Month: February 2013

Bigger Isn’t Better… Or Is It?

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy1 Comment

userpic=corporateMerger mania is back. Today’s lunchtime news chum concerns some mergers that are in the news, as well as some other business news primarily focused on ways to bring in the green:

  • If You See Your Waitress Here, Send Her Over With a Beer. The “mainstream” beer world is devolving, with everything distilling down to two major brewers who make most of the beer in the world (which personally isn’t a big deal for me, as I don’t drink beer). My favorite blog, Planet Money, has a wonderful thing they call a Beer Map: for any country, who makes the swill you drink (Two Giant Brewers, 210 Brands).
  • A Clip Joint. So Office Depot and OfficeMax are merging. I don’t know if this is good or bad, but it probably isn’t that great for prices. Neither has ever been great in the fancy pen department. Of course, some cities are happy about it. Good example: St. Louis, which has no Staples stores, might get some to give Office MaxDepot some competition.
  • An American Conglomeration. Tom Paxton once sung about the horrible baggage service of Republic Airlines. Republic was formed by the merger of North Central and Southern, and then merged with Hughes Airwest. This then merged with Northwest Orient to form Northwest, which then merged into Delta (which itself was the merger of Delta and Western). Then again, there is United Airlines, which is the merger of United and Continental, where Continental absorbed the old People Express and Texas International, and United absorbed most of Pan Am. Well these two Frankenstein monsters now have a third beast to contend with: American (which in the past had absorbed AirCal, Reno Air, and TWA) is merging with US Airways (which itself was the merger of Allegheny, Lake Central, Mohawk, Trump Shuttle, Piedmont, America West, US Airways, Pacific Southwest Airways) to form an even bigger American. Here’s how American and US Airways joined. I should note that coming up forth is the combination of Southwest and AirTran, which to my knowledge haven’t swallowed anything else.

And as we’re talking about business, here are a few more business related items to clear out the bookmarks:

  • Flyaway Expanding… and Raising Fares. Yet another Flyaway bus line is being added to get people to LAX because the light rail doesn’t go there. This time, the bus will be running from the Expo Line La Brea Station starting in the Spring (at a price of $6, moving up to $7). More importantly to me, the article noted that one-way fares between Van Nuys bus terminal and LAX will rise to $8 July 2. The increase is expected to reduce an annual deficit of $531,000 for operating and maintaining the Van Nuys terminal to $168,000.
  • Paying to Play. We’re all used to it. The hours and hours of previews before a movie. (That’s one nice thing about live theatre — no previews to sit through!). That may be changing, as a number of theatres are either charging to run the previews, or are limiting the number that can be run for free. I’m curious whether this means there will be less previews. The theatres need to be looking less for revenue and more for what will draw patrons in (as Michael Jonathan noted in a blog post I noted yesterday); their problem is that the movies they advertise might not even be running in their theatre, or certainly not exclusively in their theatre.
  • In Bed With Martha Stewart. It appears Macys and Pennys are sparring over the queen of domestic advice, Martha Stewart. Yup, the two retailers are arguing over who has the sole right to see the convicted women’s branded stuff. Neither is asking, however, whether people actually care about the name in the first place.
  • Customers Demand More Fees. Caesars Entertainment has announced that they are going to start charging resort fees in all of their Las Vegas properties. Specifically, Caesars will begin adding fees ranging from $10-$25 on March 1 that will provide package coverage for amenities including Wi-Fi, local calls and fitness centers. Caesars operates nine hotels in Las Vegas, including Caesars Palace, Harrah’s, Bally’s, the Flamingo, the Quad, Paris Las Vegas and Planet Hollywood on the Strip. Why are they doing this? According to Caesars, it is something guests asked for. Specifically, Caesars indicated guests asked for a pckage fee, as opposed to what Caesars did in the past: charging separately for such amenities.

 

 

Share

Thoughts on the Pantages 2013-2014 Season

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

While reading the news over lunch, I noticed that the Pantages Theatre (Broadway LA) has just announced their 2013-2014 season, so I thought I would post my assessment of it, and which shows I plan to see:

