I Wanna Be a Producer: The Blog (part 2)
![]()
Good Company Players rehearsal hall
Things are a little tense tonight. Not major-league tense. Director Fred Bologna doesn't display the I'm-going-to-bite-your-head-off-and-feed-it-to-the-booster-club swagger that a ticked-off football coach, say, might launch into when a complicated play has just gone awry. But as I watch Bologna rehearse the dancers for the tap dance scene in "Springtime for Hitler," I start to feel the pressure of the approaching opening night. Suddenly it seems to be looming a lot closer than it was just a few weeks ago.
"Don't bend from the waist," Bologna tells the tap-dancers. "It's all about military precision. That's why it looks awful. Even though it's a tap dance, 50% of the audience will be looking from the waist up. It has to be PERFECT. Those of you who know me know that we're going to do this until it looks good for stage."
He says more, but I'm stuck on just one word: audience. Yes, there will be an audience. In just a matter of weeks. Hanging out in a rehearsal hall as I have these last couple of weeks, playing to a bunch of empty blue plastic chairs, it's easy to make all this an academic exercise. It's easy to forget that real, live, people are soon going to be sitting in front of me. One of my favorites lyrics in the musical "Billy Elliott" is when the hardened but still kindly dance teacher tells her hapless students, "We only have seven and a half months to rehearse this, so for Christ's sake, concentrate!"
We don't have seven and a half months.
For the very first time in this entire endeavor, I feel the tiniest wingbeat of a butterfly in my stomach.
--------------------------------------------------
Previously on the Beehive:
I Wanna Be a Producer: The Blog (part 1)
---------------------------------------------------
About this blog series: The tables are turned on The Bee's theater critic as he joins the ensemble for one number in "The Producers." He'll go through the rehearsal process and will make his Good Company Players debut at the final dress rehearsal.
----------------------------------------------
AS ONE OF THE "little old ladies" in the show's first-act finale, I need to embrace my character. Bologna gathers us round for a pep talk. We're supposed to be OLD. We have to be hunched over. Yet we have to move quickly, even with our creaking, unmatched walkers. We're supposed to be as ancient as the hills, yet we're supposed to be randy enough to get a PG-13 rating. We sing with a cracked, pitched falsetto that sounds like a screechy Edith Bunker from the opening credits of that old TV show "All in the Family."
Here's the idea: In the play, Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom are two producers who want to stage the worst show in the history of Broadway so they can take all the money from their investors and run. In this case, Max -- who is played by Good Company veteran Darren Tharp -- has quite a stable of investors. They're all little old ladies with whom he, ahem, engages in various acts of carnal excess in order to entice them out of their cash.
So that's who I play: one of those little old ladies. (No carnal excess is expected, however.) I haven't yet seen my costume, but my understanding is that it involves a skirt, blouse, wig and at least a figurative membership card in the AARP.
Oh, and another thing: Some of us are men. Some are women. It's like the finale of "La Cage Aux Folles."
In the first part of the scene, three of the ladies are sitting on a park bench when a cop (played by Cory Lung) walks by. As originally staged, they're supposed to check out the cop's butt and look at each other with a so-so response, as if they're not all that impressed. But that reaction isn't coming across as very funny for Bologna. So he changes it: Now, when the cop walks by, the three old broads are supposed to decide they like the goods. It's an upgrade for Cory!
After the cop strolls by, Max comes on stage to chat with his investors. Then all the little old ladies come on. Pretty much what I do is stick close to Steve Pepper, the ensemble member that I'm shadowing on stage. In my first entrance, we waltz across the stage. In the second, I'm in line with everyone with my walker.
And just what do we do with those walkers? The old ladies manage moves using them that could certainly void the manufacturer's original warranty. We clank them, twirl them and jump with them. Some of us even form a line and tumble onto our backs with them like a column of dominoes. That's not me, thankfully. (When Bologna was assigning the domino parts, he told the cast that "anyone over the age of 28" is exempt because "it's too hard on the knees.") Age does have its advantages.
But ancient as I am, I'm not exempt from silliness. After the walker part of the dance, which I'm still stumbling with, we discard them and form a line across the stage. As Max sings a lyric about us old broads still having that "fire down below," we swish our skirts, swing our hands like graceful gorillas and strut about as if we're the eldest but still surprisingly fertile hens in the farmyard. (Wow, two animal similes in one sentence; did I set a record there?) From there it's off stage again, to return for the last chorus of the song sans walker, then striking an emphatic final pose to end the act. Bologna tells us that we need to come up with a distinctive, fun pose that has a lot of individual character. I give this some thought. I decide for a cross between Bea Arthur on "Golden Girls" and Mother Teresa.
------------------------------------------------
ONE OF THE FASCINATING parts about this rehearsal process, besides learning that it's harder than you might think to do a fan kick leaning backwards on a walker, is watching how little pieces of a play come together. For the first few weeks of rehearsal, the cast has concentrated simply on learning the blocking, or the coordinated movements that we make on stage. Think about it: If there's a cast of 25 people in a scene and everyone has to move, that's 25 separate little "flight plans" that have to be filed. It's one thing to stand in a clump and sing a chorus number; it's another to move around as individuals. After the director gets the basic movements set, then he or she goes back and adds more and more layers of nuance. The frustrating thing for Bologna, I can already tell, is when he runs out of enough time to add that nuance.
