Whether or not you’re a fan of musicals, it would be hard for you to not know about the recently released movie version of Les Miserables, the fourth-longest running musical in Broadway’s history. Starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe (poor Russell), Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter, Sascha Baron Cohen, and Amanda Seyfried, the movie follows convict Jean Valjean from his release in 1815 after 19 years in prison through his involvement in the 1832 Paris Uprising, all the while raising the daughter of a prostitute and being pursued by an inspector determined to arrest him for breaking parole. The director, Tom Hopper, has made waves by having his actors do all of their singing live in single takes, rather than recording tracks in a studio and lip syncing on camera. The obvious intention seems to be to better simulate the experience of live theatre. From a cinematic standpoint, it was a hit-or-miss gimmick; it led to some incredible scenes, but also constricted the shots unnecessarily, leading to way too many extended closeups on actors’ faces. Some of the actors (poor, poor Russell) were clearly uncomfortable with the live singing, concentrating too much on hitting notes to really perform the numbers. But the technique also created some incredibly powerful and engaging moments as well. Jackman, a Broadway veteran, was obviously in his element, despite the fact that several of the songs strained his range. SBC and HBC were FABULOUS as the Thrénadiers; although Helena was repeating a lot of what she did for Mrs. Lovett, the approach worked far better in this movie than in Sweeney Todd. Anne Hathaway was the biggest revelation, pouring passion and heartbreak into “I Dreamed a Dream.” She even managed to keep me mostly engaged through the 4 minute closeup on her face! In a recent blog post from NPR, pop culture blogger Linda Holmes notes that Anne has received almost universal praise for her performance, even from those who hated the film. In my opinion, the praise is well-deserved.

In reading Holmes’s note on the performance, however, I found myself a bit perplexed by one particular description of the performance (emphasis mine):

… what Hathaway does here is the best use of what director Tom Hopper is trying to do with both the super-close-ups and the live singing. It’s not the prettiest rendition of the song by a longshot [sic], but it returns the grief and desperation to a number that somehow often comes off, quite wrongly, like a light, pretty sigh.

I’ve looked at a number of other reviews of the film, and almost all of them make very similar statements: a powerful performance, but not the prettiest rendition of the song. This strikes me as such a strange comment to make that I had to give it some more thought. The performance was gorgeous and powerful, showing strength, rage, and vulnerability. And Anne Hathaway certainly had the singing voice to knock the number out of the park. So what on earth makes the performance of the song not “pretty”?

Part of me thinks that this may actually be an indication of a cultural gap between people who were raised with live performance music and theatre and people who look to movies and CDs for their entertainment. Movies and studio recording obviously allow for multiple takes until the artist achieves the, for lack of a better term, perfect performance. Live performance definitely does not give the performer that kind of margin for error; everything is a single take, and audiences have to accept a certain level of “imperfection.” We also live in the Era of AutoTune, where off notes can be digitally moved to the correct pitch. To someone more accustomed to the engineered perfection of a studio recording, it’s possible that the occasional audibly choked voice, breaths, slides, and brief off-pitch moments of Anne’s performance might have made the song less “pretty” to people.

However, that still bothers me because it demonstrates an inconsistency in the criteria for a good musical performance. A good performance, whether spoken or sung, is powerful; it moves people emotionally, or makes them fall over laughing, or think in a new way. Pretty is such a limp word to me, applied to artists that make no effort to go outside of their comfort zone. Amanda Seyfried, for example, gave a performance that I would describe as pretty. She has a lovely voice and hit all of her notes, but she took zero chances emotionally while singing. She didn’t detract from the overall movie, but she was totally uninteresting to watch or hear. If total pitch perfection is the aim, then she hit it, but I would hardly say that it was a good performance. And if that had been a straight acting performance, I don’t think anyone else would have either. Be it speaking or singing, I don’t want pretty. I want Anne Hathaway (or Hugh Jackman, who was also selling his heart out). I want the actor who hits the important notes with power and conviction and doesn’t worry that there may be a slide or two out of place. “Pretty” is a completely unnecessary criterion. She gave a brilliant performance, both acting-wise and singing-wise. End of story.

I would absolutely love to hear whether anyone else has noticed this particular trend in comments about Anne Hathaway’s performance, and your thoughts on what it means. Do you think I’m interpreting the criticism correctly? What do you think is meant by “pretty”? Was that a critique that you had of Anne’s performance? How do you think a “pretty” performance relates to a “good” performance? Leave your comments below!

