A review of the Kalamazoo College Senior Performance Series

Suddenly Last Summer

Director Michelle Myers pays a wonderful homage to Tennessee Williams with her powerful production of his one-act Suddenly Last Summer. The play focuses on the human collateral damage left behind in the wake of an untimely death. Mrs. Venable (Megan Rosenberg), the mother of the departed, is attempting to have her niece Catharine Holly (Kelly Campbell) lobotomized for sullying her son’s reputation.  She invites not only Catharine, but a doctor from Lion’s View hospital, Dr. Cukrowicz (The Kosmo’s own Joseph Schafer), a surgeon who specializes in radical prefrontal disfigurement to consider the operation.

Doctor Cukrowicz has a sense of character that builds as the play progresses. Raw nerves and hints of condescension chip his helpful demeanor away. His omnipotent smile starts as good bedside manner but becomes subtly disquieting as he discusses his work with Mrs. Venable. Mrs. Venable fields the first of the play’s two long monologues, talking at length about her son and their relationship, her character stemming more from her relationship with the deceased than from herself. Catharine is eventually brought on stage by her chaperone, Sister Felicity (Marianne Stine). Catharine’s mental instability is shown not only through her angry outbursts and rebellious nature, but also in the way she holds herself and moves across the stage, eyes darting between things unseen to the audience.

The most powerful moments in Suddenly come from the doctor’s interview of Catharine. The interplay between the actors is spectacular and enthralling. Catharine takes full control of the play’s second long monologue, and is driven by subtly shifts in lighting and the gradually building cacophonic noise of jungle birds and hand-made percussion instruments. At times of extreme emotion she walks to the stage’s edge and teeters dangerously, swaying with the sound of her own voice as she talks about Sebastian’s brutal death and posthumous dismemberment.

Francisco Pradilla, by Juan R. Medina

The play does a wonderful job of contrasting two subjective views of reality. The short and sparse arguments between Mrs. Venable and Catharine contrast well against their longer speeches. Both women’s want to reject the other’s stories of Sebastian shows a deep-seated inability to reconcile personal truths with idealization.

Tragedy: A Tragedy

Tragedy takes a serious and absurdly humorous look at our media-centric culture. Helped along by a fantastic job by the stage crew and John Reeves’ love of hanging things from the ceiling, the play miraculously blends some great technical aspects with Will Eno’s precisely bizarre style. I was impressed enough when they Camera Crew of the play (Including Wales Christian, Robert Cooper and Nolan Racich) were able to turn on the televisions over the central circular desk. It was truly astonishing when they started broadcasting live video feeds of the physically separated actors.

Eno’s work, superbly directed by Emilia LaPenta, is absurd even in its start, as a news crew begins the coverage of a global disaster: night. The news anchor, Frank in the Studio (Vincent Kusiak) has the difficult job of calling upon the various reporters out to cover various aspects of this new tragedy. At first the play delivers a lighthearted combination of professional journalism and the absolute absurd. As the night carries on, the thin veneer of professionalism breaks down around the characters. John in the Field (Ben Richards) does an amazing job of bringing an enduring humanity slowly into his role as reporter, desperately clinging to whatever he can in the growing dark, which at a few points is The Witness (Martin Goffeney). The reports on the Governor from Michael, Legal Advisor (Stefano Cagnato) are stunningly delivered and a cunning motif.

In a beautiful directorial move the newscasters begin the play by looking into their respective cameras, yet as the night grows longer and their professionalism begins to slip, they start to face each other. Although the actors are physically separated on the stage and mentally separated by their various locales, their more human moments ignore those gaps as they reach out to find one another in the darkness. At one point Constance at the Home (Madlen Meyer) actually walks away from her eternal vigil on a family’s front lawn to go and comfort an increasingly distraught and sympathetic Frank in the Studio.

As the constant barrage of media finally dies away, each crewmember is able to find their own little piece of humanity, still terrified and alone in the dark. In the end when all the cameras are left unattended and each reporter has given up, The Witness takes up the mantel of storyteller and motivational speaker for the whole team. The Witnesses’ story transforms the play from an abstract commentary on human connection into a demonstration of its importance.

Overall both plays succeed in teasing out subjective truth from a maelstrom of information, be it through the rambling stories of two emotionally disconnected women or the constant barrage of empty media. Together, the two student-directed plays provide a great two hour escape and a powerful look at staged humanity.

