Showing posts with label clowning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clowning. Show all posts

14 April 2025

Clowning

 

[I confess that I’m not a huge fan of clowning (though I’ve actually performed as a clown in at least one children’s show), but I’ve covered clown performances on Rick On Theater, such as Old Hats (22 March 2013) with Bill Irwin and David Shiner, Theater of Panic (in “Short Takes: Some Unique Performances” [28 July 2018]), The Second New York International Festival of Clown Theatre (in “Some Vintage Reviews from the Archive” [15 March 2021]), and “Chicago’s Physical Theater Festival: Moving in Many Senses” by Gabriela Furtado Coutinho (in “Physical Theater” [24 November 2024]), and one piece on clown school/clown training, “It’s A Clown’s Life: Lessons From Clown School” by Lara Bevan-Shiraz (in “Theater Education & Training, Part 1” [3 October 2024]).

[(There are also several articles on ROT that touch on clowns in various contexts, including mentions in a couple of posts on Native American performance events.  Clowns are important figures in the cultures of several American Indian peoples, including the Taos Pueblos and the Zunis.)

[In the spirit of full disclosure, let me quote something I inserted into my report on the above referenced report on Old Hats, a clowning duet by Bill Irwin (b. 1950) and David Shiner (b. 1953): 

Before I get too far into this report, let me cop to something moderately significant.  I’m not a fan of clowns.  I have nothing against them—I’m not coulrophobic or anything—and I don’t object to the people who play the clowns.  I’ve just never found clowning very funny, not in circuses or on stage and film.  I can admire the skill of Chaplin or Keaton, but I was never drawn to their movies; I wasn’t a fan of [Jackie] Gleason (I don’t like The Honeymooners even today), [Red] Skelton, Lucille Ball, or the Three Stooges, and I don’t much like Jim Carrey or Will Ferrell.  I also ought to admit that there have always been exceptions: the Marx Brothers and W. C. Fields, Carol Burnett, Robin Williams—and Bill Irwin and David Shiner.

[Nonetheless, a recent article in the New York Times caught my attention, and then I came across some other recent writing on clowns and clowning.  I collected some of them to post below.  This posting is part of my effort on my blog to cover aspects of theater and performance that aren’t as well known as mainstream theater, film, and television.] 

FUNNY GIRLS
by Michael Snyder 

[This article was published in the New York Times of 30 March 2025 in T: The New York Times Style Magazine.  A version of this article appears online with the headline “There’s Always Room in the Clown Car,” posted on 24 March.]

For centuries, clowns have mostly been men. A new group of talent is changing that.

As a young woman in Mexico City, Gaby Muñoz, a 43-year-old performer known onstage as Chula the Clown [mentioned in “Chicago’s Physical Theater Festival,” referenced above], recalls, putting on makeup with her friends was always a fraught experience. “There was this whole idea of how to be a woman. They had this beautiful hair and these divine bodies, and I would look in the mirror and think, ‘Well, I guess not in this life.’ That made me laugh,” she says. As Chula — her round face washed white, her lips a tiny red heart, her eyebrows painted into inquisitive asymmetry — Muñoz, who this spring will begin touring through Europe and Central and South America, has played a jilted bride and a doddering old lady. She’s used her open, expressive face and antic physicality to joke wordlessly about loss, aging in a woman’s body and other concepts that have long been overlooked in the male-dominated world of clowns. For Muñoz, laughter isn’t an end in itself but rather, she says, “a way to connect.”

Clowns, jesters, harlequins and fools have, of course, played a similar role throughout history. In ancient Greece, they served as ribald choristers in epic dramas, while emperors in Han dynasty China delighted in the buffoonish exertions of the court paiyou [comic actor, similar to a jester]. Shakespeare’s world-weary wags spoke truth to King Lear and other royals, while the heyoka, the holy fool of many Sioux tribes, inverted day-to-day logic to provoke healing laughter. The emblematic sad clown that we know today evolved from the melancholic, talc-dusted Pedrolino of 16th-century Italian commedia dell’arte [one of the stock character types known as a Zanni], while the contemporary circus clown, with his exaggerated face paint and physical wit, debuted on a London stage around 1800. (The one dressed in an ill-fitting suit and oversize shoes emerged as his clumsy foil seven decades later.) Though ritually and physically distinct, clowns have always been, as the heyoka John Fire Lame Deer [1903-76; Lakota holy man] writes with Richard Erdoes [1912-2008; artist, photographer, illustrator, and author] in their 1972 book, “Lame Deer Seeker of Visions,” “sacred, funny, powerful, ridiculous, holy, shameful, visionary.” They were also almost always men.