Happy New Year, frogs! We hope that you have all entered joyfully into 2013, and that your hangovers are not too severe. We here at Four Frogs HQ have had four glorious weeks to rest and recuperate in various parts of the country. But now we’re back, and ready to jump into the new year at full speed!

2012 was a pretty remarkable year for Four Frogs Productions. Over those 12 months, we:

• put up the hauntingly beautiful Goblin Market in the Production Workshop Upspace at Brown University!
• helped to produce Replica, a short sci-fi thriller in the not-too-distant future, in association with Andvaari Films!
• entered into the 2012 Providence 48 Hour Film Project with VLOG, which took first runner up for Best Film!
• mounted our second show at 95 Empire (formerly Perishable Theatre), the thought-provoking–and especially popular in an election year–An Enemy of the People!

Each show and film has given us valuable lessons as we continue to refine our approach to the creation of art. We’ve worked with outstanding artists from all parts of the state, and created wonderful partnerships with some excellent organizations, such as AS220, the Rhode Island Performance Exchange, and the Hamilton House. As we look back at our accomplishments, we want to take a moment to give our heartfelt thanks to every person who donated the time, space, and talent that made our productions shine. We could not have done it without you!

There is a lot to look forward to in the coming months. You’ll be hearing announcements about a few things very soon, with more to come as we decide what challenges we want to take on. For now, as we begin 2013, let’s reflect on our mission statement, and offer it up as our resolutions for the year:

Four Frogs Productions strives to make the entire theatre experience open and available. We imagine new ways for theatre to be accessible to interested artists and amateurs, create exciting new performances, and transform classic works with fresh ideas and perspectives.

Imagine. Create. Transform.

May you all have a happy and prosperous new year. Now go make some art!

Dr. Thomas Stockman, David Pizzelli
Mrs. Katherine Stockman, Carlen Adler
Petra Stockman, Angella Lynsey Ford
Peter Stockman, Paula Prendergast
Hovastad, David Carpenter
Billing, Aaron Weininger
Aslaksen, Gene Spector
Captain Horster, Gregory Paul
Morten Kiil, Amanda Grossi

Rehearsals begin this Wednesday, September 12th at 6pm! We can’t wait to get started!

Best,
The Four Frogs Team

And speaking of making awesome theatre, this will be a quick and dirty post to remind you all that we’re having auditions! This week! For An Enemy of the People!

Auditions will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, September 4 and 5. We will be on the second floor of 95 Empire from 6pm-8pm on Tuesday, and from 6pm-9pm on Wednesday. Don’t worry about prepping a monologue; we will have sides from the show ready for you! Callbacks will be this Saturday, September 8, from noon to 4pm.

Got all that? Just in case, here it is again:

Auditions for An Enemy of the People
95 Empire Street, second floor
Tuesday, September 4 6pm-8pm
Wednesday, September 5 6pm-9pm
Callbacks: Saturday, September 8 noon-4pm

Email auditions@fourfrogsproductions.com to sign up for a slot. And tell your friends, co-workers, loved ones, enemies, and anyone else who might like to try out. We’ll see you there!

On July 30, I had the incredible honor of attending A Night with Brian Dennehy at Trinity Rep. Seeing Brian Dennehy and Fred Sullivan Jr perform from the work of Eugene O’Neill in the intimate Dowling Theatre was simply amazing; these two talented actors have a lifelong love of O’Neill’s work, which shone through their performances from Moon for the Misbegotten, Hughie, and Long Day’s Journey Into Night. The evening was laced with interesting stories and facts about O’Neill, and culminated with a wonderful reception following the Q&A (I got my picture taken with Mr. Dennehy! Cross one thing off the bucket list *grins*). It was a delightful event, and I was so glad to be there.

Now, since I was the only Frog able to attend, I did a lot of people-watching as the lobby and theatre filled up. And as people continued to come in and find seats, I began to notice something that was so jarring to me that I had to keep looking around to confirm. By the time the event started and the theatre was full, I knew that I had counted correctly; of the approximately 300 people in the theatre, I could pretty much count on my hands the number of people under the age of 50. And I could count on one hand the number of people in the theatre who were not white. And all of those people were affiliated with the theatre, either as actors or students.

There are a lot of article floating around discussing the persistent perception of the theatre as an elitist organization, that can only be enjoyed by people who are a) rich, b) old, and c) white. Looking around at my fellow audience members, thinking about the $50 I had paid for a ticket to this event, I certainly understood where that idea came from. And the evening took on a whole new layer for me. It was no longer simply an event where two wonderful and talented actors perform the work of one of the great American playwrights before an audience of several hundred theatre lovers. It was now also an event where 2 white, male actors, performed the work of a white, male (and dead) playwright before an audience of several hundred mostly white, mostly older patrons. And the more I thought about it, the more disturbed I got.

