either “girly-girl” or “tomboy”.
• Evolution of … Cheese. We’re all familiar with Little Miss Muffet, who ate curds and whey. What we probably aren’t familiar with are curds and whey. Curds are the coagulated milk solids one gets when you coagulate milk with acid or rennet; the remaining liquid is the whey. One used to never see curds and whey, but now they are everywhere. Curds, of course, are in cheese (or you can just buy curds at Sprouts… yum!). Whey is also making a culinary comeback, both for cooking purposes and for making protein powders (in fact, there’s so much money in the latter that California dairyfarmers want in on the windfall). However, not all whey is valuable. The growth in the Greek Yogurt has resulted in the growth of acidic whey, which is difficult to convert to profitable uses. But that doesn’t stop people from trying.

Music: Backstory (2011 Original London Cast): “Money”

So can money bring happiness? More specifically, can acquiring more stuff or nicer stuff make you happier? In some ways, we need only look at the true happiness of the wealthy, with lots of stuff to manage, protect, move, store, etc. That’s a lot of work. Further, studies by a generation of behavioral scientists show that material goods often fail to deliver lasting happiness.

According to the article, what does give happiness? Dozens of studies show that people get more happiness from buying experiences than from buying material things. Experiential purchases — such as trips, concerts and special meals — are more deeply connected to our sense of self, making us who we are.  Experiences come with one more benefit: They tend to bring us closer to other people, whereas material things are more often enjoyed alone. Decades of research point to the importance of social contact for improving mental and physical health.

Perhaps this is why I enjoy going to live theatre and concerts. It is an experience — in fact, live entertainment is a unique experience (unlike movies, which are the same everytime you watch them).

The article goes on to note that the author’s research suggests that doing things for other people can provide an additional boost. In experiments they have conducted around the world, including in Canada, the United States, Uganda and South Africa, they find that people are happier if they spend money on others. And we’ve found that spending even just a few dollars on someone else provides more happiness than using the cash to treat yourself. Again, this is easier to see in small theatre. In the large theatre/touring shows, one feels your money is going to a machine. But going to a small theatre — a black box ala The Blank, REP East, Celebration Theatre, etc — directly brings happiness to others. You can see it as you interact with the artistic staff.

That’s not the only way to spend on someone else. We’ve all seen the fun in gift giving. There are also charitable donations. Does sending a check to a charity bring happiness? Alternatively, does charitable happiness come more from volunteering one’s time in addition to money? This ups the social aspect quite a bit. I’ve seen this in synagogue service — people are happy and make friends serving on synagogue boards. I have other friends that get happiness by volunteering with charities such as animal rescue, helping those in need.

The article’s conclusion?

Who was happiest? Those who treated someone else and shared in that experience with them. So the cost of increasing your happiness may be as cheap as two cups of coffee.

Taken together, the new science of spending points to a surprising conclusion: How we use our money may matter as much or more than how much of it we’ve got. Which means that rather than waiting to see whether you find $1 million under your mattress tomorrow, you can make yourself happier today. Switching your spending to buying experiences — for both yourself and others — can lead to more happiness than even the most amazingly Amazonian rain shower.

So what makes you happy?

(*: The piece was posted over the weekend; I wrote this up Monday night before posting it at lunch on Tuesday)

Seeing this, the Colony Theatre in Burbank decided to mount a musical centered around the works of Lorenz Hart. Working with playwright Mark Saltzman, the resulting piece — titled Falling for Make Believe: Lorenz Hart,His Life, His Love, His Songs — premiered on April 27, 2013. We just saw the musical today, at what was supposed to be the last performance (it has been extended — more on that later). As for what I thought about it — that is, was it good or not — is hard to put into a single word or two because there are so many different ways to judge it.

Jukebox musicals have a problem. They can go the easy route and be a simple revue of songs. This is what shows such as Smokey Joe’s Cafe does. That creates an enjoyable evening, but it is ultimately not satisfying. They can create a fake plot around the songs in the existing catalog that weren’t designed for a plot — this can sometimes work (e.g., Mamma Mia), but usually doesn’t. They can also take the hard route and select songs and build a story that tells the story of the person at the heart of the catalog. This is what Ain’t Misbehavin’ did so successfully — each song actually provided insight into the characters and the times.