During her childhood in Estonia, the 29-year-old London-based clown Julia Masli dreamed of acting in tragedies for exactly that reason: comedy, she assumed, was a man’s game. When, in 2017, she watched the legendary English clown Lucy Hopkins [b. ca. 1979] perform in Brighton for the first time, “seeing a woman do something so absurd and free felt like a revolution,” she says. In Masli’s show “Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha,” which debuted at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 2023 and has since toured internationally [see below, “We All Have An Inner Clown” for a link to and comments on this show], she appears onstage as a doe-eyed Victorian vagabond who asks audience members to share their problems. As she offers solutions both genuine and absurd — enlisting a bored office worker to record the show’s minutes; duct-taping a lonely young woman to a group of strangers onstage — she transforms the emotional labor so often foisted on women into a source of laughter and catharsis.

Other rising female clowns, like the 26-year-old English actress Frankie Thompson and the 32-year-old Swiss Mexican theater artist Paulina Lenoir, use womanhood itself as a source of humor. In the former’s “Body Show,” performed with her collaborator the 29-year-old trans masculine anarchist clown Liv Ello, Thompson forgoes exaggerated makeup and costume, combining lip-syncing and confrontational bouffon (an approach to clowning that emphasizes absurdity and shock) to discuss her history with anorexia. Small and blond — “people treat me like this tiny-angel special little bird to be protected,” she says — Thompson makes herself grotesque by, say, licking the stage or choking down Marmite, eliciting laughter that implicates the audience in the humiliations of body dysmorphia. Meanwhile, Lenoir’s persona Puella Eterna feminizes the physical exaggeration of the classic male clown by wearing a corset, a flamenco skirt and a giant Minnie Mouse bow in lieu of a bulging nose. As master of ceremonies at her Fool’s Moon cabaret, Puella displays the kind of unearned self-assurance that usually wins praise for men and scorn for women.

[Marmite, a British food spread, is a dark brown, salty, and yeasty paste. It’s often described as having a strong, savory flavor, similar to soy sauce, but saltier and with a deeper, more complex taste. Because of its strong and unique flavor profile, Marmite is often considered an “acquired taste.”]

While Thompson and Lenoir blur boundaries between cabaret and comedy, the 41-year-old British performer Ella Golt, better known as Ella the Great, has incorporated sly observations about gender into characters rooted in traditional clowning. Since 2015, Golt has mostly played Richard Melanin the Third, a bearded magician who believes deeply in his own abilities. Richard was born when another of Golt’s characters, Babushka — a prototypical female clown in a frilly skirt and tiny jacket — was invited to participate in a London drag king night. Slow, silent and charming, Richard started out as a clown-world Victor/Victoria: a gender-ambivalent actor playing a woman playing a man.

[The reference is to the 1982 musical comedy film Victor/Victoria, written and directed by Blake Edwards and starring Julie Andrews, James Garner, and Robert Preston, or the 1995 stage musical with a book by Edwards, music by Henry Mancini, and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse, again directed by Edwards and starring Andrews, Tony Roberts, and Michael Nouri.]

Golt’s choices pay homage to the clowns who inspired her to join a London youth circus at age 7. Today she’s found similar solace as a queer Black artist in a genre that has only recently become more diverse. “Seeing people perform who look like you allows you to see that laughter is for you,” she says. “The permission to laugh and be laughed at can be empowering.” For these artists, clowning ultimately has less to do with putting on makeup than with stripping it away. It’s about “uncovering your inner idiot, the thing you’re taught to hide,” Lenoir says, “and learning to let that come through.” Foolishness, after all, is its own kind of freedom.

[Michael Snyder is a freelance journalist based in Mexico City focused on architecture, design, and food and their intersections with history, politics, economics, and culture. In addition to T Magazine, his work has appeared in a range of publications, including The Believer, The Caravan, The Nation, Lucky Peach, and Scientific American.]

*  *  *  *
THE SERIOUS BUSINESS OF SILLINESS:
HOW CLOWNING AROUND CAN BOOST
YOUR PERFORMANCE GAME
by Zoe Dumas 

[This article was published online in Backstage, the entertainment industry trade publication, on 4 June 2024]

Steve-O [Stephen Gilchrist Glover, b. 1974; stunt performer and comedian] famously attended the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College, a boot camp-like experience that didn’t get him a spot with the circus—but did prepare him for his “Jackass” hijinks [see “‘Dante update neither divine nor comedy’” by Kyle Smith (1 December 2010)]. While not everyone in the industry finds themselves called to the clown’s oversized shoes and squeaky red nose, clown training can be highly beneficial to entertainers of all types. Whether you want to be the next Bozo or are just looking to hone your craft, learning to clown is a great way to expand your repertoire, improve your improv skills, and explore the great absurdities of life through the lens of comedy.

What is clowning?