If you’re like me, you love pizza.  If you’re like me, you love local pizza.  So I thought a good way to start off this three part series would be a comparison of two great pizza places in Kalamazoo: Bimbo’s and Bilbo’s.  The purpose of this series is not to determine the superiority of one aspect of Kalamazoo to another, but rather to give our readers the kind of help they need in varying their morning, afternoon, or evening experiences in the city.  Kalamazoo has a lot to offer; let’s check it out.

Bimbo's Modest Storefront

Bimbo’s Pizza is downtown at 338 East Michigan.  If you’ve ever walked past Olde Peninsula, you’ll see that Kalamazoo has plenty of restaurants the further east you go, including Coney Island, Ouzos’, and Monaco Bay.  Bimbo’s menu sports very little other than pizza; under “sandwiches” are listings like “ham” and “turkey,” so I imagine that the non-pizza foodstuffs aren’t their strong suit.  Despite that, the pizza, if a little pricey, is excellent.  The soft, thin crust and fresh toppings are good, but don’t really compare to the sauce, which is clearly homemade and deserving of some kind of reward (if only the Kosmo gave out awards…).  The aesthetic of the restaurant’s interior is great too.  There are some old fashioned high-booths with large tables in the middle, always crowded on Friday and Saturday nights.  Bimbo’s also boasts their superiority in a storefront preparation area, where employees toss dough back and forth and make their sauce by the gallon.  The whole establishment is understated.  My only complaints are that Bimbo’s is cash-only (there’s an ATM inside) and that they don’t deliver.

Bilbo’s, unlike its downtown counterpart, is a little bit out of the way at 3307 Stadium Drive.  While this may deter the unadventurous college student, worry not, Bilbo’s will deliver your pizza to you at no charge (other than the expectation of a tip for the driver).  Also unlike Bimbo’s, Bilbo’s doesn’t pretend to be anything but a pizza joint: if there’s something other than pizza on their menu, they supplement it with pizza (pizza sandwiches, stuffed pizza, etc.).  Bilbo’s sports some very thick crust, fluffy and filled with air, rather than the thin, concise crust at Bimbo’s.  Here, you can choose between white and whole wheat crust; I chose wheat because I’ve never had such an option before; truly delicious!  Bilbo’s is also a little pricier than some of the mainstream joints and you get a little less (quantity, not quality) than you do for a comparable Bimbo’s price.  Despite that, there’s certainly a reason why Bilbo’s had the money to expand to a second location at 6202 South Westnedge in Portage.

Me, I’m a thin crust guy, and I’d rather walk to get my pizza than have it delivered to me.  So for my buck I’d choose Bimbo’s, but the whole wheat crust and free delivery charge from Bilbo’s makes it a difficult decision.  In the end I feel good supporting either establishment, since both are locally owned and operated.  It all boils down to how you’re feeling the next time you’ve got some extra cash and a rumbling stomach.

Check out Kalamazoo Comparisons, Part 2: Downtown Drink Deals next week.

It is amazingly difficult to be more tragic than Greek tragedy. The myth of Orpheus is the perfect example of quintessential Ancient Greek pessimism. Say what you will about the ancient Greeks, they knew how to pull at the heartstrings. Losing the love of your life once is bad, but twice is just devastating. Based on the tragic myth of Orpheus and Eurydice is the play by Sarah Ruhl, Eurydice. Helped along by an amazing cast and a spectacular set design, the Western Michigan University performance at York Arena Theater is both infinitely funnier and devastatingly more tragic than the original myth.

George Frederick Watts's Orpheus and Eurydice

The humor comes in two forms; the new spin on the classic Greek chorus and the unfettered interpretation of the Lord of the Underworld. The energetic Chorus of Stones is a permanent fixture in the underworld and serves as translator while helping transition the less-than-living to their new home. The three stones, identified as Loud Stone (Katy Copeland), Little Stone (Shannon Hill) and Big Stone (Ben Maters), are all dressed head-to-toe in grubby, soot-stained mining gear, which helps to remind us of the setting on the bare stage, including the Stones’ headlamps, which are perfectly suited to their use in the lighting design. The chorus pulls the show together, injecting the play with a powerful energetic feel and acts as a distorted emotional mirror: cheering at the failure and misery of the protagonists and jeering their successes.

