Third Rehearsal: Mellwood Center

On Sunday, we rehearsed all of the Rud plays at the Mellwood Arts & Entertainment Center. I've been curious about the place since it opened a few years ago. It's a wonderfully funky setting for artists to set up shop; very industrial and only partially renovated, it is an old factory complex that now has space subdivided into small walled shops. I wandered around inside for a bit, checking out the wares of the talented residents there.

I took some digital pictures to share.

The first photo shows Mellwood from the street. The sculpture in the foreground is their Gallopalooza horse; the next photo shows it in closeup.

The third picture shows the main "entrance" to Mellwood. In the middle of the Center is a courtyard, with a cafe and several stores. Entrances on both sides lead you inside the building where most of the artists have their walled work areas/shops.

The last picture is Theater Lab Louisville, a second floor studio we rehearsed in. John made arrangements with the owner, Lee Kitts, for Sunday rehearsal space. It's a great space, roomy yet intimate, with a walkout to a balcony. (For more information about Ms. Kitts's acting classes, call 502-451-8717.)

The rehearsal went well; all four plays seem ready to go on stage. I rehearse with my actors one last time on Tuesday. Next week is tech at the Rud.

Added Date: Friday, August 18

An event cancellation at the Rud gave Sight and Sound the opportunity to add another day to their "Live Without a Net" festival: Friday, August 18. Folks, that's now FOUR evenings of fun.

Tickets are still $7.00.

Second Rehearsal

For our second rehearsal, we reviewed the lines -- which are pretty close to memorized -- and worked on blocking for the first time. The actors brought their costume ideas, and I made final decisions on what they will wear. Besides Dixie the cat deciding at one point to join the scene by rubbing the actors' legs, the rehearsal went well.

Above are some pics from tonight. Note that Mike and Tiffany are dressed casual, not in costume.

Next rehearsal is at Mellwood Arts & Entertainment Center. I've never been there, so I can't wait to see the place.

Go see "Clerks 2"!

Let me say from the top that I'm a huge Kevin Smith fan. I actually saw the first Clerks in a theater during its initial run. The fact that I was a video store clerk at the time (1994) made it a must-see; I certainly identified with Dante and Randal. So I've followed Smith on his cinematic journey. Want my ten-second reviews of his oevre?

Clerks. A masterpiece. In the 1990's, between Tarantino and Smith, there was/is no movie dialogue equal.

Mallrats. I think Jason Lee is great, but the rest of the script, acting, etc. is merely ok. Still, I think the criticism of the movie is overdone.

Chasing Amy. One of Smith's best, and I actually like Ben Affleck as an actor here -- a minor miracle in itself. Yet I have issues with the main story point: the beautiful lesbian that "becomes" heterosexual when Affleck reveals his love. This seems more a convenient plot device /fantasy than reality.

Dogma. Great on many levels -- it's a smart movie, guaranteed to get you talking. Sometimes, however, the movie itself is too talky; a common weakness and strength of Smith's first movies is dialogue that is so long and literary that line readings can be difficult, even with talented actors like Chris Rock. (From JASBSB on, he's finally found a balance in this area.) And Linda Fiorentino seems uncomfortable in the View Askewinverse. (Reportedly, she bickered on-set with Smith. It shows.)

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Funny, funny, funny. After Clerks, JASBSB is my second-favorite Smith DVD to pop in and watch. Wil Ferrell's character is particularly good. But the movie is an elaborate in-joke; hard to imagine people not familiar with Smith's previous flicks would enjoy it.

Jersey Girl. Since I was becoming a father when this movie came out, I appreciated some of the dad-daughter moments Smith was putting on the screen -- heck, I got teary-eyed a few times. But that's where my praise ends. It's schmaltzy, and even without the J.Lo/Affleck post-breakup fallout that doomed this movie when it opened, it's hard to see how it could have succeeded. My least favorite Smith film.