Clowning is a type of performance that portrays exaggerated characters through a mix of comedy, physical performance, and costuming. This character has a long history as entertainer, healer, and truth-teller, leading to a wide array of types that can still be seen today. The circus clown, with its crazy-colored hair, white face paint, a honking red nose, and oversized shoes, is likely the one that people associate most with the profession. Some performers create character clowns, such as the classic tramp, where they exaggerate archetypal character traits to create hilarious scenarios.  

The art of clowning goes back millennia, with the earliest recorded instance of clowns coming from ancient Egypt. During the fifth dynasty, around 2500 B.C.E., pharaohs were entertained and advised by African pygmy clowns. Centuries later and continents apart, clowns held a sacred role in several indigenous American tribes such as the Navajo and Hopi, participating in religious rituals to entertain and expand minds. 

These traditions echo our modern conception of clowning, but closer to that were Grecian and Roman clowns in overstuffed suits and garish makeup. Performers took this tradition on the road during the Middle Ages, carrying over the jester’s specific brand of mockery to a broader audience. It was this that led to Italy’s famed “commedia dell’arte,” which in turn inspired the first clown resembling the character we most often think of today: Joseph Grimaldi [1778-1837]. The father of modern clowning, Grimaldi wowed 19th-century English audiences with his harlequin character, which overtook the then-standard country bumpkin clown as the de facto style.

How is clowning an important part of an actor’s training?

Accessing vulnerability: Clowning helps performers access their usually hidden selves, L.A.’s the Idiot Workshop founder John Gilkey [b. 1966] told the Hollywood Reporter. “We’re looking for your voice. Not your verbal, auditory voice. But your full personality voice, which is based on your vulnerability,” he said. “What we teach is the boldness to be you at your wildest, most fun, crazy self and, once you open that up, you’re going to take that wherever you go as long as the medium you’re performing in allows for that expression.” 

Connecting with audiences: Regardless of style, clowning is about creating an authentic connection with viewers. Director of the Highland Park Clowns and the Clown Church workshop Jet Eveleth described clowning to the Los Angeles Times as “a celebration of the physical and vulnerable side of the human experience. When the performer embraces this ‘muchness’ of life, they serve as a mirror for the audience to see and laugh at themselves from a safe distance . . . . Clown is poking fun at the human condition.” In other words, clowning allows performers to let loose and open up while showing audiences the profound beauty of being human.

Refining comedic chops: Clowning requires an excellent sense of humor and the ability to make people laugh. David Bridel, the founder of the Clown School in L.A., emphasizes that learning the art allows performers to improve their skills in comedy and make fun of themselves. This “is obviously a huge part of the work of a clown and is also very therapeutic to some people,” he told the Hollywood Reporter. 

Broadening horizons: All this is to say that clowning is a feat of vulnerability that pushes performers to step far outside their comfort zone and explore aspects of themselves they may never have thought possible. Clowns have a long tradition as theater characters; Shakespeare, for example, used the clown quite heavily because they are a character that can speak truth to the absurdities of everyday life without fear of consequences. Far from the laughable doofus we often make the clown out to be, this is a character and type of acting that allows for endless creativity from a performer. They can put themselves in the vulnerable position of being laughable, certainly, but they can also explore the vast contrasts and eccentricities of being human.

Clowning ideas and exercises

Even if you don’t decide to don the big shoes and red nose, incorporating some aspects of clowning into your regimen can go a long way in taking your performance art to the next level. If you’re a performer looking to explore the art of clowning, there are several activities and exercises you might do to open up and stand out.

1. Immerse yourself in theory. Books such as Christopher Bayes’ “Discovering the Clown, or The Funny Book of Good Acting,” Henry Jestworth’s “How to Clown,” Paul Bouissac’s “The Semiotics of Clowns and Clowning,” Jon Davison’s “Clown Training: A Practical Guide,” and Eli Simon’s “The Art of Clowning” encourage performers to connect with their inner clowns. Simon, UC Irvine chancellor’s professor of drama and founding artistic director of the New Swan Shakespeare Festival, has been teaching his students clowning for years; he specializes in the development of original clown shows that he’s directed and produced around the world. In his book, he provides a complete regimen of exercises and techniques that “[yield] swift and deep access to the clown in you.”

2. Take a workshop. Clowns love sharing their art with eager audiences and performers, so there are a wide variety of workshops and classes available throughout the U.S. and the world. Research the clown classes available in your area to find a troupe that can brighten up your act. Alternatively, you can also attend online classes and workshops such as those offered by the Clown SchoolUniversity of Southern California, the Online Clown Academy, and the Clown Institute

3. Practice with a group. If you already have a troupe of actors or even just friends you prefer working with, try performing some clowning exercises together. There are countless improv activities out there to release your inner clown. These include dolphin training, where audience members guide an actor to perform specific tasks only by clapping or laughing, and the exaggeration exercise, where one actor follows another, comically exaggerating the first’s movements and expressions. A third actor might even join this one and exaggerate what the second clown is doing.