Falling for Make Believe took this latter approach. It created an artificial character — Fletcher Mecklin — and used him (combined with eulogies at the funeral of Lorenz Hart) to tell the story of Hart. This story was primarily centered around Hart’s drinking and Hart’s homosexuality — how it drove his work, and how it ultimately led to his destruction. Most of the reviews of this show center on this story and its impact — and how it was never really told during the life of Hart. Certainly, the world well knew of Hart’s drinking (in fact, it eventually led Rodgers to dump him as a lyricist for Hammerstein). They didn’t know the other side of his life, as contrasted to other other famous Broadway homosexuals, such as Cole Porter or Noel Coward. In general, this aspect of the story worked. Mecklin served as a good vehicle to discuss how homosexuality was viewed during the time period, and how it affected Porter’s life. It provided a good way to show how Hart’s agent, Doc Bender, enabled the behavior, and how the others in Hart’s circles — Rodgers and his wife, Vivian Ross (their regular leading lady) — reacted to it all.

So where was the problem? First, the songs that were chosen from the catalog did not always amplify the chosen story. Often, the songs were chosen (seemingly) because they were popular and well known, not because they might be construed as making any statement. Further, although the show attempted to present the songs in chronological order, it skipped back and forth and back and forth (a good example of this is Blue Moon, which is seemingly referenced before it was written). It also only highlighted a number of shows.

Right now, this show is only about 90 minutes with no intermission. For the show to move to the next level, I believe it needs to figure out how to present the songs and shows in a chronological order. It needs to figure out how to make the selected songs show how Hart was changing over the years, and perhaps discovering both his homosexuality and his love for alcohol. This may require introducing additional characters, especially to cover the early years. In particular, was his homosexuality affected by the number of years he spent in Hollywood working on film songs. In other words: we need to see Hart’s lyrics present a deeper picture of Hart, not the superficial picture we get with the show.

Note that the above is not meant to imply the show is bad — rather, it is more my thoughts on how to improve the book. As it is now, it is still a very enjoyable one-act with great performances and wonderful Rodgers and Hart music.  The direction by Jim Fall and the Choreography by Lisa Hopkins work well to keep the stage alive and engaging, and to bring out realistic performances from the ensemble. This does take some creativity given the stage constraints of the flyspace-less Colony facility — I can imagine a completely different staging were there set pieces that could fly in and out (such as at the Pasadena Playhouse).

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the performances were excellent. In the lead positions were Tyler Milliron as Fletcher Mecklin, Brett Ryback as Richard Rodgers, and Ben. D. Goldberg as Lorenz Hart. Milliron had a lovely tenor voice that was just great to listen to. Character-wise… he was a chorus member. In other words, his character served more to move the story along than to have any depth or substance of his own. The main character in the story — Hart — was portrayed by Goldberg. He also had a pleasing voice and captured the drunk Hart well. I’m not sure how well he captured the homosexual Hart, for it is hard to know homosexual behavior that isn’t just a caricature or a stereotype. More problematic is that there wasn’t a strong demonstration of the behavior — other than chronic lateness or drunkenness — that would lead Rodgers to say what he actually said about working with Hart. Hart was more of a nice gay drunk, and I’m not sure that’s how he really was. More problematic was that he had a very similar look to the actor portraying Rodgers, and this occasionally led to some confusion for me. Ryback’s Rodgers was quite enjoyable — nice voice, nice movement, and nice acting.

The second tier of characters consisted of Megan Moran as Peggy/Dorothy Rodgers/Police Woman, Jeffrey Landman as Doc Bender, and Rebecca Ann Johnson as Vivian Blaine. Here I was smitten by the look and performance of Moran — she was a very strong singer and performer. We haven’t seen her before, but I do hope to see more of her. Johnson was also very strong as Blaine with a great singing voice and very good performance skills — especially in her interactions with Goldberg’s Hart. We saw much less of Landman’s character; he only had one song.

The scenic design by Jeff McLaughlin was relatively simple — a number of levels with a piano and a small bar area. Properties and set dressing were by the resident prop-people, MacAndMe. The lighting by Sohail e. Najafi worked well, although there were at times the attempts to focus the lighting through aluminum foil structures created some odd reflections. The sound design by Drew Dalzell provided good sound. The costumes by Dianne K. Graebner were for the most part good, although I was unsure about the first costume for Vivian Ross (I would have expected something a little more risque for a performance in a speakeasy when the actor wanted to show they could do something more daring — especially in the 1920s).