You could almost equate the process to building a ship: We start out with the master shipbuilder (the director) showing us how to build the frame. Then we start filling in the actual sides of the ship. The first few run-throughs are far from seaworthy. But as the blocking gets ingrained, you get a chance to actually try to become your character. You get more and more confident that the thing will actually float.
Another thing that's interesting about "The Producers" is that it's quite a sassy and in some ways risque play -- especially for the Roger Rocka's crowd. The audiences that frequent musicals at Good Company Players tend to skew older. Anytime a revival such as "Fiddler on the Roof" comes along, many ticket buyers tend to be quite pleased. In an age in which the standards for TV, movies and popular music might be considered positively scandalous compared to what things were like in "the good old days," some people hold on fiercely to very tame expectations for what they will tolerate in live theater.
But "The Producers" is high-spirited, raunchy fun straight from the brain of Mel Brooks. You can't take out the suggestive humor or can the occasional naughty lyrics. And there are more gay jokes than an entire season of "Will and Grace." As director, Bologna has to remain true to the integrity of the play. But I can also see him wincing just a little at times -- no doubt thinking of some upset patron leaving in a huff.
At an earlier rehearsal, for example, the chorus of old ladies belts out the word "ejaculation!" with so much enthusiasm that it could be a high-school football cheer. Bologna asks us to tone it down just a notch -- not to drop the word or anything like that, but perhaps to deflect the emphasis.
Bologna tells me that GCP has to forge ahead with musicals that push the boundaries a little. I agree. Theater evolves, and season-ticket-holders have to be nudged into the present day. It might take a while, of course. I don't think we'll be seeing "Spring Awakening," the Tony Award-winning story of explicit young love, at Roger Rocka's anytime soon. But neither can you just stick to the classics. Otherwise you'll just wind up reviving "The Sound of Music" and "The Music Man" forever.
---------------------------------------------------
THE THREE-HOUR REHEARSAL is almost over. I'm exhausted. And I'm only on stage for about five minutes! Kaye Migaki, who is sharing choreography duties with Bologna, has been putting us through the drill. I can tell that other people are slowing down, too. Eyes are starting to droop. Feet shuffle just a little slower while getting into position. The sharp scent of tired, aching bodies wafts through the air.
Bologna picks me out of the cast and tells me to move over a little so that I'm not standing behind Steve Pepper. Turns out that I've been positioning myself almost directly behind him, no doubt in a semi-conscious effort to avoid full exposure on stage. "No hiding," Bologna says. "We have to see you."
At this night's rehearsal, fellow Beehiver and Fresno Bee video guy Will Albritton joins us with his video camera to document my attempt at show biz. (He's making the video so that online readers can see me as a work in progress; and also so I can use it to practice my dance steps at home, which means I'm constantly asking Will to shoot me from behind so I can mirror the movements.) I huff and puff. It's hot in here, and although the air conditioner is making a valiant attempt to keep us alive, you can feel it start to lose the battle, degree by degree. Finally, I'm done. Sweat is dripping off my nose. Will sticks the camera in my face and asks, "How do you feel?"
I whisper back: "NOT like going to Disneyland."


Comments:
for the record, shooting donald from behind was strictly work-related ... this time.
Posted by: will at September 3, 2008 11:24 PM
I've given this much thought, and here's what I've concluded:
This is a cute exercise, and might end up a fine bit of reporting, but I don't like it or the potential overall lasting effects.
I don't want you to be a performer, Donald. It's not what you do, and I could give a hoot if you as a critic bother to learn the difficult and tumultuous efforts of bringing a show together soup to nuts.
I want you to be the stalwart critic, writing to the best of your ability with complete tenacity and voracious partisanship.
I know you're a professional, but there's got to be a concern that you'll develop a quick case of 'Stockholm Syndrome' with these lovely people. Once you get to actually know a Kaye, a Steve Pepper, a Fred, it's going to be tougher and tougher to rip them new ones when they don't rehearse enough or the director does take an obvious wrong turn with a show.
This exercise would have been better left with Will, someone who doesn't fancy himself a critic and could have written about the process with aplomb and fresh-eyed excitement.
I worry this waters you down as a critic, and that's the last thing I want or expect. You're a world-class critic of the arts. Be proud of that and revel in your talents in this respect.
Also? You stink so far as a dancer. Left means left, right means right ;-)
Good luck.
Posted by: Stephen at September 4, 2008 12:01 AM
Donald writes: Stephen, you raise some interesting points. I did consider these issues before committing to this story. My thoughts:
1. First off, this isn't really a story for you, because you have a long background in theater. One reason I'm writing this is for people who are curious about the nuts and bolts of putting a show together. It's an opportunity to go behind the scenes and highlight some of what goes on backstage at a community theater production. I can see why this sort of detail, frankly, would probably bore you. Others might not see it that way.
