Skip to main content

REVIEW: Pioneers: First Women Filmmakers

Despite the passing of decades, our sense of humor has not changed so much since the silent film era. The fundamentals of what elicits laughter have stayed the same despite social, economical, and cultural change. The exaggerated facial expressions and body movements that are characteristic of silent film, theater, and modern movies and television work as well then as they do now. While the lack of sound is much of what necessitates the overacting, the introduction of audio later on did not make this style obsolete.

The six films presented Tuesday evening were a good mix of lighthearted comedy, poignant drama, and exciting action. While the ones that leaned heavily toward the comedy side (Mixed Pets, Mabel’s Blunder, That Ice Ticket) were at times a bit lacking in greater substance, they were well balanced by the others, forming a cohesive set of films.

I found A Fool and His Money somewhat problematic. Though it broke new ground in being the first film to feature an all-Black cast, in some aspects the characters were caricaturish. Also, though created by a woman (Alice Guy Blanche), the female lead was made out to be a flighty gold-digger with no additional substance.

Behind the scenes: the filming of A Fool and His Money (1912)

Perhaps it is due to my romanticization of the wild, wild west (despite my having never been to the western half of the United States, save for California) that my favorite of the bunch was A Daughter of ‘The Law’, made by Grace Cunard. It featured a smart, charming police chief with a plan to bust a ring of whiskey makers (as Prohibition was in effect at the time) living in a remote mountain community. Disguising herself as a wandering artist, she snoops around for clues. She uncovers the group of troublemakers, but in the process she falls in love with their leader! After her true identity is discovered, the townspeople set out to kill her, but her beau proves to be handy as a getaway driver. She doesn’t report him, and he sees the error of his ways, and leaves behind his life of crime. Though the themes of male saviorism and putting romance ahead of all else (here, major career success) are a little unsavory, the fact that the ex-whiskeyman is influenced by a strong female lead still places the movie ahead of its time.

Image result for grace cunard a daughter of the law

And of course, the show would not have been possible without our resident organist Andrew Rogers accompanying the films. For about two hours straight he played, creating the mood of each scene, adding drama, suspense, surprise. His timing remained impeccable, a crescendo growing just as the peak of the action hit, a cheerful staccato bouncing as a comedic scene arose. Rogers absolutely made the night!

If you are interested in seeing more features of women filmmakers, check out the lineup at the State Theater. On Tuesdays in March, they will be screening a great movie made by a female visionary. The schedule is posted at https://statetheatrea2.org/women-filmmakers/. Don’t miss it!

REVIEW: Merrily We Roll Along

One often hears about a show which leaves the audience speechless, but seldom is it said to so affect the actors.

The big story surrounding Runyonland’s production of Merrily We Roll Along last night was, naturally, that, due to illness, Wilson Plonk, the actor playing Charley Kringas, could not speak. In lieu of an understudy, the actor steadfastly went on and made his motions as producer Thomas Laub supplied a voice for him from the pit — fortuitously unoccupied as the band took its residence at the back of the stage.

One might suppose that this would be disconcerting to an audience. That the illusion of the stage might be broken by the clear disconnect between the character’s body and voice. This was fortunately averted, in part by a high level of lip-syncing, but more so by one problem solving another. You see, like most productions in the Lydia Mendelssohn Theater which make extensive use of microphones, Merrily We Roll Along was plagued with sound issues. Poor balance, microphones turning on and off when they were not meant to, and even noticeable delay at times. I have reached the point where I accept this as a simple fact of seeing shows at this theater, but in this instance, it served well, because by the time they reached the two big speakers on either side of the proscenium, every sound was thoroughly divorced from its source, Charley’s voice no more so than any other. (I hasten to add that Charley’s scenes were consistently the most entertaining and best-executed of the lot. Even voiceless, Plonk made the character thoroughly endearing.)