Musical direction was by Keith Harrison, and the 4 piece orchestra (two keyboards, bass, and percussion) was conducted by Kathryn Lounsbery. The production stage manager was Leesa Freed, and the assistant stage manager was Brian Cordoba.

Falling for Make Believe was scheduled to close today, but an extension has been announced. After a two week hiatus, the show will return on June 6 and continue until June 30 (and there was a hint it could continue after that, if demand is sufficient). Tickets are available through the Colony box office, as well as through the usual discount places. As for the next season at the Colony, the official word from Barbara Beckley, Artistic Director, is that they are working on it. Unofficial word is of a more binary nature — it is likely there will be a season, but when it will start, how many shows there will be,  and what those shows are is all unknown. Likely, it all depends on how long this last show extends and the state of the Colony budget. My guess is that the next season, if there is one, will be a recovery season with shows selected to draw in the audience and new subscribers, with sufficient spacing to extend the shows if demand warrants. So we’re still in a “wait and see”, but I’m not going to give up quite yet.

Upcoming Theatre and Concerts:   The last weekend of May brings “To Kill a Mockingbird” at REP East and The Scottsboro Boys” at the Ahmanson Theatre. June brings “Priscilla – Queen of the Desert” at the Pantages, and (tentative) Sweet Charity“ at DOMA (although DOMA may be replacing it with “Nine“). June will also bring a Maria Muldaur concert at McCabes.  I’m also considering Rent at the Hudson Theatres or A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum at the Hillcrest Center for the Arts in Thousand Oaks. July is currently more open, with “9 to 5 – The Musical” at REP East in the middle of the month, and “Legally Blonde – The Musical” at Cabrillo at the end of the month. August is currently completely open due to vacation planning. I’m also keeping my eyes open as the various theatres start making their 2013 season announcements. Lastly, what few dates we do have open may be filled by productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411, or discussed in the various LA Stage Blogs I read (I particularly recommend Musicals in LA and LA Stage Times).

Growing up is on my mind in many ways. First, my daughter has just completed her first year at UC Berkeley, and is no longer the little girl. My wife is up in Berkeley picking her up and bringing her home. This led directly to the second thing that put growing up on my mind: while they were out I took the chance to go to Hollywood and see the Ovation-recommended play “Peter Pan: The Boy Who Hated Mothers” at the Blank Theatre in Hollywood.

Most people are familiar, yet not familiar, with J. M Barrie‘s Peter Pan. First and foremost, forget the Disney adaptation. I’ve actually never seen it, but I’m pretty sure it was Disney-fied and lost some elements of the story. My familiarity with Pan comes from the 1954 musical with book by J. M. Barrie, and music by Jule Styne, Moose Charlap and lyrics by Carolyn Leigh, Betty Comden, and Adolph Green. The story in Peter Pan: The Boy Who Hated Mothers hewed very close to the story in the 1954 musical (no surprise, as both used Barrie’s book as the basis) — in face, there were points where Michael Lluberes‘s script almost seemed word for word with the older musical (this was especially true in the opening nursery scenes). But there were also some significant differences — the major one being the catalyst in the story. In both the Disney version and the 1954 musical, there were three children who go off with Peter: Wendy, Michael, and John. In this version, there is only Wendy and John; Michael had died some unspecified time earlier at an ambigous age (the script makes you think 5-6, the props make you think it was while he was an infant). Michael’s death is the reason for discussing Peter Pan: Does Peter take the souls of children who die too early? Is he a real boy?  Is he a boy lost in childhood? It is never made clear.

This Peter Pan, unlike many of the other versions (and I’m intentionally ignoring the prequel Peter and the Starcatchers and the sequel Hook), is a drama and is not played either for laughs or for the children. That’s not to say there isn’t humor in the piece; rather, it means level of the story is not simplified for children. Peter is petty and mean; he is an immature little boy thinking only of himself. Whereas the musical and the Disney version leave one with the message that one grows up only if one wants to, and that you need to embrace the child in you… this play leaves a very different message indeed. This is where the subtitle of the play comes in.