Theatre is frequently looked at as a mirror that we hold up to reflect our society and our world, in order to celebrate, or question, or protest. But what I saw that night did not provide any reflection of the world that I experience. The world I know is a world that is defined by diversity. It is a strange and wonderful place, full of people of all different races, genders and gender expressions, sexual orientations, weights, heights, political views, religious beliefs, cultural backgrounds, and occupations. This diversity is, for me, beyond an expectation; it is simply a given, like the fact that the sky is blue. It is the only way I have every experienced the world; and I am sure that there are millions of others who can say the same. Even in a state like Rhode Island, whose population has long been predominantly Italian American, you can still expect to experience this type of diversity of backgrounds and beliefs. America is truly a melting pot.

But is the theatre doing a good job of reflecting that diversity? Well, here are some things to think about:

• Ticket prices, even for smaller fringe productions, frequently start at $20 or $25, and only go up from there. Doesn’t seem like a lot? I can tell you right now that I know a number of people for whom $20 dollars could be the difference between a theatre ticket and being able to pay for food. This cuts out huge segments of the population, and definitely creates audiences that are almost always older, and frequently white.
• Answer me this – what was the last show that you saw that was not written by a white man? I’m almost afraid to answer this myself. Between larger companies returning to the classics time and time again, and smaller groups like Four Frogs that frequently gravitate toward works in the public domain (i.e. Shakespeare) to avoid having to pay for rights, there is a hugely disproportionate number of productions featuring plays by only one gender and only one race/ethnicity. Of course, this doesn’t automatically diminish from the potential universal appeal of these plays – if it did, they would be pretty poor playwrights – but it makes you wonder what other theatrical experiences we may be missing out on by continuing to perform the same plays so often.
• Casting will get its own post, but consider some of the articles we linked to last week, describing controversies such as the casting of a black man as Stanley Kowalski, or the play set in rural China where the actors cast were not of Asian descent. If I, as a white woman, can become discomfited at monochromatic performances, how would a woman of color feel? Or a gay woman? Or someone who, like myself, is under the age of 40?

In my opinion, we are not reflecting our world; we are not holding up a mirror to the riot of colors, attitudes, and experiences that is modern America; we are not making that diversity a priority in our work. And it has to be, to keep theatre a relevant tool and experience. There have to be more plays written by twenty-something gay men. There need to be more Asian-American female directors. There have to be audiences that bring together a century’s worth of ages in one room. We complain about Hollywood continually turning out sequels, or remakes, or reboots, and yet we do the same thing ourselves, returning over and over to the same canons of work, all too often ignoring the vast arrays of experiences that exist outside of the white, Irish or Italian American, male sphere. How does that make us better?

With Four Frogs, I suddenly have an opportunity to make an impact on this theatre world that I love, even if it’s a small impact. So I will here make a commitment to try to think about these issues when I’m writing or casting or planning a season. I will work hard to hold up a clean mirror to the world to see what new viewpoints and perspectives emerge. Will you join me?

* Note: Someone sent me a message stating that the original purpose of Victory Day focused more on their surrender than on the actions leading to it. While I understand the distinction, the holiday as it is currently celebrated in Rhode Island does not coincide with Japan’s official signing of the surrender articles (September 2, declared by President Truman to be the official “V-J Day”), but instead falls between the dropping of the atomic bombs (August 6 and 9, respectively) and Japan’s initial statement of surrender (August 14). But that’s a topic for a different blog!

Now, for those readers who are not familiar with this process, there are 2 primary methods for auditioning actors. Some directors choose to provide “sides” (segments of the script), and have actors perform scenes or speeches from the play itself. Other directors ask actors to prepare one or 2 monologues, from any play they choose. Anyone asking for monologues will often specify the type of monologue (comedy, drama, classical, Shakespeare, etc), to make sure they see the particular talents that they need for the play; because of this, actors usually have several different monologues, memorized and ready to be performed at any time. Larger regional theatres are more likely to ask for monologues, as they usually audition for their entire season at once; they’ll have people perform monologues at the initial audition, and then call people back for specific plays. Smaller groups, who usually audition one show at a time, can go either way; it’s entirely up to the director. I’ve encountered both methods as I’ve been auditioning, without any particular patterns emerging.

