"Grandeur" at Magic Theatre

I have mentioned before that Carl Lumbly is one of my favorite Bay Area actors. I first noticed his work on television back in the 80s or 90s, and I was quite thrilled when he started appearing more frequently on local stages a few years ago. Now having seen him a couple of times at SF Playhouse, plus at ACT and a reading to benefit TheatreFIRST, I really look forward to every opportunity to see his work. When friends recommended that we catch the performance of Grandeur at the Magic Theatre, I hadn't realized that Lumbly was featured in it. Buying tickets only a few days before the show, we ended up with separate single tickets in the front row, and I have to say, that was a tremendous bonus.

The show only runs through this coming weekend, but before I get to all the other comments, just let me say: Go see this show, if only to watch Carl Lumbly.

The play is a world premiere of a work by Han Ong, a writer whose work I did not know before, though he has worked at the Magic previously, some 25 years ago.

The Play

Grandeur is set in 2010, in the dark, cave-like apartment of Gil Scott-Heron in New York City. Scott-Heron has just released his first album in 16 years, causing quite a stir, and he is suddenly the subject of much interest in the musical press, being known as the "godfather of hip-hop" in some circles. He is also addicted to crack cocaine. A public fixture in both music and letters at one time, he is now reclusive and withdrawn into his own little world. But with the release of an album, he is suddenly recapturing attention, wanted or not.

The play centers on the visit of a young writer, a fan of Scott-Heron, who wants to interview him for a piece to be submitted to the New York Review of Books. The writer, Steve Barron, finds the whole process quite daunting, and struggles a bit getting started with the curmudgeonly Scott-Heron. But he persists, getting past the gatekeeper, "Miss Julie," who may or may not be Scott-Heron's niece. Over the course of an afternoon, Barron manages to establish some rapport with his subject, and the two converse on a variety of topics that might eventually produce an article or an interview or a blog posting.

Ultimately what we learn is that the real interviews of this period were all pretty much of a piece, and Ong speculates in this play how an interview might have played out with a different sort of interviewer and a different sort of interview. The point is made clearly that all the stock interviews were done by pretty much interchangeable, white reporters. One of the things that intrigues Scott-Heron here is that Barron is also a person of color, though he pokes some fun at Barron's choices of shoes and clothes.

Even when not the focus of the dialogue, the topics of race, class, generational differences, and privilege are never far from the surface.

The Production

The set effectively captures the image of a man withdrawn from normal life, living isolated, largely in the dark, with his memories, his words, and his crack pipe. As Gil Scott-Heron, Carl Lumbly is completely captivating and convincing. He manages to portray a wizened, road-weary, and thoughtful wordsmith who has largely chosen not to share his work with others. From my vantage point at the end of the front row, I was literally the closest person to Lumbly for much of the evening, and the opportunity to watch the nuanced details of his performance was priceless. For the entire duration of the show, even when he was not in the focus of the action, he was never still, never relaxed or taking it easy: he was always working his character.

Rafael Jordan portrays Barron, the in-over-his-head writer who desperately wants to get this interview, but at some level also wants something else, something personal. Miss Julie (Safiya Fredericks) has her own opinions of what is going on here, expressing the belief that Barron's arrival portends ill for Scott-Heron.

As the play runs, we learn much more about Barron, though he remains somewhat enigmatic, and his motivations are ultimately unsure to us. Scott-Heron, on the other hand, is largely what we know him to be at the outset, talented and aging, reluctant to provide anything but stock answers, deflecting questions he doesn't really want to ask.

The Reaction

This is a really good piece of work. The writing feels very smooth, with the dialogue flowing quite naturally among the characters. Miss Julie, though she has the least stage time, is a truly interesting character, filling various roles as "niece," caretaker, roommate, and protector, stepping in as Scott-Heron's alter ego when necessary. The dance between their characters is obviously ongoing, though we have no idea when it started, where it came from, and so on. Then Barron drops in as kind of a fish-out-of-water, and for a while no one is quite sure what to make of anyone else.