This play is titled Peter Pan: The Boy who Hated Mothers. The subtitle is important. One might ask: why, if Peter hated mothers, did he go to the effort to bring Wendy back as a mother for himself and the lost boys? Why does the period in Neverland revolve around the presence of Wendy as the mother… even to the point of where Capt. Hook (who is the reflection of the grown Peter) talks about the importance of the mother and as the mother as Peter’s weakness? The answer is that Peter’s relationship with mothers was that of wanting one, but of making choices that always seemed centered around himself and hurting mothers. This becomes especially poignant at the end of the play. We all remember how the musical ends: Peter comes back annually to Wendy to bring her back to Neverland for a week in the Spring; as Wendy grows up he does the same thing with Wendy’s daughter, Jane. In fact, the play ends exactly as the book ends:

“As you look at Wendy, you may see her hair becoming white, and her figure little again, for all this happened long ago. Jane is now a common grown-up, with a daughter called Margaret; and every spring cleaning time, except when he forgets, Peter comes for Margaret and takes her to the Neverland, where she tells him stories about himself, to which he listens eagerly. When Margaret grows up she will have a daughter, who is to be Peter’s mother in turn; and thus it will go on, so long as children are gay and innocent and heartless.”

The last line of the play mentions how this is heartless — and just think about this: Having someone come in and take your daughter away — every year, unthinkingly — is the act  of someone who doesn’t feel the pain of a mother, and essentially hates them. Peter also takes away from Jane Darling and the children the last physical reminder of Michael — and I’m sure there are some aspects of hatred in that action as well.

The play also has a number of commentaries about growing up. Peter refuses to grow up, even though he is clearly a man in a physical sense (although with a baby’s skin and teeth). I saw this as saying that although Peter may grow up someone physically, he remained mentally and emotionally immature — and there are far too many men today who are the same. All the other “lost boys” eventually found their way to maturity (and Lluberes script actually describes how they matured)… but not Peter. Whereas other versions portray remaining a child as a good thing, this play gives the impression that it is somehow wrong — that remaining immature can hurt the others around you, and in your immaturity you won’t see the pain it causes (for when you are immature, you think only of yourself … in fact, a sign of maturity is starting to think and care about others around you). Wendy, although a little girl, is mature before her age. John is maturing with the help of Wendy. Peter never grows up. It’s not something to crow about.

The play does retain the one thing that always made me uncomfortable: the involvement of the audience in the saving of Tinkerbell after she drinks the poison. This time, it is having the audience shout out their belief in fairies with the lights out, but it is a hook that is also present in the musical version. Perhaps I don’t like it because I’ve never had the imagination to truly believe in fairies (which is why I’ve always been in the role of fan-at-a-distance, not the fanboy fanaticism many get. I’d love to be able to believe in fairies again; alas, I think I’m too grown up.

This version of Peter Pan works especially well because of the excellent direction of Michael Matthews and the excellent performance of the cast. Matthews kept the cast small, forcing most of the background players (the lost boys) to double as pirates and other characters. When combined with the limitations of the black box theatre, this plays up the emphasis of the Neverland side of the piece as being a large effort in Make Believe — pretending many things that are not real are fully real. One comes out asking the question: Was Peter real? A true question for the ages. LA Stage Week has a nice writeup on the genesis of this version.

The cast does an excellent job at making this all become real. In the lead positions are Daniel Shawn Miller as Peter Pan and Liza Burns as Wendy Darling. Miller’s Peter is childish and angry, strong and unthinking, and decidedly not mature. He doesn’t play Pan with the spritish-nature that most of the actresses has given (Peter is traditionally played by a woman); he is that mean little boy who only thought about himself. Still, Miller’s Peter does have his tender side, especially when playing father to the Lost Boys. Burns’ Wendy is much more mature. In fact, you can sense that she wants to do more with Peter and have a deeper (perhaps adult) relationship with him, but he never understands what she is hinting in. A typically clueless man-boy! Wendy’s pretend mother highlights the disciplinary aspects of being a mother, but you can see that underlying love and concern for the Lost Boys. Burns’ portray of Wendy does a great job of bringing out both the mature and the childish, often turning from one to the other on a time (as children growing up will do). At one moment she is playing; at the next, she’s remembering her mother and thinking about the pain she is causing. Contrast this with Peter: he never thinks about the pain he causes — he happily takes actions that hurt adults.