  • The Wizard of Oz (Sep 17 – Oct 6, 2013). This is the Andrew Lloyd Weber reworking, with a number of additional songs. I have the album of the new version, and the lead (at least in the London cast) has a number of weird and interesting vocal inflections. I know this story by heart… and have seen it many many many times (as well as many many many ancillary productions) … but also have a soft spot for it. Maybe.
    [As a P.S. on Oz, there was a interesting article earlier this week in the LVRJ about L. Frank Baum’s great-grandson, who is still writing Oz books.]
  • War Horse (Oct 8 – 13, 2013). The show whose main draw on stage is a gigantic horse puppet. That wasn’t enough to draw me in when it was at the Ahmanson for $20 tickets. It certainly is not enough of a draw to get me to the Pantages with worse sight lines and higher ticket prices. Uninterested.
  • Evita (Oct 23 – Nov 10, 2013). I saw Evita when it was out in its original incarnation at the Shubert Theatre in Century City in the 1980s. I saw it again recently at a surprisingly good production at Van Nuys High School. I have no urge to see it again. Uninterested.
  • The Lion King (Nov 20, 2013 – Jan 12, 2014). I saw The Lion King during its first run at the Pantages many many years ago. It’s been back numerous times since then. I’m not aware of anything in this production that makes me want to see this retread. Uninterested.
  • The Book of Mormon (Jan 21 – Feb 9, 2014). Hello. My name is Elder I-Just-Saw-This-A-Year-Ago. Why would I want to go and see this show again? Uninterested.
  • Green Day’s American Idiot (May 13 – 18, 2014). This is another show that was just recently in Los Angeles at the Ahmanson. As with Lion King, I’m not sure that there was enough different in this run to make it worth a second visit. Uninterested.
  • The Music of Andrew Lloyd Weber (Jun 3 – 22, 2014). A jukebox show of Sir Andrew’s music, including some from Love Never Dies. Weber is like Wildhorn — you either love or hate his work. Although I like some of his early shows, his later stuff has been mostly ponderous, and I have no strong urge to see a jukebox show of his stuff. Uninterested.
  • Ghost: The Musical (Jun 27 – Jul 13, 2014). This is a new musical that did so-so on Broadway. I’ve got the album, and actually find it enjoyable, but have never seen the original movie. Probably.
  • Once: The Musical (Jul 15 – Aug 10, 2014). This is the musical that has surprised everyone. An intimate musical with a folk-ish score, it has been winning Tony awards and Grammy awards left and right. But it is also being done at the Pantages, which doesn’t quite fit with the notion of intimate musical. I’ll likely go see this, and then hope for an intimate, more regional production. Probably.

That’s it. The Broadway LA 2013-2014 season. Mostly, ehhh, with a few possibilities.

P.S.: And an ancillary note regarding the Oscars, which are relevant because the Pantages hosted the Oscars in the 1950s, including the first televised ceremony. It appears that this year, the leggy busty models will be not used to present the statuettes. Rather, that honor is going to six aspiring filmmakers who won a contest. What happened is this. One of the co-producers of the Oscars, Neil Meron, believed “This tradition of the buxom babe that comes out and brings the trophy to the presenter to give to the winner seemed to be very antiquated and kind of sexist, too. They’re just there to be objectified. Why can’t we have people who actually care about film and are the future of film be the trophy presenters?” So he and co-producer Craig Zadan developed a contest directed at college students that asked: How will you contribute to the future of film? More than 1,100 students submitted essays and videos, and six were chosen to appear on the Oscar telecast. All six winning students will walk on the Oscar stage during Sunday’s ceremony. They’re each getting a makeover and formal tuxedo or gown for the event as well.

P.P.S.: As it is still lunch hour, a few thoughts on tours and revivals. There’s a meme going around on Facebook about supporting local and independent artists, and that’s one thing I like to do with live theatre. For the small and mid-size venues, it is all about the local institutions and local performers and local technicians. But what about the big institutions and tours. Many of these (such as the recent Backbeat at the Ahmanson) had no local performers or staff; this is also often the case at the Pantages/BroadwayLA productions. These productions, while supporting a small number of local artists, primarily line the pockets of the commercial producing organization, with a small about to the local producing organization. That’s OK, as it encourages said producers to keep producing work, but it’s not the reason I choose to go. My primary reason for going is whether I’m interested in the particular show. For such productions, my priorities are (a) new shows that I think may move to Broadway or other significance (e.g., Backbeat, Les Jazz) ; (b) revivals that aren’t simply retreads, but are reimagine-ings of existing properties (e.g., Sweeny Todd); and (c) shows that I haven’t seen before but want to see. So when the Pantages presents a season of shows I’ve seen, with the only difference being a new tour cast, I have no urge to see them again.

Share

The Dead, The Living, and The Zombies

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=zombieToday’s lunch-time news chum collection brings together stories about life and death:

ETA: Last week I wrote about the piano on the beach, slowly disintegrating. Today’s news brings word that it has been cremated.

Share

Science News Chum: Appendices, Dolphins, Food, Politics, and One Dog

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy5 Comments

userpic=cyborgToday’s skimming of the news sites over lunch has unearthed a fair number of articles all relating to science and scientific stuff:

  • Useless No More. For the longest time, the term “appendix” has referred to something that could be removed without harm; something felt to be useless (although often, especially in government documents, the appendices often contain more information than the main part of the document). However, science is learning more about the appendix, and finding it may not be useless after all. In particular, ScienceNow/HuffPost is reporting that the appendix evolved independently over 30 times. This is yet another acknowledgment of the apparent usefulness of the appendix. The current belief, by the way, is that the appendix harbors the good gut bacteria when something bad is overtaking the gut. I’ve yet to come up with a good analogy between this use and Appendix F in NIST SP 800-53.
  • I Call Your Name. Humans tend to look for things that make us unique, and thus superior. But more and more we are finding that we are just another animal. Today’s example: Discovery is reporting that dolphins call each other by name. Now what I found interesting was the comment in the article that “it can be challenging to study dolphin signature whistles, since it’s difficult to identify which particular dolphin is emitting the sounds, and whether or not the sounds are just mimicked copies.”. I’m sure if dolphins were studying human speech, they might be, umm, saying the same thing.
  • Engineering Food. The New York Times has a very interesting article about the science behind food — in particular, the lengths to which commercial companies will go in order to get you to buy (and buy, and keep buying) their food. The article goes into a number of detailed examples where particular engineering adjustments were made in the composition of the food to make it more addictive appealing to consumers. In many ways, reading this will make you even more wary of commercially processed foods. Of course, everytime I read something like this I feel the urge to shout the words of Alton Brown, which once appeared on his old blog:

    Here’s what it comes down to kids. Ronald McDonald doesn’t give a damn about you. Neither does that little minx Wendy or any of the other icons of drivethroughdom. And you know what, they’re not supposed to. They’re businesses doing what businesses do. They don’t love you. They are not going to laugh with you on your birthdays, or hold you when you’re sick and sad. They won’t be with you when you graduate, when your children are born or when you die. You will be with you and your family and friends will be with you. And, if you’re any kind of human being, you will be there for them. And you know what, you and your family and friends are supposed to provide you with nourishment too. That’s right folks, feeding someone is an act of caring. We will always be fed best by those that care, be it ourselves or the aforementioned friends and family.We are fat and sick and dying because we have handed a basic, fundamental and intimate function of life over to corporations. We choose to value our nourishment so little that we entrust it to strangers. We hand our lives over to big companies and then drag them to court when the deal goes bad. This is insanity.

    One additional thing related to this article. The article goes into details about how Dr. Pepper designed a new flavor, and how Coca-Cola tinkers with its flavors. Both note that the actual formulation is secret. This, of course, raises the question of how they do kosher certification of Coca-Cola. Wonder no more.

  • You Say Tomato. As we’re talking about food here, another big issue in food is how we have been genetically adapting and engineering our foods to be “better”. There’s lots of fighting over whether genetically engineered food is safe (go head… go to Google News and search on “genetically engineered food”), and even over the profits. One thing generally agreed, however, is that genetic engineering has broken… the tomato. It is hard and flavorless. Well, science is coming to the rescue by trying to engineer a better tasting tomato.
  • We Knew They Were Off In The Head. Evidently, brain scans can determine political party preferences. A lot of this has to do with how the brain assesses risk (something humans are notoriously bad at). Recent investigations into the psychology of liberals and conservatives have found a number of subtle differences, from conservatives exhibiting more squeamishness to liberals paying less attention to negative stimuli or threats. In particular, a 2011 study published in the journal Current Biology found differences in some brain structures between politically liberal and political conservative young adults. Many of these areas were linked to risk-assessment and decision-making. Here’s a good example of how we are bad at assessing risk, from a wonderful Freakanomics episode dealing with effective approaches regarding guns: which is riskier: letting your child visit a friend’s house where there is a swimming pool, or letting your child visit a friend’s house where there are guns?
  • Monotheists Believe in One Dog. Some interesting research has found a biological marker that is indicative of dyslexia. According to the study authors, there is a relationship between a person’s ability to read and how their brain encodes sounds. This is because, according to the researchers, people learn language skills by making meaningful associations between sounds and information. The most difficult sounds for the brain to encode are consonants, which are shorter and contain more complex sounds compared to vowels, which tend to have longer and simple intonations. More stable brain responses to these sounds can lead to easier interpretation of both aural and written words.

 

Share

An Un-Orthodox Concern

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy7 Comments

userpic=tallitThis summer, our daughter (with her cousin) is very likely going to Israel on a Birthright Israel trip. In general, I think this is a good thing. Birthright Israel, in the large, is a good group. Erin never had the extensive Jewish summer camp experience that I did, and she had bad experiences with the plastic people sometimes found in Reform congregations.

The trip she is going on is coordinated by Israel Free Spirit. I’ve looked through their pages and they seem a reasonable group. They appear to be OU (Orthodox Union) sponsored. IFS does their trips in conjunction with a number of partners. In particular, Erin’s trip would be done in conjunction with the Southern California Jewish Awareness Movement (JAM). JAM is active on a number of Southern California campuses, including UCSB where her cousin is a sophomore.

Here’s our concern: JAM is an off-shoot of Aish Ha-Torah, and IFS is an OU organization. We’re Reform. These are on almost different ends of the practice and belief spectrum (although there are further outliers on both ends). We’ve discussed this with our rabbi, and she’s pushed for a Kesher Birthright trip, which is under the auspices of the Reform movement. Erin wants no part of that; she wants to do the trip with her cousin. As I noted earlier, Erin has had bad experiences with the larger Reform congregations, mostly resulting from the nature of the teens that tend to be present in such congregations (i.e., teens more concerned with status and where you go to school than actual learning).

I’m troubled about the trip for two reasons, neither of which are insurmountable and both of which are probably more on me and my psyche than anything else.