4. Put a routine together. Another way to try clowning is to simply do it! Create a simple character and routine—it could be joke-heavy, something with more props, or perhaps slapstick calls to you—and explore the world through new eyes. Bring your routine to an acting or improv class, or another place where you’ll have an accepting audience, and see what it takes to make your fellow actors laugh and clown around with you.

[Zoe Dumas, a freelance writer based in Fresno, California, covers the entertainment industry, with a specific emphasis on expert commentary and reviews.  In addition to her work for Backstage, she’s been a content writer at Movieweb.com.]

*  *  *  *
WE ALL HAVE AN INNER CLOWN;
ON RISKING HEARTBREAK FOR JOY
by Priscilla Posada

[The Los Angeles Times ran this article on 15 March 2025; it was also posted online as “A fool’s journey: Notes from a clowning workshop” on 13 March.]

This story is part of Image’s March Devotion issue, exploring various forms of reverence, love and worship.

[Eight times a year, the L.A. Times publishes Image, a themed issue covering style and culture in L.A. and beyond.]

We all have an inner clown, a wild self whose yearning for delight is greater than the fear of failure. A little one who wants to play during nap time, convenience to others be damned. Underneath layers and layers of socialization, we each have a clown willing to risk heartbreak for joy. Or at least that’s the idea.

Clowning, an ancient art form that includes but is not limited to the red wigs and big shoes of the circus, is difficult to define. Filed under “physical comedy,” a clown communicates primarily through their body rather than words.

All I’m sure of is that without an audience — to play with, to laugh or not laugh, and hopefully cry and transform — there is no clown. I’ll admit: When I started, I wanted the benefits of clowning, namely feeling comfortable and even coming to enjoy reading my work in public, without any of the scary bits (and clowns in America have quite a scary reputation). I had asked my first clown teacher for private (read: audience-free) lessons. She chuckled over the phone: “It doesn’t work that way.” Thus began my fool’s journey, if you will, from scared and lost to scared and lost with a dash more openness to being vulnerable.

I was glad I was wearing sneakers because I ended up running from the subway station to the midtown Manhattan building. I arrived at Room 315 on time and out of breath. It was a Saturday, and I was there for a two-day workshop, from noon to 5 p.m., with an hour break for lunch, with Christopher Bayes. His credentials, in a field where it feels funny to have them, include studying under clown masters Philippe Gaulier [French; b. 1943; master clown, teacher, and professor of theater; founder of École Philippe Gaulier; see “It’s A Clown’s Life,” cited above] and Jacques Lecoq [French; 1921-99; stage actor and acting movement coach] and working as the head of physical acting at Yale’s David Geffen School of Drama. While this all sounds technique-heavy, Bayes is known for valuing a heart-forward approach over an intellectual one. This was an honor for which I somehow justified paying $300.

We began with introductions — names, pronouns, why we were there. “I’m a writer,” I said, picking one job, out of the three I had, most suited to the moment. “And I’m writing a piece on clowning.” I scanned the room and my eyes landed on A, whom I recognized from another workshop. Our faces lighted up. We smiled — and clowns must smile only when they’re actually happy since, as I learned in workshop, a smile is a mask — and waved to each other. When it was A’s turn, they explained that whatever they were seeking from psychoanalysis, they were finding in clowning.

In this group of about 25 people, there was also a theater director who flew all the way to New York from San Francisco to take this workshop. There were a lot of people who loved theater and hoped a more honest connection with audiences would bring them back.

Next were the warm-up exercises. We started shaking our bodies, and I made another mental note: Actors and musicians all did warm-up exercises. What was the equivalent for writers? My thought was interrupted when Bayes instructed us to laugh very hard. It had been a confusing week, a mix of macro tragedy and micro wins. I cracked up, and it felt like sobbing. The group entered a frenzied state. I acclimated to the cacophony of primal sounds. We sounded like the animals we tend to forget we are.

“Now cry!” Bayes shouted. I wailed and made my ugliest face. I was screaming so loud my voice cracked and I had to cough to clear it. I said, “Why, oh why?” I slapped my hands down on my quads. I headed toward the floor. I curled into a ball and cried with my face hovering an inch above the wooden floor. I heard a voice from above: “Don’t hide your sadness.” I stood up awkwardly having just been reprimanded for crying the polite way. I needed to cry the clown way, that is, take up space. I balled my hands into fists and stretched my arms out and up. I turned my face toward the ceiling and blamed it for all that was wrong with the world. Sobbing from the belly and feeling like some sort of tragic figure, I doubled over in laughter and now I couldn’t tell the difference between the two.