Miller and Burns are supported by an excellent ensemble. As John Darling, Benjamin Campbell mostly blends in with the Lost Boys,but especially in the closing scenes he shines as you can see his maturity beginning. Trisha LaFache doubles as both Mrs. Darling and Capt. Hook. This casting creates a different impression than the traditional approach (which has Wendy’s father doubling for Hook): the notion of a female captain lusting after little boys is very disturbing, especially with some of the implications the script creates. LaFache is versatile as both characters, bringing out both the mother and the devious Captain. The remaining ensemble members double as both Boys and Pirates, as well as other Neverland characters. Amy Lawhorn plays the lost boy Nibbs, the pirate Bill Jukes, as well as Tiger Lily and (essentially). Tinker Bell. Each comes off with a clearly different persona, and you get the sense that Amy is having fun with all the different characters. You see the same thing with Jackson Evans (Tootles/Smee) and David Hemphill (Slightly/Starkey). Evans’ Smee is particularly fun — you can see that he has a very different attitude towards Hook than does any of the crew. All of the actors were just remarkable, and appeared to truly be having fun with their roles. They are also very creative and versatile, switching from character to character with ease.

Technically the production is a very clever hoot. The set design by Mary Hamrick was remarkably clever, making great use of the Blanks’ black box space. She created a raised floor with compartments underneath, simple bedroom furniture that with imagination easily became places on the island or the ship, and wonderful use of flowing silk for water or blood. Her creative approaches to the crocodile were also fun. She was aided in this with the property design of Michael O’Hara. Kellsy Mackilligan‘s costume design was equally clever, creating the run-down clothing of children lost on an island, yet still retaining the echo of Victorian bedclothes. Rebecca Kessin‘s sound design was particularly noteworthy — usually sound design focuses on amplification, but I really noticed Kessin’s design in the sound effects and ambient noise. This was particularly emphasized during the ship scenes where the stereophonic effects and the creaking made my mind think we were actually on a ship. The lighting design by Tim Swiss and Zack Lapinski was also strong — both in the use of overhead lights to create the mood and establish scenes, but even more in the use of floor and prop lighting to create the magic, and the use of lighting to create Tinkerbell in a way I haven’t seen before. Dialect coaching was by Coco Kleppinger and was mostly good, creating the British flavor of the story. However, at one of two points the heavy accent combined with fast narration made it hard to follow the words. Sondra Mayer provided the fight choreography, and it is always fun to see swordplay on stage. The production was stage managed by Rebecca Eisenberg (who also served as assistant director), assisted by Jillian Mayo. It was produced by Noah Wyle, Sarah A. Bauer, Stephen Moffatt, and Matthew Graber; Dawn Davis, Emily Mae Heller (who we know from Temple Beth Torah); Even Martin, and Noelle Toland were associate producers. Daniel Henning is the founding Artistic Director of the blank; Ed Murphy is the Managing Director, and Noah Wyle is the Artistic Producer.

Peter Pan: The Boy Who Hated Mothers runs through June 2 at The Blank Theatre and is well worth seeing. Tickets are available through the Blank Box office, and may be available through Goldstar.

Seeing this production reminded me of how impressed I am with the productions at the Blank. If the Colony subscription dies (we still don’t know), the Blank is on my short list of places that might replace that subscription (other places include the Falcon Theatre in Burbank or the Odyssey in West LA). However, none of these has the mid-size feel we got with the Colony or its predecessor, the Pasadena Playhouse. I’ve considered the Playhouse if Colony dies, but their season just doesn’t excite me. I am open to suggestions.

Dining Notes: Dining out before the show was at Eat This Cafe, which is across the street from The Blank and part of the building that houses the Hudson Theatre.  It is a simple place, but very good and very nice. If I’m attending theatre at the Hudson (they are soon doing Rent, which is a possibility), the Blank, or any of the theatres nearby on Santa Monica, I will be back to Eat This.

Upcoming Theatre and Concerts:   Sunday brings “Falling for Make Believe” at The Colony Theatre. The last weekend of May brings “To Kill a Mockingbird” at REP East and The Scottsboro Boys” at the Ahmanson Theatre. June brings “Priscilla – Queen of the Desert” at the Pantages, and (tentative) Sweet Charity“ at DOMA (although DOMA may be replacing it with “Nine“). June will also bring a Maria Muldaur concert at McCabes.  I’m also considering Rent at the Hudson Theatres or A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum at the Hillcrest Center for the Arts in Thousand Oaks. July is currently more open, with “9 to 5 – The Musical” at REP East in the middle of the month, and “Legally Blonde – The Musical” at Cabrillo at the end of the month. August is currently completely open due to vacation planning. I’m also keeping my eyes open as the various theatres start making their 2013 season announcements. Lastly, what few dates we do have open may be filled by productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411, or discussed in the various LA Stage Blogs I read (I particularly recommend Musicals in LA and LA Stage Times).