The most thrilling performance of the play comes from Zack Apman, who portrays the Nasty Interesting Man and the Lord of the Underworld. Between his outrageous dance moves, perfectly disturbing evil cackle and daring journey on a tricycle, he brings much needed character to the play. He provides an unlikely mix of power-hungry, devastatingly lonely and slightly malicious, the synergy of which becomes ridiculously hilarious.  Foreshadowed in the opening, however, it is the interplay between the protagonists, and not The Lord of the Underworld, that causes their truly tragic downfall.  Orpheus (Michael Lopetrone), ever the musician in his gilded burnt-amber headphones, thinks of nothing but music while Eurydice (Rachel Napoleon) is fixated on him and disheartened that the artist does not reciprocate her devotion. The cute and pantomime-filled romance between Orpheus and Eurydice culminates in their short-lived marriage. The Nasty Interesting Man lures Eurydice away from her wedding party and towards her wake. After Eurydice’s untimely death, the real action of the play starts.

The Chorus of Stones, Eurydice, her loving, supportive and dead father (Joel Hoard), and a spectacular lighting array populate the underworld half of the stage. In contrast, the other half is barren and shows the continued suffering of a heart-broken Orpheus. The two halves of the stage alternate, switching the action of the play from the underworld to Orpheus. The underworld scene depicts a touching reunion between father and daughter and a growing familial bond; the other scene shows Orpheus slowly losing touch with reality. Michael’s portrayal of Orpheus’ growing detachment and the intense pain of his loss comes across amazingly as he shouts at the stage floor, begging his dead wife to hear his cries of undying love. As this pathos-inducing display is playing out, the father and daughter are sharing memories of life and family, displaying sweet sentimentality and a compellingly-performed father-daughter connection.

The relationships that have built up over the play’s course are used heart-wrenchingly well to heap tragedy upon tragedy at the end of the play. Overall, the acting is compelling, the twist on the old myth breathes new life and depth into the story and the lighting and sound design is more than effective, adding an element of spectacle to an otherwise bare stage.

The show continues to play in WMU’s York Arena Theater; February 4^th-6^th at 8 p.m. with a Sunday matinee on the 7^th at 2 p.m. Tickets are $20, $15 for senior citizens and only $5 for all students.

Awards season is by far the best time of year for a movie fan. Not only is it an opportunity to see stars and directors in their finest, it’s an opportunity to experience the best (popular) movies of 2009.

My first experience with Oscar was in 2005. Being an overly overt fan of Finding Neverland, I would slam front runner Million Dollar Baby amongst friends and family. Of course after seeing Million Dollar Baby, I admit my narrow mindedness as it is a far superior film.

This morning, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences released the nominations for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards. I will try to pilot the major categories as best as I can to give an idea of what to expect on March 7th, 2010.

Best Picture

It is hard to gauge where voters will steer this ship. In an unexpected move, the Academy moved the nominee number to 10 this year. This pegs for a wide variety of material and target audience. Avatar and Inglorious Basterds should get pre-hype as they have captured other organization awards. Avatar took home the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture Drama while Basterds received the Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture award from the Screen Actors Guild. In order to round out the top five, I would bet on The Hurt Locker, Up in the Air, and The Blind Side being favorites.

On to who will win. As Hollywood loves money, Avatar would be the best pick. But as history shows, Hollywood doesn’t always love the hype (a la Brokeback Mountain). Avatar isn’t a great movie (it isn’t really even good) therefore I believe the field is open. A quirky comedy like Up in the Air could finally bring home an Oscar for Jason Reitman (missed on Juno and snubbed on Thank You For Smoking). The Hurt Lockercould potentially be this years Crash, an indie drama about bomb technicians in Iraq. The Blind Side has be known to be a motivating, tear jerking drama that showed the acting chops of notoriously bad Sandra Bullock. Even the animated (lovely) favorite from Pixar, Up, could potentially garner enough voters.

Who will win: I believe Hollywood rewards Avatar as it is the most popular choice

Who should win: Up in the Air or Inglorious Basterds were phenom films of 2009.