So it's utterly absorbing. Lumbly dominates, both as the central figure in the drama, but also as the most convincing actor throughout. During one exchange about his addition, I could swear he was about to tear a chunk out of the arm of the upholstered chair he was sitting in. His tension was visible and palpable, but not allowed to vent through action or words. And without going into too much detail, I'll just say that he returns to the set before the intermission ends, and is already fully in character throughout, though you might not expect it in context. From beginning to end, Lumbly gives one of the finest performances I've seen on a Bay Area stage, ever.

The play is quite clever and effective in focusing on one imagined day, alluding to real events and people in Scott-Heron's life without having to portray them. He gets to react to things related through interview questions or off-handed comments by Miss Julie, and we can read about them in the program or online. By staying within itself and not trying to incorporate things outside, the play feels much more true and powerful.

The Aftermath

As is becoming more common these days, the Magic hosted a conversation after the performance. Most of the audience chose not to stay, and in retrospect, they were wise. When done well, these talk-back sessions can be enlightening. This was not one of those.

The Magic staffer who ran the session spoke very softly, even when multiple audience members asked her to speak up. She started with a couple of pretty generic questions ("What stuck with you about the play?") without much reaction or followup. When the actors came back out, they sat off on the side, behind a post from the remaining audience, so it was essentially impossible to see or hear them or address them directly.

All in all, quite frustrating, because a well-prepared, well directed talk-back can be enlightening for both the company and the audience. I got the feeling that both sides here felt it was just a waste of time. Too bad.

And also too bad because it rather detracted from what was otherwise an extremely effective and powerful play, with a dynamic and discussion-worthy ending. Had they chosen to take off from there, it might have been a more effective part of the evening and made the overall production more effective, not less.

Bottom Line

But any criticisms notwithstanding, this is an outstanding play and cast. If you can see it this weekend, you should. It closes on June 25th.

Reading: "The Island" at TheatreFIRST

I'm not going to go into great detail about the reading I went to tonight. It was a benefit fundraiser for TheatreFIRST, kind of kicking off their new regime. But it is worth talking about the reading, too.

The Reading

This was a staged reading of Athol Fugard's 1973 anti-apartheid play, "The Island," with Carl Lumbly and Danny Glover recreating the roles they played in a full production of the play in 1977, this time under the direction of Delroy Lindo. The reading itself was fairly unspectacular, a very simple staging, and the actors with scripts in hand. But the power of the play came through to the packed house, and the star power on stage helped to pack the house in the first place.

Without going into too much detail, the play chronicles a slice of the lives of two black political prisoners in South Africa under the apartheid regime, and among the things they do is work on a two-man version of the trial of Antigone for a kind of prisoner talent show. For much of the play, this seems ridiculous, and the humor is used to good effect, but when it comes to actually performing it, the true subversive nature of the play comes through. The message of the disconnect between the legal and the just, the law of man and the law of god, resonates with these victims of apartheid.

So that was really cool, and the talk-back session afterward with the two actors (plus local actor Leontyne Mbele-Mbong, who read the stage directions during the reading) and the director was fascinating and wide-ranging over topics of art, politics, and social justice.

But all of this is really about promoting...

The Company

New Artistic Director Jon Tracy made no bones about this being a shameless ploy to attract money for the new direction of the TheatreFIRST company, but he made it well worthwhile by using the reading to provide an example of what TheatreFIRST is going to be about.

You can read all the details and mission statements and such at the TheatreFIRST website, but suffice it to say here that TheatreFIRST's new direction involves including a diverse body of artists at all points: artists, company, staff, board, etc., and creating new works written, directed, and performed by those artists and others locally. They aim to tell stories that don't normally get told, using artists that might not otherwise get heard and seen.

It's a very ambitious undertaking, and my description probably doesn't do it justice. But for all the talk of diversity and inclusion in theater (or mostly, about the lack thereof), this company intends to put their money where their mouth is.

I'm kind of excited to see what will come of this endeavor. They have grand ideas, and a lot of support from within the theater community. The proof will be in how they are accepted by the theater consumers, and how well they are able to expand that audience to include more people who, like many theater makers, are currently unrepresented or simply not present in any meaningful numbers.