When I heard about Clerks 2, I was worried. I figured Smith had finally sold out and was shooting a quick sequel for the cash. But, I wanted to give him a chance, and I'm glad. Clerks 2 delivers: it's heartfelt without schmaltz, and most importantly, hilarious. One of the smart things Smith does is let his characters age. I didn't realize, until Dante and Randal mention it in the movie, is that they're my age: 32. In the first Clerks, they were blissfully breezing through life in jobs that were just enough to pay the bills. In the sequel, they face impending fatherhood, marriage, the prospect of "real" jobs, and friends moving away. I was startled to think how the Clerks movies completely parallel my life. The fact that Smith has melded the warmth of Jersey Girl, the dialogue of Clerks and the fun of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is an achievement. Go see it.

By the way, shame on Joel Siegel, who noisily walked out of a New York screening of Clerks 2 just 40 minutes into the movie. (Interesting that he complained he was leaving because the movie was too vulgar, while using the F word in his out-loud complaint.) Mr. Siegel, you get paid to watch movies. And apparently, to write atrocious puns in your reviews. Not a bad gig, pal. You have every right to tear the movie apart in your review. Or even leave if you must, if you do it quietly, respecting your fellow audience members / peer reviewers. But really: for all the terrible movies you've sat through and somehow positively reviewed, can Clerks 2 have been that bad? As for the way you left the screening, let's put it in perspective. If a teenager had done what you had done in my local theater, he'd be booed at and considered immature. For a so-called professional, you acted like a child.

First Rehearsal

Had our first rehearsal for "A Richard Donner Heaven" last night. It went very well. The first half was spent talking about my vision and the emotional spine of the play, and Mike and Tiffany gave their input and questions about the characters. We then did several read-throughs. First we concentrated on the delivery of the words, then I let the actors make natural and spontaneous movements as they read. It's a good way to get into the play before worrying about formal blocking. Plus, I like the actors to have some freedom about line readings and movement as they discover their words and their characters. When we encounter a point that has multiple interpretations, I'd rather discuss it with the actors and decide which way to go then to arbitrarily dictate how it must be done in advance. I guess that's why I'm not a good chess player. Why play a game if you already know the 50 moves in advance? Art should surprise you. If I wanted a set of specific responses for every beat of the play, I'd have to be a puppeteer, not a director.

I have a few different philosophies as a director:
1) The two most important decisions a director must make is what the central vision of the piece will be, and picking the right cast and crew. I truly believe having the right people on and behind the stage is 70% of the work. If you've chosen well, the hardest part of staging a production is behind you.
2) The director must inspire. He or she is the center of the hub, and if he or she doesn't have enthusiasm for the project, no one will. "Inflate, don't berate." It's never a waste of time to tell the cast and crew how fantastic they are doing -- while pushing them to do even more spectacular of a job.
3) Directors should always hold the cast and crew to his or her central vision, but never micromanage their contributions. This is especially true of actors. If a director wants to nitpick every arched eyebrow and emphasized syllable of an actor, you're stifling their creativity. Plus, you should have just hired robots.
4) Directors are benign monarchs. Everyone contributes to a show, even the person who sweeps the stage. A good idea can come from anywhere, and when a production is working well, the ideas are flying left and right. However, a production is not a democracy. A good director listens and respects everyone, but ultimately he or she makes the final decision. If your cast and crew respects you, and you make your reasons clear, they should go along with it.

Next week I hope to post a few pics from rehearsal.

Waverly Hills, "Death Tunnel" Review

Waverly Hills. The two words are bound to get a reaction from anyone around Louisville. It's internationally infamous for being one of the most haunted places on the planet. The five-story gothic hospital started off as a TB sanatorium in 1926. When TB was cured in the 1960's, Waverly Hills closed temporarily and reopened as Wood Haven, a nursing home. Unfortunately for its residents, abuse and neglect was rampant, and the state closed it down in 1980. Vacant and abandoned, vandals quickly wore it down and tore it up. Tina and Charles Mattingly, the current owners of the property, now seek to maintain and restore Waverly Hills; one of the ways to generate that revenue is ghost tours. (For more historical information, check out the property's official site.)