2. In an ideal world (at least to some), every newspaper would have both a theater critic and a theater feature writer, and their paths would never cross. The theater critic would remain impressively at a distance, to float in on opening night, make a pronouncement and then vanish at the final curtain, never to interact in any way with the play's producers, creative team or actors. It would be left to the theater feature writer to write advances about upcoming shows by interviewing actors, directors, etc. However, that golden scenario is not feasible, except perhaps at The New York Times. Heck, most medium-sized papers these days are lucky to have a theater writer at all. Here at the Bee, I need to do lots of things: advances, reviews, trend stories, the works. For years, I've had to compartmentalize my job.
3. Keeping on the "real" theme for a moment, while it's true that Fresno is a pretty big place, the theater community is fairly small-townish. I cannot be expected to seclude myself. I run into people. I meet actors and directors. I interview them. I bump into them at performances of other people's shows. I call them for the latest news. I'm not involved in any financial or romantic entanglements with any of them. But I'm polite and try to be friendly. When it comes to writing this story about "The Producers" -- which I'm not going to review, by the way -- I indeed have contact with the director and cast members. But it really isn't that much -- we're all at rehearsal, after all -- and that contact doesn't amount, in my view, to anything more than an extended lunch interview for an advance story, for example. True, by being around rehearsal so much, people are getting used to me. But that's one of the charms of the story. So often, journalists are only able to grasp the surface level of whatever subject is being written about. This is a chance to go a little deeper than that.
4. This project is a "turn the tables" story, and I can see how some could call it gimmicky. Some readers will find it fun for the theater critic -- who's always in the audience -- to be on stage for a change. I'm not pretending I'm a very good actor, and that's part of the story: You don't necessarily have to be an accomplished actor to be an accomplished critic. And while I don't intend to be too heavy-handed about it, there's also an element in this story of what it's like to put yourself out of your comfort level once in a while. Everyone can use a good shaking up once in a while.
5. Yes, I'm a lousy dancer. I'm just hoping I don't fall off the stage.
Posted by: Donald Munro at September 4, 2008 2:19 PM
I think there's more to be gained by your endeavor than lost.
Rehearsal in the hall is even more removed than you think it is from being backstage. You're going through the motions, but the real meat hasn't even been sliced.
Lots of sleep that weekend before tech week, Donald. You think it's tough, now. Monday night of tech is a triple shot latte' with three Advil and maybe a shot of tequila ( after, ofcourse) kind of experience. Tuesday: worse.
Though, when it's all said and done, you'll look back at all the fun you had.
Kind of like childbirth... once the baby is there and you get the applause, you forget all about the pain.
Posted by: C1 at September 4, 2008 4:15 PM
I'd rather see Donald spend a day at a Fresno State football practice. See him hit the sleds. Maybe do some long snapping. Or perhaps run a few pass routes. Who's with me? Let's start a campaign! Donald in pads and cleats. I smell a Pulitzer -- or at least a CNPA.
Posted by: mediahack at September 4, 2008 10:04 PM
Donald, I see your points and raise you three.
I LOVE the idea of a behind-the-scenes story by a Bee reporter. Even with my background, it's nice to get the layperson's point of view. Which is why I loved it when Will did it a few years ago, when he first got here. (I'm sure it's on the Beehive somewhere).
And I do agree, there should be an arts feature writer AND a critic, but that's the way it is here. Still, you're allowed (forced) to write about art shows, national theatre, and Bay area arts. This is one situation where I think the conflict of interest is overwhelming. You call it no more than a lunch interview. A lunch interview is a nice, friendly time, but considered totally on the record, with very little gossip. You ask questions, the interviewee answers, lunch is had.
This is going through boot-camp with the players. You can't resist a bit of brotherhood. Even your comments about Steve Pepper are 'closer' than when you reviewed his work in 'CATS.'
When I reviewed plays for the short-lived Fresno Weekly (weakly), I took amazing amounts of guff, even from people I barely knew (I don't think Nancy Miller is STILL talking to me).
This is creakly ice my friend... (and yes, I just made that word up).
Posted by: Stephen at September 5, 2008 2:33 AM
Go Donald! You are doing a fantastic job strutting your old lady stuff! See you in rehearsal, you big celebration of love, you. ; )
Posted by: Kim at September 9, 2008 10:04 AM
I see this story line not as gimmick but as but as informative and entertaining. I love the behind-the-scenes stuff, but moreso I love the behind-the-mask stuff--where Donald let's you know what he was thinking at the time
(e. g., skirt and shorts inching down in rehearsal). Again, a brilliant critic here shows he has the willingness to step outside the comfort zone, thus deepens his understanding of the actors'/directors/tech's'. perspectives. Go Donald. Dance! Shake it! Sing! And keep telling us what it's like!
Posted by: Jerry "MonkeyBoy" at September 12, 2008 10:35 AM
Post a comment
(read the comment policy before posting)