Stay tuned. It's always exciting to see what happens when big ideas get a real try-out.

"Red Velvet" at SF Playhouse

Third play in as many nights, all at different theaters. I tell you, when you're aiming for "too much theater," you have to go to extremes sometimes. On the plus side, my wife invited me to a lovely dinner at Boulevard before the show, so I dressed up for the occasion. It's kind of fun walking across town in a suit with a backpack slung across your back. But I digress.

Quick Summary

The famed 19th Century British Shakespearean actor Edmund Kean has fallen ill, and the acting company needs to find a substitute to play the lead in Othello. They turn to an African American named Ira Aldridge. This would make him the first African American to play Othello on the British stage. Needless to say, there is controversy, both within the acting company and without.

It's an interesting portrait of racial and class struggles in Britain in the 1800s, as well as a glimpse at the theater of the time. Did I mention that this is all based on history? It's a pivotal time in the history of race relations, slavery, and the theater, so that seems ripe for a play.

Things I Liked

I should start off by saying I'm a big fan of Carl Lumbly. I tend to think that I'm more about the plays than the particular actors (although I do have my favorites!). But I became aware of Carl Lumbly when he had a recurring, though relatively small, role on "L.A. Law" back in the 80s/90s. His intensity really came through the screen, and when I learned that he was a Bay Area resident and actor in the local scene, I was quite delighted. I think I've seen at least four plays with him in the lead in the last couple of years, and he was terrific in all of them.

So, number one: Carl Lumbly.

Number two: The design. Loved the staging. They did a really nice job of suggesting the large, ornate Covent Garden  theater. Both Gary English's set design and Kurt Landisman's lighting and projections were lovely. Combined with Abra Berman's costumes, it was all quite evocative of the period.

Number three: The set-ups. The first act has a bunch of really good scenes, clearly designed to set up some later drama. From the opening scene that creates a frame we return to at the end, through the "Guess Who's Coming to the Theater?" scene where Aldridge is introduced to the company, we get lots of indications of what is to come.

Number four: The cast. I thought everyone did a good job. Special shout-outs for Britney Frazier, who pulls off a very credible Jamaican servant, and Elena Wright, who gets to juggle three roles with three different accents. (You'll recall from my Treasure Island post the other night that accents are very important to my crowd.)

Little Disappointments

There were a few things that came up a little short for me. I want to preface this with a note that it's been a long and busy week, and I'd just had a large dinner and split a bottle of wine, so maybe not the best set-up for a heavy play. But, here goes (they aren't serious or numerous):

• Follow-ups. Remember all those cool set-ups in the opening act? Not all of them get followed up. OK, I know the playwright is supposed to surprise me sometimes. I don't insist that the follow-through be the thing I was expecting. But I was expecting something. And in several cases, I just didn't see it. Sometimes we just hear about things that happened offstage, but hey, you've set us up for some confrontations between (for example) Aldridge and Charles Kean (Tim Kniffin), and we don't get to see it.
• The sacking. The scene where Aldridge is inevitably sacked from the production is not well written. There is a long scene between Aldridge and the company manager (who is rather inexplicably French...maybe I missed that explanation), but it doesn't really settle anything. You're fired. But, but, but... No, you're fired. Repeat a few times. Kind of a let down there.
• The whole second act, really. I went out at intermission feeling quite good about the play as a whole (for all the reasons listed above), and looking forward to seeing how it all played out. And then, it didn't, really. Aldridge had a good scene with his wife, and then she is gone. There is some chemistry with his leading lady (Susi Damilano), and it's implied that there are allegations of impropriety, but we only hear about them indirectly. They spend the whole first act setting up the dynamite, attaching a fuse, showing us the matches, and then they kind of tell us that it blew up. Over there. It's not my fault.

So that's a little disappointing, but on the whole, it's a good show, well acted, well designed and produced. Mostly the script is a bit disappointing for what it promised to be. Still, a good night at the theater, and worth seeing.