By now, you know I must have an opinion on this. So here it is – I really dislike monologue auditions, especially when they are used at auditions that are only casting for one play. I don’t think that they are the best tools for an audition process (except in very specific circumstances, like a company doing a general audition for their entire season). For starters, a huge part of acting is about interacting. I’m not looking to cast the person who performs the best in a vacuum; I’m looking to cast the person who can best inhabit the characters that I plan to put onstage. That requires, to my mind, actually watching the actor play off of someone, even if it is just a line reader. This gives me an opportunity to see you in action, to see your reactions to what the other person says. When you’re doing a monologue for an audition, you don’t get to bounce energy off of any fellow actors; you simply focus on middle distance and send it out into oblivion. In my mind, as someone who will need to see how an actor interacts with others while inhabiting the character, it simply makes sense to have the actors use sides.

Now, sometimes, if there are characters who turn on long speeches, you definitely want to see if an actor can handle the monologues. In that case, though, why would I have someone audition using material from a totally different play? Yes, I can ask people to perform a monologue that is in the same genre, but that in no way guarantees that the piece they perform will show me their ability to perform the characters in my show. Actor A may choose to perform a piece that demonstrates their steely willpower and charisma, which may be completely inappropriate for any of the characters in the play I’m doing. Because I don’t see anything I can use based on that one monologue, I decide not to call back this actor. But what if Actor A would have actually have been perfect for a character who is more yielding, but who has a quiet confidence that is frequently overlooked? Or might have had an interpretation for one of the roles that I haven’t even thought of? By judging Actor A only on this random monologue – which could be very far removed from the world I’m trying to create – I could be missing out on some incredible opportunities for the characters in my play. Watching actors begin to interpret the characters they’re going out for gives me a better idea of their abilities, and can also give me some invaluable ideas for how to interpret the roles.

Additionally, the process of standing alone and performing a monologue while facing a silent panel of people is absolutely terrifying. An audition panel is not a regular audience, and doesn’t give you the same kind of feedback. They are unlikely to smile or laugh, or lean forward in their chairs when they’re drawn into the story. They’re not there for enjoyment, but to judge whether you are appropriate for a role; they have to be as objective as they can. Even auditioning for close friends can be scary under those conditions. And while a certain amount of nerves can lead people to give amazing performances, being too off-kilter can keep you too far in your own head, which rarely helps a performance. A line reader may not give much feedback either, but at least there is a living, breathing human being to work with. As I’ve said before, auditioning is terrifying enough without making people stand up alone in front of basically the least supportive audience you can find.

So what are your thoughts? Actors, do you prefer to do a monologue, or to perform work from the show itself? Directors, what type of audition do you usually run, and why? What type of audition do you find to be the most productive?

Written in 1882 by the great Scandinavian playwright Henrik Ibsen, An Enemy of the People pits brother against brother in a contest between an inconvenient truth and the security of the community. A small coastal town in Norway has opened a new spa and medicinal baths, guaranteed to provide a level of economic prosperity the citizens have never known. When Thomas Stockman, the garrulous and opinionated town doctor, makes a terrible discovery about the baths, he comes up against a community unwilling to let go of their new-found opportunity for stability. As passions rise and people are betrayed, Ibsen displays the willful blindness that can lead a community to label a friend as “an enemy of the people”.

An Enemy of the People was conceived following the outcry and censorship directed at Ibsen’s previous work, Ghosts. It was a remarkable response to the hypocrisy of the political systems, and the willing complicity in those corrupted structures by the majority. These ideas are clearly as topical in the 21st century as they were in the 19th; as we head into the home stretch of election season, we can draw many parallels between the play and the American political landscape. Four Frogs will be holding several additional events leading up to the show itself, so that we can explore and discuss the personal, philosophical, and political themes within the script. Stay tuned for more information on those events!

The production will go up at the end of November at AS220’s 95 Empire space. Auditions for the show will be held on Tuesday, September 4 and Wednesday, September 5 from 6pm to 9pm (location TBA).  For more information, or to sign up for an audition slot, just send us an email at auditions@fourfrogsproductions.com. Hope to see you there!

Back in May, Arik, Amanda, and I attended the 2012 Senator Claiborne Pell Lecture on Arts & Humanities. You no doubt know Senator Pell as the main sponsor of the Federal Pell Grant Program, which provides need-based grants to low-income undergrad (and some grad) students, in order to promote access. Well, in addition to being a champion of education, Senator Pell – who represented Rhode Island from 1961-1997 – was also a champion of the arts, working hard on the creation of both the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. Not bad for a little state, huh? Following Senator Pell’s death in 2009, this annual lecture series was established to examine the arts and humanities and their place in our societal landscape.