Merrily We Roll Along, a musical by George Furth and Stephen Sondheim is an irony-laden instance of the old trope, “genius unrecognized in its own time.” A script in some ways about that very subject, it flopped in its original Broadway production, closing after barely two weeks of performances. (For the scoreboard, Runyonland’s production runs only two days, but who’s keeping track?) It subsequently went through some rounds of revisions, and the version presented by Runyonland Productions derives from the 1994 Off-Broadway revival.

One of the elements of the original production which Stephen Sondheim supposes turned people off of it was that all the roles were cast with actors fresh out of school. That is to say, actors who were about the same age as the characters they were playing in the final scene, but who in the first few scenes (the musical runs backwards) were nearly twice that old. The concept was that the actors would “age into” to their characters as the clock ticked back, but the result was an amateurish, student-theater feel, which some might argue was the point, but most people weren’t willing to pay Broadway prices for. I have seen Merrily We Roll Along with adult actors, and seeing it now with college-aged actors, I begin to understand why it was a flop. When adults perform what they’ve devised to be what kids think adults sound like, there is a bite to it. When the same material is delivered by actors the age of the people it is mocking, it seems simply irritating. (Find vis a vis the revue Putting It Together a performance of Merrily’s original first-scene song “Rich And Happy” performed by George Hearn and Carol Burnett and you will see what I mean. The song was replaced by “That Frank” as the original seemed too childish, but in the hands of experienced actors rather than actual kids, it works.)

(This is not to say that college students should not perform Merrily We Roll Along — if colleges were restricted in their programming to musicals written for college-aged characters, there would be precious few musicals left, and even fewer good ones. But with a musical as metatextual as Merrily We Roll Along, this has an effect on how it comes across in a way that it wouldn’t in, say, My Fair Lady.)

It took the production a little while to find its legs. Directorial choices ranging from stagnant (such as the whole opening party scene), to muddy (extensive use of an upstage space which just ate up all the action both audibly and visually), to just plain bizarre (staging the overture — a personal pet peeve of mine) resulted in a somewhat shaky execution. Movement backwards in time was conveyed through two means. Firstly, transitions were staged as pantomimes of the just-seen scenes flowing in reverse, which was effective, and secondly, there was a calendar on stage prominently displaying the year of each scene, which was sometimes inaccurate. The production started to find its groove around “Franklin Shepard Inc,” which was a tour de force for the two Charleys in tandem, but never quite shook the, well, shakiness, of the first fifteen minutes. Some highlights included “Not A Day Goes By,” affectingly rendered by Emillie Kouatchou as Beth, though stiffly directed, “The Blob,” delivered by Leanne Antonio as Gussie using some of the blocking motifs from the first party scene to greater effect, and the finale, “Our Time,” wonderfully performed by Liam Allen as Frank, Erica Ito as Mary, and, of course, the two Charleys. The historically unlikable character of Frank was made quite likable indeed by Liam Allen, and he, Ito, and Plonk (with voice of Laub) made a strong central trio who were engaging in their inverted life story. The band, led by Tyler Driskill, did sufficient justice to Sondheim’s music, although I admit to missing the sound of actual bowed strings instead of the synthesizer that made a quite jarring introduction to both iterations of “Not A Day Goes By.”

Merrily We Roll Along is by no means an easy show to pull off, and I laud Runyonland Productions for taking a crack at it. It is an enthralling story, almost Faustian in nature, about the unsuspecting encroachment of life, and worth anyone’s time to see. One performance remains, March 1st, at the Lydia Mendelssohn Theater.

 

(An earlier version of this review misspelled “Charley” as “Charlie.” The character’s name in Merrily We Roll Along is Charley Kringas.)