Afterward, we separated into groups of four. We were given 10 minutes to devise a song, along with a dance. My group chose the chorus “I love it.” We all had solos when we sang about something we genuinely loved. I sang about my apartment, how I loved it. I got the instructions mixed up and tried to rhyme but learned I wasn’t supposed to, so I sang, “Ohhhhhh, that’s easieeeeerrrr.” My solo came to a dark end: I loved my apartment, but I couldn’t afford it on my own, without roommates, and even if I could, it would be selfish to live there alone because of the city’s housing crisis. I sang about how the rental vacancy rate was 1.4% and that 5% was considered an emergency. There was nowhere else to go, so I sang to the audience to think about that. Some of the faces in the audience looked scared. My group sang, all together, “I love it, I love this love, I love love love love, yeah I like it!” We broke for lunch, and someone added me to the “Clown NYC” WhatsApp group. It has 712 members, and there are multiple threads, including “Shows & Mics,” “Meetup & Hangouts,” “Prop/Costume Exchange” — and “Housing.”

When I saw my first clown show, Julia Masli’s “Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha,” my first words might have been, “What the f—?” Masli emerged on a blueish dark stage amid the haze of fog. I recall a Medusa-like nest of wires around her head with a light illuminating her face. A gold mannequin’s leg with an attached microphone substituted as Masli’s left arm. She was bundled in a witchy outfit resembling a duvet cover. Masli looked extraterrestrial, complete with the wide, innocent stare of a being looking upon our society and its problems from a fresh perspective.

As a clown, it’s ideal if you wear something so stupid, people laugh just glancing at you. A performer’s costume signals to the audience that they’re in a space operating outside of societal norms, a place of amplification. While a clown’s “look” can be idiosyncratic and interesting, what starts off as funny and absurd gives way to the profound. In this way, clowning appears light and gets deep. With the support of aesthetics, a clown communicates, “Isn’t being human with all of its striving for status and repression in order to fit in kind of ridiculous?”

In “Nothing Doing,” a work-in-progress, clown Alex Tatarsky announced at the top that they didn’t believe in work or progress. They entered the stage in a top hat, white sequined leotard, rhinestone heels, sporting a long, thick braid attached to their hair. When they turned around for the first time, I was treated to a grotesque mask at the back of Tatarsky’s head and prosthetic cleavage that might have also been the plastic molding of butt cheeks. By the close of their show, after having mimed chasing after the performance’s nonexistent plot, Tatarsky sat at the head of a table, facing the audience, eating Life cereal with milk, with their hands, out of an empty skull, and at one point chewed and swallowed a cigarette. They said something like, “Darling, I just want you to love me, but it’s repulsive when I’m this desperate.” This desperation, rather than repelling me, became a source of connection. I found myself falling in love with this clown and, in turn, with the parts of myself I tend to reject.

In the environment of a clown workshop, practicing loss of control (a clown can’t plan for an audience’s response) and being present with what is (a clown works with whatever they’ve got) can feel good. One eases off expecting specific results and being disappointed when things don’t turn out according to a rigid vision of success and delights in surprises no one could have imagined. If clowning is on the rise, and it certainly feels that way, it might be because it provides relief from having to keep it together.

On the second day of the workshop, we tried a different exercise. Two conventionally attractive men were onstage, and I was prepared to hate them both. Why? Because conventionally attractive men send me hurtling back in time to when I was an awkward preteen, and I’ve since developed an aversion. Bayes instructed them to get to know each other. They looked uncomfortable. One extended a handshake to the other. The crowd booed at the predictably masculine, business-like gesture. Then, Bayes told them to turn away from each other and walk to opposite ends of the room. One faced stage left, the other stage right.

They had to jump around to face each other and land at the exact same time. They kept failing. “Oh, come on,” I jeered. Ten minutes passed. The audience was exasperated. An eternity passed. One would turn around while the other didn’t move. Was I cursing them somehow? One wore a crisp white T-shirt that looked expensive with black wide-leg trousers. He had shoulder-length hair parted down the middle, like a model. The other, a white T-shirt that looked worn-in, black joggers and a delicate hoop earring. Both were barefoot. They kept missing even though they could technically cheat and set a pattern for the other to follow. It was agony. Bayes, who was sitting next to me, drew my attention to the man on the right. He was twitching. His eyebrows, his legs. The impulses were all confused. I laughed. I thanked the heavens that my performance of the same exercise didn’t go this badly.

Bayes told them, “You’re not getting it because you haven’t tucked in your shirts and raised your pants all the way up.” The two clowns followed the instructions. Now, they looked more ridiculous and endearing. We waited. We breathed. Finally. They jumped. They landed at the exact same time. People erupted in applause. A great tension was released. I rose from my seat along with others for a standing ovation. No matter how hopeless it seems, a clown can always win back the audience.