WH has never been known as a happy place; over 60,000 people died there during the TB years, at one point at the rate of one patient each hour. After 1980, however, the ghost legends began to take hold. I first heard them as a teenager; I was told WH was an insane asylum, and not knowing its true history, believed it. Way before the "official" tours began, while in my late teens, I took a (ahem) visit to WH with some friends. It affected me in a way few places have since. No, I didn't see or hear ghosts. But I felt a somber weight that is almost impossible to describe. Before I knew the truth of its TB patients and neglected seniors, I could sense the sadness of WH. And I immediately thought, "What a great place to set a movie."

When WFPK gave me a chance to do another Halloween radio drama in 2003, I knew I wanted to do a hoax show, where the participants seemed to be "real people" broadcasting live from somewhere. In fact, the participants would be actors and the show would be edited from previously taped material. I pitched it as "Blair Witch" meets Welles's "War of the Worlds." It was Dan Reed, WFPK's program director at the time, that had the infinite wisdom to suggest the setting of a haunted house. Immediately, I knew it had to be at WH. So, I plotted out the story, put together my actors, and even got live ambient audio from Waverly Hills itself (slamming of doors, running up stairs, an empty hallway). We cut the thing together in WFPK's studios and broadcast it on Halloween -- supposedly, "Live From Waverly Hills." It was no movie, but I was satisfied to have finally gotten the chance to fictionalize an adventure there.

So this very long introduction brings us to Death Tunnel, the DVD I finally had a chance to watch today.

DT was filmed on location at Waverly Hills in 2004, the first Hollywood film to do so. For fans of the hospital's legend, this seemed a dream come true. The story has a clever hook: five college girls are "volunteered" to stay in the five floors of the abandoned sanatorium for five hours. The catch? Five ghosts don't want them there. When I had heard about the movie, I contacted the producer Christopher Saint Booth (the director's twin brother) and exchanged a few emails; I even sent him a copy of my WH show. The movie was put in limited release last year, and finally came out on DVD back in February. I was eager to see it, but didn't have a chance until today.

The good news: The cinematography is beautiful, and I'm comparing it to movies even outside the horror genre. Philip Adrian Booth shot, wrote, and directed the picture. Opinions may differ what he accomplished in those last two departments, but I'll challenge anyone to beat Booth's camerawork. The special & makeup effects -- indeed, production values overall -- are very good as well, especially considering the movie only had a budget of 1.5 million. The filmmakers are adept at utilizing the WH location to set the mood. In terms of looks, the characters are well-casted; the five lead girls are all gorgeous.

The mediocre news: the acting and script. For a genre flick, I ain't expecting The Godfather, mind you. But the overall acting was merely efficient (mostly screaming and crying), and the script was weak. I believe all the dialogue for the 90 minute film could be written on the front and back of a postcard. Also the original (excellent!) premise wasn't fully realized. If there were five ghosts, I couldn't tell you who all of them were. As for the five hours, the movie first counts them down as a possible tension device, then drops the idea midway through. I could spend another whole blog entry on describing plot holes and continuity errors but I'll stop while I'm ahead.

The bad news: the editing. It's in this area that finally kills Death Tunnel. Its first editing fault: it's cut like a hyper music video. I'm always wary of this, since most of the time it never works for me (see any Michael Bay movie) although there's always an exception (Moulin Rouge is an excellent example). If this was its only editing flaw, it would merely be irritating. The second and greater problem is incoherence. There are so many flashforwards and flashbacks you lose any sense of story, much less a build up of tension. The (over)use of slow-mo didn't help either.

The verdict? I was disappointed. Rent it only if you're a huge WH fan and leave your brain on autopilot.