REVIEW: she was here, once

Monday night the Institute for Research on Women and Gender welcomed Nastassja Swift and her exhibit she was here, once as part of their Narrating Black Girls’ Lives Conference series. Over three days they hosted speakers and other events, including a wool art workshop, focusing on the stories of Black women’s lives. The opening of the she was here, once exhibit took place in the Lane Hall entrance, utilizing the space as an unconventional gallery. The exhibit was not large, it featured a half dozen photos down two hallways, short films looping on two screens, and three large masks hanging above our heads. The exhibit opening was small; everyone who was there knew someone there and was clearly comfortable in the space.
This art exhibit is based on a performance art piece. The performance was a journey of three and a half miles for eight African women in Richmond, Virginia. These women traveled from the port on the James river, past the old auction blocks, and finally into a majority Black neighborhood. Throughout their journey, the women, ranging in age from teen-aged to mid-40s, stopped along the way to dance and sing. Swift was inspired to create this piece after learning about the historical significance of the city she had spent so much time in.
I looked at the photographs first. I was struck by the last four photos I looked at (below) featuring some of the performers without their masks on, one of the few chances to see their faces. The photographs featured such raw, beautiful emotion and their placement in a quadrant of four panels made it even more striking. Next, I took in the masks. The performers wore larger-than-life, white, wool masks for the majority of their journey. Three of these masks were featured in the exhibit hanging above us as almost caricatures of stereotypical African features. Finally, I watched the two short films documenting the performance art piece and the creative process. As I moved throughout the space the sound of the women singing in the videos was omnipresent, creating an ambiance in the space and a moving experience.

REVIEW: Third Place Concert Series presents: Zelasko // LaBonte // Rosen

As the icy wind blew snow along the pavement like sand through a frozen desert, I walked into Bløm Meadworks. It was just after hours, but the promise of good music had drawn a modest crowd of around 30 people. After beer and wine was distributed and the audience settled into their seats, they killed the lights, and we were suddenly thrust into a warmth and calmness that rivaled even the most roaring of hearth fires. The red and blue glow of smaller lights along the wall and the low hum of the brewing vats beside us made the blizzard outside feel a million miles away.

The concert featured three vocalists: Rebecca HH Rosen, Jocelyn Zelasko, and Hillary LaBonte. Rosen is a singer-songwriter who tours all over the U.S. with various groups; a musical vagabond since 2014. Zelasko and LaBonte are contemporary classical singers, taking part in various operas. All three have immensely strong voices with tones and ranges that are quite unique from each other.

The music from Rebecca HH Rosen and the cellists made me feel such conflicting things at once I became stuck in a tight space, held by the sound, feeling secure and claustrophobic both. Though the songs made me automatically picture peaceful summer images of the sun and breeze and soft, long grasses, I cried through the entire 30-minute set. And it wasn’t as if I began to listen and take in the words, gradually tearing up at the beautiful intersection of voice and my favorite string instruments. No more than five seconds passed from the moment Rosen began singing and I felt tears hitting my cheeks. There was nothing sad about the experience; all at once I felt all that is good and beautiful in the world, every sunny day. The sound of the cellos, guitar, and voice was simultaneously impossibly smooth and strong and sweet. I regret that I could not pay much attention to the lyrics, most of which were written by Rosen herself.

The next singers, Jocelyn Zelasko and Hillary LaBonte, performed together in what proved to be the most wildly conflicting, experimental version of chamber music I have heard yet. Though maintaining a classicality that stretched into opera at times, much of their performance was illogical, though it provoked critical thinking. A few songs had no words at all, but were piercing and emotional enough to stay in my memory for days afterwards. This may have been the effect of the room’s odd lighting, but I swear I lost my sense of sight for a time, LaBonte’s hair and face melting together with her neck and shoulders. I do not have a clear idea of what this fleeting semi-blindness means. The last part of their set used audio description as a medium–they literally put headphones on and described the sounds their phones were playing. It sounds ridiculous and confusing, but it felt like something more. When combined with the wordless songs and the often irrational ramblings of ones with lyrics, I had a sense of reliance on the singers for information, on the stories they were piecing together for us. It was reminiscent of ancient oral storytelling traditions; I was grateful to gather and understand the details they were passing down.

This concert was just one in Bløm Meadworks’ Third Place Concert Series. The series features a wide variety of artists in a wonderfully-curated monthly event. Check their Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/TheThirdPlaceConcertSeries/) to look for future events.