Now, the two men were facing each other. There were more boos. They lost us because they were “trying” again. I joined in, feeling like I was at a wrestling match where I wanted neither party to win. Now they were holding hands and squatting up and down vigorously. “Say, ‘Oh, yeah,’” shouted Bayes. They complied in unison. “Now say, ‘Oh, daddy,’” Bayes shouted. Again, the two complied, but they missed a beat and now they were saying “Daddy, O” in a guttural way as they continued holding hands and squatting up and down. I was laughing hard and clapping my hands. I was full of glee. In less than 30 minutes, I’d seen myself mirrored and altered. I could be someone who was afraid of being in front of others. Cocooned in the safety of a crowd, I could be cruel. I could be extravagantly generous. The clown wanted my love regardless. The clown was there to hold it all. I learned things that words fail to capture.

You had to be there. And that’s what I love most about clowning — it brings you into the now. Everything else fades away. It’s no longer about the shape something takes but about the attempt. No one is ever done as a clown.

Later that week, I found myself singing a stupid-sweet song from the workshop called “Open Like a Little Flower.” The next line was “Open like a different type of flower.” I remembered Bayes saying that when you go looking for beauty, you find it. I remembered too my pounding heart. Breathing hard from physical exertion. Buzzing with the high of a collective response, with the feeling of wholeness.

[Priscilla Posada is a writer living in New York City.  Her work can be found in the Los Angeles Review of Books, BOMB, and the Brooklyn Rail, among other places.]


28 July 2018

Short Takes: Some Unique Performances


[Back on 17 June, I posted another “Short Takes,” the ROT shorthand for a collection of brief articles usually too short to post on their own.  That collection, subtitled “Some Art Shows,” consisted of six small reports on art exhibits that didn’t merit extensive discussion.  Now I’m doing the same thing with some reports on four shows, three from 1985 and one from 2006 (all before I started Rick On Theater in 2009) that also didn’t get longer write-ups.  They’re all also, in their  own ways, unusual performances. 

[The last report below, Man of the Heart, was originally a section of a longer one on theater and art that I sent out to friends out of town before I launched ROT.  (Long-time ROTters will know that that was the seed of this blog: reports I sent to those out-of-town friends.)  The three 1985 performances were in-house reports I made for my boss in an abortive theater venture back then.  I briefly worked with a former teacher who was planning to start a theater.  While the founder and artistic director was exploring the possibilities, she often asked me to scout out performances, performers, scripts, and writers as potential future production material and creators.]

THEATER OF PANIC
18 February 1985

Theater of Panic (the title is adapted from Spanish playwright Fernando Arrabal) with Geoff Hoyle and Keith Terry is billed as “a contemporary vaudeville featuring bits, skits, gags, falls, trips, disasters. miscalculations. letdowns, vulgar slapstick and intellectual comedy.”  (Both performers are alumni of the San Francisco-based Pickle Family Circus.)  Presented by the Dance Theater Workshop’s Economy Tires Theater at the Bessie Schönberg Theater, 219 W. 19th Street in Chelsea, the performance was “especially commissioned . . . by Dance Theater Workshop, Inc.”  I saw it at the 8 o’clock show on the evening of Sunday, 17 February [1985].  (The show, which runs Friday through Sunday, opened on 15 February and closes on 3 March.)

It’s a two-man routine, or series of routines, that’s reminiscent of Bill Irwin’s The Regard of Flight in approach and attitude, if not in material (though there is some similarity) or appeal.  [The Regard of Flight first appeared at the American Place Theatre in Mid-Manhattan in 1982 and was televised by PBS for Great Performances in 1983.]  Most of the pieces are essentially solo turns by one or the other of the performers, each with his own specialties, though there are a few in which both men perform.

The program doesn’t identify the individual pieces (which may change from performance to performance—I’m not sure).  Here’s a very simplified description of what I saw:

The first piece seemed to be an abstract mime/dance routine, performed by Hoyle with off-stage accompaniment by Terry on home-made percussion instruments (cookie sheets and the like).  The audience broke out into intermittent peals of laughter, but I had no idea what was happening, or why it was funny.  I got the impression that the audience was full of people familiar with the duo’s work.  (This was the third performance, and the first Sunday show—that is, the first 8 p.m. show; Friday and Saturday shows are at 11 p.m.) 

After this piece, and between all the rest of the bits, Terry did one of his specialties:  Body Music.  For the uninitiated, that’s the use of the body as a percussion instrument, with pops, slaps, taps, clicks, and slides, which Terry sometimes accompanies with vocal “music” as well.  The first of these bits was mildly amusing to me, but subsequent repetitions, though they were all different, did not excite me.  The audience seemed to enjoy it, and met each one with anticipatory laughter when Terry stepped center stage with the sheepish look that signaled he was about to do this bit.  Except for the manual dexterity it demonstrates, I don’t really see the talent in this.