Death Tunnel is more confusing then scary. It's a shame. Based on the initial hook of the story, DT could have been a great little thriller if done in a more straight-forward manner. However, I believe Booth has talent worth watching. He reminds me of another new director in the horror genre, Rob Zombie. I saw House of 1000 Corpses and can't say I dug the flick, but it had nuggets of gold and I saw his directing potential. When Zombie did Devil's Rejects, I was impressed and convinced of his filmmaking talent. I hope Booth gets that chance as well.

Let's end on a happy note. If you're curious about Waverly Hills, what you should buy is the documentary Spooked. It was filmed while Booth was making Death Tunnel, and directed by Christopher Saint Booth. The documentary is much more scary and coherent than the feature film. and its style mostly adds instead of detracts from the experience. (I saw Spooked on the Sci-Fi channel. It is now out on DVD.)

DVD Reviews: Libertine, Everything is Illuminated

Occasionally, if I see a new DVD, or hit the movie theater, or see a play, or get a new CD . . . I might drop a mini-review here. What better place, right?

Since our schedule is hectic, and a two-year old can make watching a movie from start to finish a difficult proposition, our DVD buying and viewing has slowed down considerably. What we usually do is this: unless it's a "must-have," we usually wait and make a trip once a month to stock up on used DVDs. If we get three or four movies, it might take us a month to watch them, especially during the school year.

The well was dry, so I hit Hollywood Video over the weekend. (I hit Hollywood because I fear the monolithic Blockbuster as the video equivalent of Wal-Mart, and Wild and Woolly Video is too far away.)

Quick bio sidenote: I was a video store manager for Roadrunner Video for 2 1/2 years, from right out of high school until not long after I turned 21. For a young single guy with few bills and only a high school diploma, it was a good gig. Free rentals. Free posters. Free screeners. A trade show trip that had some memorable moments. My district manager and I became friends and we're still close today. Also, my wife worked there for a short time -- that's where we met and began dating, which is whole 'nother story....

Where was I? Oh yeah, I bought Munich, A History of Violence, and Hustle and Flow, none of which I've seen before -- or seen yet as of this posting. I also rented The Libertine and Everything is Illuminated, which we actually were able to squeeze both in over the weekend.

The Libertine will make you a Johnny Depp fan, if you're not one already. I've said for years he's a genius, and if there's any justice I'll work with him in some capacity (perhaps as a gopher!) before my planetary gig is up. The movie covers the last few years of the controversial Earl of Rochester (Depp), a late 1600's De Sade-type writer and hedonist He's ably backed by John Malkovich, Samantha Morton, and some other fine British character actors. The screenplay is based on a play and sounds it; this is mostly a compliment, especially for Depp's opening monologue. But the dreary candlelit-and-smoke-monotony of the cinematography (not to mention the often handheld and strangely loose-focused camerawork), while atmospheric, get wearying. The second hour gets more interesting, starting with a shocking play Rochester writes to "honor" Charles II (Malkovich), and as syphillis disfigures Rochester I often forgot it was Depp and got pulled into the Earl's inevitable demise. Be warned: although this movie has sex and nudity, it is far from sexy or erotic. Overall, the movie has commendable acting and set design, but is only worth the watch if you're a fan of Depp or the history of late-1600's English theater.

On the other hand, you must rent Everything is Illuminated, based on Jonathan Safran Foer's book (which I have not read, but now wish I had). Elijah Wood plays Foer as he goes to the Ukraine to try to find the woman that saved his Jewish grandfather from the Nazis in 1942. How did this movie get overlooked for Oscars?? Acting, screenplay, editing, all wonderful, and the story is a moving one. I must give huge props to Liev Schreiber, an actor who I always thought was decent -- but who ever thought he could direct and write (he debuts in both areas for this film)? The screenplay is literary and the direction inventive without being pretentious in either category. Let's hope he's another Clooney and gets a second chance to helm a picture.

Grand Opening

Well, I said I'd wait until August, but since I had to update my site with a link to a press release I just wrote for the "Live Without a Net" production, I decided to go ahead and kickstart this thing.