The first is that I’m worried about any hidden agendas by the coordinating groups (this has likely been magnified due to the concerns about non-Kesher trips from our Rabbi). Part of this is due to the fact that when searching on the rabbi organizing the trip (Rabbi Zaret), this article came up.* I’m very sensitive to the groups that often have hidden agendas or exert pressure on college students (I have strong memories of this happening on campus back when I was at UCLA in the late 1970s). Last night I had a discussion with Rabbi Zaret, who was very nice and gracious on the phone. He indicated that their group was bound by the strictures of Birthright, which dictates a pretty fixed agenda and tour program. He indicated that the groups that go under JAM-auspices are primarily secular and that the program they run is primarily secular. He indicated there is nothing particularly religious on their Birthright trips. They do make some slight changes, such as visiting an Israeli Olympic Museum, because Rabbi Zaret knows the widow of one of the people killed in the 1972 Olympic Village shootings. He was going to send me some material on the program they do, and I’m going to see if I can talk to some of the students who have done their program in previous years to see if there was any undue pressure. He also indicated that JAM does a separate 3-week trip that is more religious and involves more learning, but the Birthright trip is not that trip. I felt reasonably reassured regarding this concern after talking to Rabbi Zaret, although I’d still like to talk to some people who participated in previous years as confirmation.
[*: I’ll note that, other than that one article, I have seen nothing negative about the organization, so it is likely an outlier.]

[ETA #1: This Yelp writeup is interesting, and also helps allay fears — although I’m curious about the mentioned evening discussions. I also found this 8 tips post interesting. There is also this page with responses from people who went on JAM’s 3-week program, but I’m guessing the 10 day program is less intense.]

[ETA #2: My wife spoke with a rabbi at our congregation today at a Torah study; the rabbi indicated that going with a modern Orthodox group actually might be good for Erin, so I’m feeling a little better on this aspect.]

The second thing bothering me (and in some sense, it is bothering me more) is the question of why am I bothered at all. After all, if you know me and my history with both the Soc.Culture.Jewish FAQ and the Liberal Judaism Mailing List you know that I believe in respecting all Jewish movements.* I’ve never been one to beat up on Orthodoxy. I have quite a few Orthodox friends with whom I have great discussions — we each respect each other and can discuss religion without OCR arguments**. I have no problem with Orthodox beliefs as long as practice is consistent with those beliefs; I believe Judaism supports the different streams. I regularly follow Orthodox discussions (including modern Orthodox folks such as Mayim Bialik) and am on a number of Orthodox mailing lists. Further, both OU and Aish HaTorah are on the modern Orthodox side of the spectrum, not that Charedi side. This is a much more reasonable version of Orthodoxy than the stereotypical image often projected. Going even further, it is very unlikely that my daughter, who has never been that religious and has been relatively skeptical towards religion, would be swayed over to Orthodoxy in a 10-day trip. She might be swayed into some increased practice, increased belief, or increased Jewish connection (which wouldn’t be a bad thing), but moving to a true Orthodox position (i.e., that the Torah is 100% God-given and we follow every word simply because it is God-given) takes more than a simple trip. Going even even further, even if she went Orthodox, at least we would know she is going out with Jewish boys :-).
[*: In fact, I read over this post many times just to make sure I wasn’t creating an implied dig at my Orthodox co-religionists.]
[**: “OCR arguments” refers to the name-calling between Jewish movements that discussions often devolved to in the days of soc.culture.jewish on USENET]

Still… still… it bothers me, and I’m bothered for being bothered. It’s making me question my stated tolerance and acceptance — why is it OK for someone else but not for my daughter? I guess this is the parental aspect coming in: you want to protect your children, but here the question is really: protecting from what? Why do I believe that secular program run by a modern Orthodox organization is something from which protection is required? As I said above, this is not a problem with the program, but with my psyche.

I decided to write this up because writing things out often helps me sort through the issues. We’re going to be talking some more with the Reform rabbi that expressed concern, plus I plan to talk to some additional Rabbinic friends to see if I can put my mind at ease. I’d welcome your thoughts as well — especially if you have experience with Birthright, Birthright trips, or any of the organizations involved with this trip.

Share

Timing is Everything

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Run For Your Wife (Canyon Theatre Guild)userpic=theatre_ticketsMy first introduction to the unique theatrical form that is farce — at least that I recognized as farce — was in 1982 in New York, when I saw the Michael Frayn play “Noises Off” in its first run on Broadway. Since then I’ve seen farce off and on — a revival of “Noises Off” at the Pasadena Playhouse in 2003, “Don’t Dress for Dinner” at REP in 2006, “Is He Dead?” at ICT in 2009, “The 39 Steps” at the Ahmanson in 2010, various Oscar Wilde and Noel Coward farces, and numerous others — but I haven’t sought them out. I’ve typically seen them as part of a season, with a few exceptions. Yesterday afternoon was one of those exceptions, as some good friends invited us to join them for the Canyon Theatre Guild (FB) production of Ray Cooney‘s “Run for your Wife” in Newhall.

“Run for your Wife” is a 1983 farce that was extremely popular in the UK, and is a favorite of regional and small theatre companies, as it works well and tends to be popular with audiences. It doesn’t appear to be as popular on the big screen: a theatrical version opened this week, and appears to be getting very poor reviews (UK Independent: “Biggest Turkey Ever Filmed“; UK Guardian: “woefully dated“). In general, theatrical farce doesn’t work on the screen, because all the timing risks are gone.