The second bit was a “lecture/demonstration” of the relation of percussion and movement that was primarily a series of slapstick pratfalls which were supposed to be punctuated by Terry on drums, but for which he missed all the cues (on purpose—Terry’s persona is dim-witted.)

One of the cleverest bits, but which, like most of them, went on too long, was a strange routine in which the two men, dressed in overcoats a size or two too large, stood as if on a subway.  While Terry read his paper, Hoyle struggled with a hand which came out of his overcoat, first through the front, then through the neck, and attacked him.  Eventually it was joined by its mate and strangled Hoyle.  Macabre, but funny.

After Terry’s usual Body Music interlude, he returned with two of those “canned cow” toys—the kind that “moo” when they’re moved.  He did a very funny rendition of “Proud Mary” with the cans as accompaniment.

There followed a bit that started with Hoyle doing both Pantalone and Arlecchino in Commedia dell’Arte masks in Italian.  Though fairly standard characterizations, this was mildly amusing until it kept going on, with the Italian dialogue.  This bit was combined with a long piece in which first Hoyle, then both the men, performed in a jester’s belled cap and “nose and glasses” (Groucho) mask, and with a series of puppets which consisted of a stick with a head mounted on it which was made to look exactly like the two men in their masks.  This piece had no dialogue, and very soon became uninteresting and repetitious.

Terry’s next bit was an amusing piece in which he made “music” with a collection of children’s toys.

Hoyle’s final solo piece was a true clown performance, which was marred again by its length.  It centered on his attempt to play a trombone: at first he can’t assemble it, then he can’t remember the music, then he can’t hold the music and play, then he assembles a music stand, but extends it nearly to the ceiling, then he tries balancing on a chair on top of the prop trunk to reach it.  Toward the end, Terry hands him a violin, which Hoyle proceeds to play in a poor man’s Victor Borge routine (not Jack Benny).

The last bit was a routine with wooden batons.  It combined syncopated “martial art-like” exercises, rhythmic rapping, and a little balancing and acrobatics.  I found it mildly interesting.

Though the New York Times made the obvious comparison to Bill Irwin, Theater of Panic isn’t anywhere near as funny, clever, or antic as Irwin’s work, and Hoyle and Terry don’t measure up in the talent department either.  There were a few clever bits (the “hand” routine, for instance), but all of them went on far too long.  The evening was an hour and a half, but should have been an hour at most. 

I also acknowledge that the audience seemed to enjoy the evening, and gave the men two extra curtain calls (they came out for a third while everyone was putting on their coats, which got a final laugh).  I may just not be the right audience for this material—clowns are not generally my favorite humor.  Theater of Panic was also apparently taped for the Dance Collection of the Library and Museum of the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center; it may be available for viewing there if anyone’s curious.

Mel Gussow of the Times characterized Hoyle and Terry as “polar icecap opposites and therein lies the key to their New Vaudeville comedy.”  The Timesman continued: “Mr. Hoyle, who is English, would not be out of character in the Monte Python company.  He is a fervidly expressive clown, always in a rush or in a dither—or a rushing dither—while Mr. Terry, a bearded American, is his calm, deadpan straight man and musical accompanist.”  Gussow found that the pair “are an amusing team, though in Mr. Hoyle's case there is a tendency to attenuate the circumstances.” Like me, the reviewer felt, ”Careful pruning would enliven the evening.” 

*  *  *  *
DANITRA VANCE
27 February 1985

On Saturday night, 23 February [1985], I went down to the East Village to catch Danitra Vance and the Mell-0 White Boys at the La MaMa Cabaret.  Vance is a black, female, solo artist who performs in a cabaret atmosphere.  She works with a “back-up group” called the Mell-O White Boys who accompany her when she sings. (One of the “Boys” was sick and replaced by a Mell-O White Girl the night I saw them.)  The New York Times described her as “feminist,” but that label is misleading in the sense that her material isn’t aggressively political or hostilely anti-male.  She does deal with the role of women in our world with humor and biting satire, but her tongue is planted so firmly in her cheek that it’s a kind of feminism without tears.  I laughed continuously throughout the entire hour-and-a-half, despite the late hour (11 p.m. starting time); excruciatingly uncomfortable, hard, wooden chairs; and the crowded, small, close cabaret in the basement of La MaMa. 

The audience for the performance was a very mixed bag.  There were as many blacks as whites, the ages were decidedly mixed, ranging from 20’s to 40’s and 50’s, and, though there was a majority of women, there were also a large number of men, mostly accompanied by women.  (I think I was the only single person there.)  Many came with wine or beer, expecting small tables and a night-club set up.  Instead, there were only small, wooden chairs set up in a proscenium arrangement with a center aisle.  The cabaret had a bar in the rear of the room that sold coffee and tea.  The audience didn’t seem to mind the long wait upstairs in the small lobby or the fact that the house was opened late and the show was delayed for some reason.  Everyone was very convivial and social, jockeying for seats, and opening drinks.