My site now has links to this very blog. Hilarity shall soon ensue.

I'll try to post after the first rehearsal.

First Blog Entry!

Welcome to the first inaugural post of my Blog! Although a link from my webpage to here won't officially begin until August, I wanted to give the ol' blog a shakedown cruise. Let's bring those warp engines on line and see what happens.

No wormholes yet? Good. Let's continue.

For people possibly finding me for the first time, my mini-biography above sums me up pretty well. If you really have a lot of time, you can read more from my site here.

As I write this, I'm about to direct one of my short plays, A Richard Donner Heaven. Yes, as in the guy that directed the first Superman movie. It's great to have two members of Project Improv on board as my thespians: Tiffany LaVoie and Mike Slaton. Although it was directed and acted much to my satisfaction in 2004 for Petfish's Playwright Festival, I'm glad to have the opportunity to direct it myself. The play will be part of "Live Without a Net," a festival of drama and music produced by Sight and Sound, on August 12, 17, and 19. For more details, visit my production website here.

Rehearsals will begin next week. Wish me luck.

Speaking of Superman . . . last week, my wife and I saw Superman Returns (in IMAX 3-D even, woo hoo!). I think Bryan Singer is a fantastic director -- X-Men 2 ranks easily in the top five comic-book movies ever made -- so my expectations were pretty high. After seeing SR I had mixed emotions. Overall, I enjoyed it; it was a very good movie, but just short of great. The directing, cinematography and special effects were aces, and the acting very good. Routh does the impossible by striking a balance between honoring Reeve's performance and adding his own dimensions to Kent/Superman. I like Bosworth as an actress, and she does fine as Lois Lane here, but I miss Margot Kidder's edge. Spacey's Lex equals Hackman's excellence, but is protrayed darker, which fits the tone of Singer's movie.

But -- spoiler alert -- not counting nagging questions that may be answered in sequels (like, are Supes's Krypton crystals that Lex left behind floating with the rest of his "continent" in space??), I have three main problems with the flick.

1) Lex Luthor as a villian. I don't blame the filmmakers for re-kicking off the franchise with Supes's most well-known villian, but he has now been in four of the five Superman movies. The whole "I'm gonna outsmart you with some kryptonite and beat you up/drown you" thing is getting old. Please, give me some fighting thrills with a General Zod or a Doomsday next time.

2) The ending. It's waaaay tooooo looooong. The pacing drains away the dramatic power of Supes's near-death experience.

3) The kid. Good grief o'gravy. What the F do they plan to do with this character? If they plan on kicking off a Superboy franchise, need I remind Warner Bros. that they already have? It's called Smallville! I can't say I follow the tv show, but I'd rather see those guys on the big screen than whatever this character will become. The chronology of the movies would have to jump ahead at least ten years (and make him a teenager) for it to get even remotely interesting. And I don't want to see Pop and Kid beating up bad guys together. Even worse is wasting the setup. Does he have superpowers or not? If he does, use them. If not, why didn't they just make him fully human and not half-Kryptonian, with Lois's fiance as the father? IMHO, it may have been more interesting to see how Superman/Kent dealt with a child that he may "uncle" from the sidelines -- knowing that, if things had been different, and Supes had settled down with Lois, the child could have been his. So the poignancy of the actual father/son situation is soured by the thoughts of a movie exec inserting this whole plot point in order to make a young, quote-unquote hip Superboy movie in the next five years. (And I want to know why kryptonite didn't bother the kid. If his powers have manifested -- as they do a few minutes later when he pushes the piano -- it doesn't make sense. If there are new "rules" for how kryptonite affects half-Kryptonians, the movie doesn't even suggest what they are. Yet. Maybe the sequels will.)

That aside, Superman Returns is worth plunking down your dollars for. When you add up its strengths and weaknesses, it's almost equal to Donner's Superman. And I do look forward to sequels -- minus Supertyke.