In general, timing is at the heart of farce. Usually, farce depends on split second timing, word play, sexual humor, quick entries and exits, and reactions. Combine this with a British accent, and you’re off and running. Run for your Wife is no exception. At the heart of Run for your Wife is a timing problem. John Smith is a taxi driver who has a balancing problem. He has one wife, Mary, in Wimbledon who he sees after his afternoon shift… and another wife, Barbara, in Streatham (4½ minutes away), who he sees after his morning shift. John is very precise in his schedule. So when John fails to materialize at the expected time, each wife rings the local police to report him missing. When John surfaces at Mary’s flat, it is after being in hospital with a head injury received fending off muggers. This not only gets him in the news, but confused him enough that he gave both addresses to the hospital. And this sets everything in action. Soon the mix is joined with detective sergeants from both the Wimbleton and Streatham police stations attempting to find out what happened to John. Of course, John isn’t helped by his upstairs neighbor in Wimbleton, Stanley Gardner, to whom he confides his secret. That’s the basic setup, so you can now imagine how the confusion grows as Stanley and John attempt to protect their secret by building lies upon fake identities and running back and forth between flats. There’s one last fly in the ointment: Bobby Franklin, a flaming gay interior designer who lives with his boyfriend in the flat above Mary Smith, and who has spilled some cans of red paint that are dripping into the bathroom. Lastly, I should note that Run for your Wife  typically is staged in a single room that represents both flats, split in half with one flat predominately in one side in one color, and the other flat on the other side. Ready. Set. Go. Laugh.

For the most part this works well, but the book is a little dated. Especially in the second act, the play tends to take the typical British 1980s stereotypical view of homosexuals. Formally setting the play in the 1980s helps a little to excuse this, but it is still grating to today’s sensibilities. This is something a director needs to be sensitive about — it is a problem many plays and musicals face when they get revived (look at the controversies over the revival of Showboat in 1993). It didn’t seem to affect that CTG audience at our performance, but that is likely because the humor is so broad and slapstick it was just ignored. Another reason could very well be that in the theatre, for farce, one tends to write off any plot specifics anyway. Farce plots are convoluted and far-fetched to begin with. This sets up the humor, and enables it to continue at the frantic pace that farce requires. If you insist that a theatrical farce have a realistic plot — or even one whose twists can be easily described — then you are just wasting your time. [I’ll note that this is often not true for cinema unless you are dealing with animation; if you film it realistically, the audience expects the story to be realistic.]

Run for your Wife depends on accurate timing, on lots of dialogue said correctly, and on great reactions from the actors as the farce builds. Luckily, the director of Run for your Wife, Mike Davies/FB, assisted by Heidi Meiseles/FB, did a very good job of getting this out of his team. Their timing was, for the most part, spot on. Their lines were, for the most part, delivered well and with good accents. The reaction shots were very funny, and they seemed to be enjoying their characters and going with the flow. This is a good thing; when actors have fun with what they are doing, that fun is communicated to the audience and everything builds.

rfyw-lund-bradfordThe ensemble for Run for your Wife was also very strong. In the lead positions were Tom Lund (FB) as John Smith and Wade Bradford (FB) as Stanley Gardner (pictured to the right — image snarfed from Facebook). Lund (who we’ve seen before in the REP productions of Journey’s End and Laramie Project) played the harried taxi driver very well, and very strong in his reaction shots. He had a casual easygoing nature, but seemed quick on his feet. Still, it was difficult to see what both of his beautiful “wives” saw in him, but that seems to be a common problem with productions of this show :-). Bradford also did very well, comfortably switching between accents and voices, and playing the different personas he had to project very well. My only problem with Bradford’s character was his makeup — the facial hair just seemed off and odd to me. But that’s a minor complaint — he had great timing, great reactions, and was just having fun.

Also having fun were the two wives. As the Wimbleton wife, Mary Smith, Kamber Grace Moen/FB was a joy to watch, and not just because she’s very pretty. As with the rest of the ensemble, she had great timing and comic reactions, and interacted well with the other characters. The Streadham wife, Barbara Smith, was played by Bea Schreiber/FB. Schreiber had a very different look than Moen — both beautiful, but with a different build and different facial reactions. Again, as with the rest of the ensemble, Schreiber had great timing and comic reaction. According to the write-ups of this play that I have seen, Mary was supposed to be more straight-laced, and Barbara more sexually charged. Looking at the actresses, I wonder how the humor would have changed had the actresses been swapped in the two roles, raising the question of how looks might influence our perceptions of characters. Ah, well, this is farce. I shouldn’t try to think too much, should I?

Rounding out the cast were the two detective sergeants, Troughton from Wimbleton (Davie Wisehart/FB) and Porterhouse from Streadham (Michael Keane/FB). Both were very good. Lastly, D.J. Hersch/FB played the flaming Streadham upstairs neighbor, Bobby Franklin.  Again, good timing and reactions.