Best Actor in a Leading Role

Subcategories are much easier to predict as the field is generally narrowed to four or five. Jeremy Renner was wonderful to watch in The Hurt Locker, a gung-ho American bomb technician in Iraq (although I couldn’t help draw comparisons to his military portrayal in 28 Weeks Later). Morgan Freeman was bland in Ivictus and for further explanation, my review of the movie can be found on this blog. I haven’t seen A Single Man (Colin Firth) and George Clooney (Up in the Air) is always the Oscar darling (received nominations in 2006 and 2007). With the Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild Awards (SAG) as guidance, I believe it is safe to put money on Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart. Yes, I believe The Dude, Bridges character in The Big Lebowski, will win come March 7th.

Who Will Win: Jeff Bridges

Who Should Win: George Clooney. I haven’t seen Crazy Heart but Clooney was enjoyable in Up in the Air.

Best Actress in a Leading Role

It is a rarity to find an award that Meryl Streep is nominated for and not expected to win. Sandra Bullock’s sweep of the Golden Globe and SAG categories should propel her to Oscar stardom. I don’t believe Carey Mulligan will capture enough voters for her An Education performance and while Gabourey Sidibe (Precious) might be too fresh (first motion picture role) for the award. While Helen Mirren was rewarded for her role in The Queen, Bullock will prevail.

Who Will Win: Unfortunately, Keanu’s sidekick (Speed) will win this year.

Who Should Win: Probably Sandra Bullock. I haven’t seen The Blind Side and I will refrain from knocking it too hard, but it’s Sandra Bullock.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role

The Lovely Bones failed to capture the hype it had a year ago. Peter Jackson’s followup to King Kong won’t bring him the record love LOTR: Return of the King did. I predict then that Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones) will rest at the bottom with Woody Harrelson (The Messenger) and Christopher Plummer (The Last Station). While Matt Damon was inspiring in Invictus, it’s still Invictus. All signals point to Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds. Speaking four languages while taking on the controversial role of a rewarded Nazi SS was magnificent.

Who Will Win: Christoph Waltz

Who Should Win: No one other than Christoph Waltz

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

This category is a bit more muddled than Best Actress. The leading ladies of Up in the Air (Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick) will probably cancel each other out. Maggie Gyllenhaal’s nod was greeted as a surprise and that leaves Penelope Cruz (Nine) and Mo’nique (Precious) as the frontrunners. The Academy does like musicals which could propel Ms. Cruz above Mo’nique but, I expect that Mo’nique ultimately wins as she took home both Golden Globe and SAG awards.

Who Will Win: Mo’nique

Who Should Win: After staring in Phat Girlz and Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School, this is an unexpected turnaround.

Best Animated Feature Film

I enjoyed Fantastic Mr. Fox and the return to 2D animation by Disney was welcomed with The Princess and the Frog, an Up upset would be shocking.

Who Will Win: Up

Who Should Win: Up…again

Best Original Screenplay

This category should be decided between The Hurt Locker (Mark Boal) and Inglorious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino). Up deserves the recognition and any Coen Bros. work (A Serious Man) is sure to not disappoint. Rounding out the category is Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman for The Messenger. All in all, this one could go anywhere.

Who Will Win: I will go out on a limb and say Up. Moving and popular, this touched all ages.

Who Should Win: I enjoyed Hurt Locker but much of the movie was placed on acting and I believe the vulgarity of Inglorious Basterds might drive a few voters away.

Best Adapted Screenplay

Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner will almost surely win this category for their work in Up in the Air. Although An Education and Precious could prove to be dark horses, I suspect District 9 and In the Loop to provide little competion

Who Will Win: Up in the Air

Who Should WIn: Up in the Air

Kathryn Bigelow and James Cameron

Best Director

Interestingly enough James Cameron (Avatar) and Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) were former lovebirds. I believe Jason Reitman (Up in the Air) will be rewarded for screenplay instead of directing and Tarantino (Basterds) and Lee Daniels (Precious) should be on the outside looking in.

Who Will Win: James Cameron if voters want to see another “I’m the king of the world” proclamation (see Cameron’s Oscar acceptance speech for Titanic) or Bigelow if voters want to pick someone deserving of the award.

Who Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow

Odds and Ends

Since I have hit all of the major categories, I will offer some minor predictions for the smaller awards. I suspect Avatar to sweep Best Film Editing, Best Cinematography, and Best Visual Effects. Sound mixing will likely be between Avatar and The Hurt Locker. Up and Avatar will compete for Best Original Score and I suspect Best Sound Mixing will be another dog fight between The Hurt Locker and Avatar.