 

PREVIEW: Special Talk with Yo-Yo Ma: Culture, Understanding, and Survival

On February 26 at 7 pm in Hill Auditorium, legendary cellist Yo-Yo Ma will present a talk entitled “Culture, Understanding, and Survival” that will “explore the role culture can play in helping us to imagine and build a better future, drawing on examples from his own life as a musician and citizen.”

Don’t be turned away by the fact that this event is a talk and not a performance (though the rumor is that Mr. Ma will have his cello on him to provide musical illustration)! Though he has achieved pop-culture status as one of the greatest musicians of our time, he is also extremely intentional and human. I once listened to a podcast in which he compared mistakes onstage to Julia Child dropping a chicken on the floor, picking it up, and putting it back in the pan, which in addition to being hilariously funny, proves his down-to-earth and relatable perspectives. I am extremely excited to listen and learn from what Mr. Ma has to say.

Tickets may be purchased online or at the Michigan League Ticket Office. As always is the case for UMS events, student tickets are $12-20, depending on seat location.

On February 27, Mr. Ma will also host a Day of Action in Flint, Michigan, which will culminate with a celebration of Flint in a community cultural showcase at the historic Berston Field House.


“All the things I love about life outside music have to do with people, and playing the cello allows me to fulfill all those interests through music.”

– Yo-Yo Ma


 

REVIEW: The How and the Why

Was it worth it?

Zelda, an award-winning evolutionary biologist for her work on the ‘grandmother hypothesis’ (which suggests that grandmothers improve their grandchildren’s initial chances of survival, hence giving a reason for grandmothers’ survival past menopause), meets her daughter Rachel, a PhD student in the same field with a new hypothesis on the reason for female menstruation (as a defense against the toxicity of sperm), for the first time in The How and the Why. As they discuss their ideas, as they share with each other their past experiences, this question of worth, in a variety of ways, becomes a focal point.

Is love worth it? Zelda, direct as ever, says it’s just stress. What does it feel like? she asks Rachel at one point. As a scientist in and out, this question is one I think about often. But despite the question, it becomes clear Zelda loves deeply, and, I think, understands the sentiment more fully than Rachel, who believes that when you love someone you always put them first but hasn’t quite figured out yet how to do that while maintaining one’s own self-worth.

This juxtaposition of Zelda and Rachel is an interesting one, of maturity and youth, levelheadedness and emotional volatility, professionally experienced and just beginning a career. I think that the overall result of this is that everyone can relate to one of the two women; the downside is that because of the play’s context, Rachel was usually the one learning, not providing the answers. Zelda, as mentioned, provides answers and advice that Rachel, with the hotheadedness of youth, freely disregards. I enjoyed Zelda’s character very much, partly because it mirrored my own: scientific and logical, she encourages Rachel to pursue her hypothesis even though it ostensibly contradicts Zelda’s own.

It was impressive that this play was so accurate with its scientific details – Is it worth it? comes up again as Zelda and Rachel discuss whether the benefits in their theories (cleaning out the uterus, for example) outweigh the risks (expending energy on creating a new uterine lining every month). Yet somehow the play still had so much time to delve into its characters’ personal issues. It is a rare breed of artwork that manages to give equal weight to both science and people, and Sarah Treem, the playwright, managed this extraordinarily well.

I thought a lot during the play about how resilient women are. Towards the end, Zelda has just revealed some very personal details and is, naturally, somewhat shaken up as a result. However, Rachel then begins to get anxious about something, so Zelda composes herself and puts her armor back to help Rachel. I see this tendency in real life, in the women around me and in myself, to make ourselves available for those we love even when we are facing our own difficulties. Similarly, we don’t let our difficulties break us; we always find a way to bend with them and then move forward. Whether it’s a less-than-perfect presentation or that messy thing called love, Rachel and Zelda do the same, emerging as stronger scientists and more complex people as a result.

Was it worth it? Some days yes; some days no.