The set for Run for your Wife was designed by Brian Maly and Doug Holiday/FB. The set worked well enough, although it could have used a stronger differentiating colour scheme between the two flats. The sound design by William Davies/FB worked well with good sound effects. The lighting by Brian Maly was also reasonably good. Caroline Morgan/FB was the stage manager.

As I noted early on, this production was at the Canyon Theatre Guild (FB Group) in Newhall… so I’d like to say few words about the Canyon Theatre Guild itself, as this was our first time there. CTG is at the other end of the block from one of our favorite theatres, REP East Playhouse. The two are different in a number of ways. REP productions use predominately Equity, SAG, and other actors who work in theatre, and take place in an 81-seat “black box”. CTG is formally more at the “community theatre” level — they draw from skilled amateurs combined with aspiring professionals, with a house that is significantly larger (I’d guess 3 times larger). Luckily, CTG has been doing theatre in Santa Clarita for a long time (42 years, in fact), and has a great pool of talent from which to draw (in fact, many actors perform at both REP and CTG). Although the basic CTG facility is very nice, the seating at CTG looks to be former movie theater seating, including the drink holders in the armrests and the plastic seatbacks, and the rake of the seating flattened out near the roof (reducing sight lines). Canyon Theatre Guild does an interesting mix of shows — primarily popular musicals and plays. I’ll keep an eye on them, and we may be back for a future production.

There is one more weekend for Run For Your Wife and its co-production, Suessical – The Musical. Tickets are available from the CTG box office at (661) 799-2702. Run has two performances left: Friday 2/22 and Saturday 2/23 at 8pm; Suessical has one performance left on Saturday 2/23 at 2pm. CTG often puts their shows up on Goldstar, although I don’t believe there are offers active for these shows currently. Upcoming at CTG is the musical “Hairspray”, running Mar 23rd 2013 to Apr 27th 2013, the comedy “The Fox on the Fairway” running May 24 – June 22, 2013, and a new version of “The Little Mermaid” running May 25-June 23, 2013. CTG will also be producing the regional premiere of Les Miserables at the Santa Clarita Performing Arts Center running July 20, 2013 – August 11, 2013. CTG also has an extensive education program.

Upcoming Theatre and Concerts:   Next weekend brings  “The Snake Can” at the Odyssey Theatre (based on an ad that caught Karen’s eye in the latest Footlights). Karen (but not me) will be seeing “When You’re In Love The Whole World is Jewish” at the Greenway Court Theatre on Feburary 21. March starts with “I’ll Be Back Before Midnight” at the Colony. The following weekend sees us in North Hollywood for “Company” at the Crown City Theatre. The third week of March takes us to the Pantages and Hollywood for  “Catch Me If You Can”on March 16. The fourth week of March brings “Boeing Boeing” at REP East on March 23. March may also bring “End of the Rainbow” at the Ahmanson, most likely on March 30. April will bring the Southern California Renaissance Faire , “Grease” at Cabrillo Music Theatre, and a winetasting at Temple Ahavat Shalom. May is also busy, with two concerts — Elton John in Las Vegas on May 4, and (tentative) Michael Feinstein at VPAC on May 11. May may also bring “Falling for Make Believe” at The Colony Theatre, “To Kill a Mockingbird” at REP East. Lastly, continuing the look ahead, June will bring (tenative) “The Scottsboro Boys” at the Ahmanson Theatre, “Priscilla – Queen of the Desert” at the Pantages, (tentative) Sweet Charity“ at DOMA, and the Western Corps Connection at the end of the month. 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).

 

Share

January-February Changes to California Highways

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=roadgeeking

A new year. Time to start updated again. As always, you can keep up to date with me by following my blog at California Highways (just follow the “Roadgeeking” category). There you will find bi-monthly collections of articles related to California Highways, as well as other items of interest. There is also a California Highways Facebook group, where you can post updates.

So let’s dig in.. Entries for the following routes were updated based on my reading of the papers (which are posted to the roadgeeking category at the “Observations Along The Road” and to the California Highways Facebook group) as well as any backed up email changes. I also reviewed the the AAroads forum; I’ve given up on misc.transport.road. This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(*), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail) from Chris Sampang(1)]: I-5(*), Pre-1964 Route 7(*), I-10(*), I-15(*), Route I-280(*), I-215(*), I-405(*), I-710(*), I-880(*). Anneliese Ågren provided updates to the El Camino Real page.

Reviewed the Pending Legislation page. It is far too early in the legislative session for anything to have been passed, but I noted a few new bills of interest. The new California Legislature site is very nice, but it occasionally switches to another bill when moving tabs. As usually, I recommend to every Californian that they visit the legislative website regularly and see what their legis-critters are doing.

Read More …

Share

A Strip Show at the Cabrillo

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

You're A Good Man, Charlie BrownCabrillo UserpicComic strips — especially those regularly published in the newspapers — are interesting things. At one level they are aimed for children, but at another level they are something completely different. One of my favorite examples of this is the webcomic “Garfield minus Garfield“, which takes the regular Garfield comic and simply subtracts Garfield. This turns what is often a childish strip into a wonderful portrait of existential angst, sadness, and loneliness. I got to thinking about Garfield last night at Cabrillo Music Theatre in Thousand Oaks, while we were attending their latest production, “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown“.