This year’s lecture was co-sponsored by AS220 and the City of Providence Department of Art, Culture, and Tourism, and presented by Mayor Tavares. The topic was Creative Placemaking: Providence, the Creative Capital, Fact or Fiction? There were four diverse panel participants from both local and national organizations: Maria Rosario Jackson, PhD (director of the Urban Institute’s Culture, Creativity, and Communities program), Jason Schupbach (manager of urban design initiatives for the National Endowment of the Arts), Colin P. Kane (chairman of the 195 Commission redeveloping downtown Providence), and Manya K. Rubenstein (co-founder and publisher of Outpost Journal). Moderated by Marc Levitt, these panelists examined the the idea of “creative placemaking” as:

…an approach to neighborhood development where public/private partners make investments in arts and cultural infrastructure, policies, and programs as a means to build urban vitality, animate public and private spaces, and rejuvenate structures and streetscapes.  It is a process that brings diverse people together to ideate, create and celebrate the local character of a place.  Communities across the nation are strategically shaping the physical, social, and economic environments around the arts and existing local assets to foster livable, sustainable, diverse places; to enhance quality of life; to increase creative activity and to promote a sense of place and healthy local economies.

This lecture was incredibly thought-provoking; I took copious notes throughout. Maria Jackson was particularly compelling, and spoke passionately about the importance of the arts in protecting the democratic process; in addressing and walking the line between preservation and innovation; and in allowing teaching citizens how to take responsibility for their creative well-being. The overall consensus, from both panelists and questioners, was that the arts – in all of their iterations – are a crucial component in any plan to develop and revitalize a community, beyond the simple fact that they are prolific small business owners (which is an important argument, but by no means the only one). They can teach and inspire, create lasting bonds between a person and the place they live.

The more I listened, the more I felt like I was listening to a description of my own feelings and revelations. Entering into the artistic community here in Providence has exposed me to parts of this city that, in 3 years of being a resident, I had never looked to find. I get excited each time I discover a new theatre group or find a performance space. I’ll be working with other artists to create an artistic collective and resource for the smaller groups around the state. I’ve been thinking about ways to use theatre for educational purposes, such as improving literacy, or engaging with our senior citizens. And it’s even moved beyond the arts. I’m buying more from our farmers markets. I was so proud to learn that Senator Pell was a Rhode Island man. I have opinions about bike and sidewalk accessibility. I’ve joined an awesome networking group for professional women in Providence. I’m even looking forward to voting in the next election, and doing the research to make sure I’m making an informed choice.

Those who have known me for a while know that I’ve never had particularly strong roots in any one place. This isn’t to say that I don’t have strong connections to places I’ve lived. But the idea of living in one place for 20 or 30 years has never appealed to me. It’s not, shall we say, a part of my American Dream.

So what has caused me to consider, at least for the next few years, to commit to a place? The theatre. This beautiful community of people, performances, and places. It may not be forever; but for now, I want to make this city the best that I can, by using my talents in whatever way I can. And right now, that means building Four Frogs into a company that we can be proud of.

This is creative placemaking in action. Join in!

Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson

The Wilbury Group‘s acclaimed production comes to a close tomorrow night, so buy your tickets now! Directed by Josh Short and Dave Tessier, the production takes you on a wild ride through the rockstar life of our 7th president. Don’t miss it!

Friday, July 27 8pm
Saturday, July 28 8pm
Butcher’s Block, 25 Eagle Street, Providence
Buy tickets here.

A Night with Brian Dennehy

Now this event has us EXTREMELY excited! Tony Award and Golden Globe-winner Brian Dennehy will be sitting down with Rhode Island’s own Fred Sullivan, Jr to discuss (and perform from) the plays of Eugene O’Neill. The talk will include a question & answer session, and will be followed by a cocktail party where attendees can mingle with Mr. Dennehy. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, people!

Monday, July 30 7pm at the Dowling Theatre, 201 Washington Street, Providence
Buy tickets here.

Timeshare

The third offering of the Brown/Trinity Playwrights Repertory Theatre opened last night! The play is a riotous romantic comedy set in a small vacation getaway. Directed by Lowry Marshall and written by Rachel Caris Love, it promises to be quite the trip!

Friday, July 27 8pm
Saturday, July 28 8pm
Wednesday, August 1 8pm
Saturday, August 4 8pm
Buy tickets here.

Advanced Acting – Coming Up

Speaking of Fred Sullivan, Jr, his Advanced Acting class will be starting up at The Gamm in just a couple of weeks! The class is aimed at experienced actors, looking to break out of their comfort zones and work on some demanding scenes.

To sign up, go here, or call Susie Schutt, Education Coordinator, at 401-723-4266, ext 21

Got all that? Good. Now get out there and see some theatre!