“You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown” (henceforth, YAGMCB) is a simple piece — a series of vignettes (very much like a series of comic strips) that illustrate incidents from the Peanuts comic strip written by Charles Shultz, where most of the vignettes are punctuated with simple musical novelty numbers. I’ll note it isn’t the only stage show about Charlie Brown; there is also “Snoopy! The Musical” (which I’ve heard but never seen), and the unauthorized “Dog Sees God: Confessions of a Teenage Blockhead” (which visits the characters (or close facsimiles thereof) as teens, which we saw in 2010). It features only six characters: Charlie Brown, Lucy, Linus, Schroeder, Sally Brown, and Snoopy. It’s inherent simplicity and small cast make it work wonderfully off-Broadway (where it ran for over 1,500 performances in early 1970) and in smaller theatres; that is also what works against it in larger Broadway venues (as demonstrated by the first Broadway run, which lasted only 32 performances, or the revival, which ran longer at 149 performances). This size problem is one thing that works against the show in the Cabrillo production — the show is simply dwarfed by the cavernous Kavli stage and theatre space. The inherent smallness and beauty of the piece is lost. This is no fault of the actors, writers, or directors, but of the producers. YAGMCB is simply not an appropriate piece for large theatres.

As I noted at the beginning, YAGMCB is a series of vignettes, with original book, music, and lyrics by Clark M. Gesner. The Cabrillo production is based on the 1999 revival, which replaced the original Patty with Sally Brown, and featured additional dialogue by Michael Mayer  and additional music and lyrics by Andrew Lippa. The vignette approach mirrors the comic strip nature very well, but it also means that it inherits another characteristic of many comic strips that make them bad for the stage: no through story. In the Peanuts strip, the characters never age, they never grow, they never learn. They never have crises to overcome along the path. That works well for gag-a-day strips; however, it works poorly for much live theatre. In the theatre, such productions are often enjoyable but ultimately empty, marshmallows that are sweet going down but mostly empty. What YAGMCB does have for depth — if you are looking for any — is the ultimate angst and depression (and yet continuing optimism, which will be torn asunder in his teens) of Charlie Brown when faced with the characters around him. You see these character traits (which were magnified and amplified in the unauthorized and aforementioned Dog Sees God) well in this show. With the adult side of your mind, they are fun to watch.

With the kid side of your mind, however, you see the simple strip. Here is where YAGMCB works quite well. It does bring the nature of the strips to the stage well. The universal humor, featuring situations we’ve all faced, works well. The director, Lewis Wilenfeld, does a great job of bringing out the kid in the adult actors. Although initially jarring, the fact that these are adults playing kids eventually fades  away, and you are left seeing the characters you love so well. The situations present reflect the best moments of the comic strip: Linus and his blanket, Schroeder and his piano, Charlie Brown and his kite, Snoopy and his food, Snoopy and his Sopwith Camel, Snoopy and his birds, Lucy and her crabbiness, and so on. The songs in the production, for the most part, are not deep. They are amusing and they often tell the story, but they don’t have complexity. There is one exception — the standout song from the show: “Happiness”. This is the closing song of the show, and it touches on everything it means to be a child, to be a friend, and it cements the relationships between these comic strip characters.

So let’s look at the characters… and the actors, who performed them very well. Although the production may have been dwarfed by the Kavli stage, the performances did a great job of filling the theatre.

As Charlie Brown, Dane Biren (FB) is appropriately youthful, but didn’t fully strike me as Charlie Brown. Still, especially as the show went on, he worked quite well. He had a delightful singing voice, and was particularly notable — both in performance and acting — in his numbers “The Kite” and “T.E.A.M.” (The Baseball Game). I also enjoyed him in the closing finale of “Happiness”.

Cabrillo - Lucy and Charlie BrownLucy, as portrayed by Natalie Storrs (FB), was more problematic. For me, her look was off — she looked too old for the character, and her costuming was off (I never recall Lucy wearing bloomers in the strip, and this production put both Lucy and Sally in bloomers, as seen in the image to the right). However, her comic timing was wonderful, her performance was very strong, and her singing was great (and very much like the cast album). Storr particularly shone with her comic performance in “Schroeder” and “The Doctor is In”, and her vignette about crabbiness. Ultimately, I was won over by Storr’s Lucy despite the problems, and truly enjoyed her performance.

Linux, Lucy’s younger brother, was well played by Jeffrey Scott Parsons* (FB). Linus represents the philosophical viewpoint (he becomes a pothead in Dog Meets God), and Parsons portrayed that well. He was exceptional in “My Blanket and Me”, and touching in the aforementioned crabbiness vignette. In the 1999 revival, Linux was cast (for whatever reason) as Asian. I’m not sure how this would have affected the character’s reception.

Schroeder was cast with a black actor, following the model of the revival. As Schroeder, Todrick Hall* (FB) worked reasonably well. He sang a bit softer than I expected, but performed quite well. He also gave off — to me — a gay vibe to the character. It was just something in the mannerisms and vocal style. This aspect of Schroeder has been picked up by others (and is a major plot point in Dog Meets God, although it turns out there’s something darker, which is the conceit of Dog Meets God). In YAGMCB, however, it was a little odd. Hall was particularly great in Beethoven Day, one of the new numbers introduced for the revival, as well has his interactions with the other characters.

Sally Brown is a character that was new to the revival. Her character replaced the original Patty of the strip (not Peppermint Patty). Reba Buhr (FB) did a great job with her, channeling Kristen Chenowith, the original Sally Brown, quite well. Buhr moved well and sang well, and was a standout in her number “My New Philosophy”. She also captured Sally’s mood swings very well. She was very fun to watch.

Lastly, we have Snoopy, as portrayed by Zachary Ford* (FB). As any Peanuts reader knows, although Charlie Brown is the center of the strip, Snoopy is the star and lead character. That definitely comes across in this show. Although costumed somewhat poorly (a white jumpsuit with no indications of dog), Ford still came across as a dog pretty well, especially in numbers such as “Suppertime”. He was also great in his acting, as shown in the Red Baron number, and his comic performances (as seen during the rabbit chase).

Tessa Grady and Bear Maneschalchi/FB were the understudies.

YAGMCB was directed by the aforementioned Lewis Wilkenfeld, who did a good job bringing out the “kid” in the performances, although some of the movements seemed out of place. Choreography was by Kirsten Chandler, and for the most part was very good, although there were a few spots where it didn’t seem kid-like. Chandler was hindered by the very large Kavli stage and the lack of significant set pieces, providing very little for her to choreograph against. Dean Mora did a wonderful job of music direction and led the spectacular Cabrillo orchestra.

For this production, Cabrillo used the sets by Off-Broadway West, LLC, with additional props by Anna Grijalva/FB. These sets worked, but they were dwarfed by the facility. I did appreciate the fact that they attempted to use perspective to make the actors look like children — extra large props, sofas, pianos, and other set pieces made the actors seem smaller. Sound design was by resident Cabrillo designer Jonathan Burke (FB), and was particularly notable in the high quality of sound effects used. The lighting by Coby Chasman-Beck also worked quite well in establishing the mood, which was supplemented by the excellent projections of Kaitlyn Pietras. Costumes were provided by The Theatre Company in Upland, and worked well for Charlie Brown, Schroeder, and Linus, less so for the Lucy, Sally, and Snoopy. Tim Schroepfer (FB) was the technical director. Allie Roy* (FB) was the production stage manager, assisted by Taylor Ruge. Cabrillo Music Theatre is under the artistic direction of Lewis Wilkenfeld.

One of the things I like about Cabrillo is their family nature. Last nights show included a raffle to have the Kabrillo Kids serenade your sweetie before the second act (which was cute), interactions with local dog rescue organizations, and their usual wonderful support of the Naval Base in Ventura County. This is what makes Cabrillo a very special organization.

The last performance of Cabrillo’s “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown” is today at 2pm. Tickets are available at the box office. There are two productions left in the Cabrillo 2012-2013 season: “Grease” on April 12-21, 2013, and the regional premiere of “Legally Blonde: The Musical” (July 19-28, 2013). There will also be a fundraising singalong to Grease-The Movie at Movico Theater in Thousand Oaks. Information on the Cabrillo Website. Cabrillo has also announced their 2013-2014 season: Kiss Me Kate, October 18-27, 2013; Forever Plaid, January 31-February 9, 2014; In The Heights, March 28-April 6, 2014; and Bye, Bye, Birdie, July 18-27, 2014.

As for us…

Upcoming Theatre and Concerts:   Today brings a British sex farce, “Run for your Wife” at Canyon Theatre Guild. The last weekend of February is “The Snake Can” at the Odyssey Theatre (based on an ad that caught Karen’s eye in the latest Footlights). Karen (but not me) will be seeing “When You’re In Love The Whole World is Jewish” at the Greenway Court Theatre on Feburary 21. March starts with “I’ll Be Back Before Midnight” at the Colony. The following weekend sees us in North Hollywood for “Company” at the Crown City Theatre. The third week of March takes us to the Pantages and Hollywood for  “Catch Me If You Can”on March 16. The fourth week of March brings “Boeing Boeing” at REP East on March 23. March may also bring “End of the Rainbow” at the Ahmanson, most likely on March 30. April will bring the Southern California Renaissance Faire , “Grease” at Cabrillo Music Theatre, and a winetasting at Temple Ahavat Shalom. May is also busy, with two concerts — Elton John in Las Vegas on May 4, and (tentative) Michael Feinstein at VPAC on May 11. May may also bring “Falling for Make Believe” at The Colony Theatre, “To Kill a Mockingbird” at REP East. Lastly, continuing the look ahead, June will bring (tenative) “The Scottsboro Boys” at the Ahmanson Theatre, “Priscilla – Queen of the Desert” at the Pantages, (tentative) Sweet Charity“ at DOMA, and the Western Corps Connection at the end of the month. 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).

Share