The stage had a piano, a microphone, and several pieces of costume draped about, ready for quick changes of character.  As it turns out, some of Vance’s changes also take place off stage.  In the hour-and-a-half, she did 10 character turns, all of which are unique and startling.  Her characters aren’t recognizable types, but strange exaggerations created from her own imagination, touching on reality only in the sense that they are those kinds of situations we would like to see (remember the old Mad Magazine bit, “Ads We’d Like to See”?) 

Among her most outrageous characters are a Lesbian Recruiter; Harriet Hetero, a feminist stripper; and Robin Reluctant, a female-to-male transsexual.  Some of Vance’s more off-the-wall ideas: her entrance bit with a tommy gun swaddled in a blanket like a baby; a character who is a “Mydol junkie”; an “avant-garde rap artist” who will be performing her new rap opera, “Feinstein on the Beach” at SLAM—Some Little Academy of Music.  Harriet requests that we call her “ma’am—in honor of my mammary glands”; Robin introduces his back-up group as the TIT’s—Transsexuals In Training.

Vance has a fondness for using lyrics to popular songs in her dialogue, and the results are often hilarious.  She also parodies the songs themselves in some of her routines (the Lesbian Recruiter sings “My Girl” and Robin uses “I Am a Man” as his routine).  She likes to play with her audience, and she knows how to get them to respond and play along.  This isn’t, however, an “audience-participation” show.  She doesn’t restrict herself to the stage, moving up and down the center aisle, and doing the Lesbian recruiter turn from the bar in the rear (this wasn’t particularly easy to see, however). 

Vance, who calls herself “Everywoman—and some men,” is a clever, funny, imaginative, and creative performer. (Comparisons with Whoopi Goldberg seem to be based on two similarities: they’re both black and female.  From what I know of Goldberg, the similarity ends there.)  According to La MaMa, she will be performing her current show weekend evenings (11 p.m.) “indefinitely.”  She is usually sold out a week in advance.  Go with a friend or two, bring a bottle of wine—and a cushion.  And keep an eye on her!

In the Village Voice, Alisa Solomon wrote, “Danitra Vance creates magic of a sharper sort.  [Solomon was comparing Danitra Vance and the Mell-O White Boys with a Sam Shepard play which shared the Voice reviewer’s column.]  Her comedy stabs while it entertains, actually causing a physical catch in your laughter as she undercuts every pose she takes.”  Solomon characterized the performer as “[b]eginning with and then undermining stereotypes” and adding that “Vance creates an unsettling tension among stereotypes, reality, and the conditions that create stereotypes.”  She reported that Vance “doesn’t stop to let zingers sink in; she hits and runs.” 

Stephen Holden described Vance and her back-up group as offering “incisive, cheerfully liberating musical comedy that knowingly turns sexual and racial stereotypes inside out.”  In an earlier column, Holden reported that Vance’s “comedy is as endearing as it is incisive.”  The review-writer characterized the comedian as a “classically trained actress who is equally cognizant of Shakespeare and Motown” and “takes special delight in overlaying highbrow and pop cultural references in amusingly drastic combinations.”  Holden explained, “The theme of Miss Vance’s show, repeated in many variations, is the comic thrill and liberating insights of every sort of role reversal.”  He cautioned: “Miss Vance will inevitably be compared to Whoopi Goldberg, but she’s no carbon copy, and the town is big enough for two of them.”

[Danitra Vance did a brief stint as a regular member of the cast of Saturday Night Live from 1985-86, the sketch-comedy show’s 11th season.  She was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1990 and after a mastectomy and a brief remission, the cancer returned in 1993 and Vance died of the disease in 1994 at the age of 40.]

*  *  *  *
MARY ELLEN BERNARD
30 March 1985

You must see Mary Ellen Bernard sing.  I caught her on 27 March [1985] at Panache, the cabaret at the Magic Pan (1409 Avenue of the Americas, between 57th and 58th Streets).  On the surface, her act is a standard cabaret solo turn, but her material and style are fresh and unusual.  I can’t really describe what she does because it falls flat in words, but I can give you a taste.  Most of her material is either original (by friends of husband Paul Guzzone, who’s her musical director) or seldom-performed material by the likes of Noel Coward and Stephen Sondheim.  Furthermore, what she does with the songs makes even the familiar numbers new and fresh. 

Emmy draws heavily on her background and experience as an actress.  At the risk of sounding over-intellectual, she imbues her performance with abhinaya, the quality of Indian performance that indicates that the artist is experiencing and communicating something special through her technique.  An example:  One of her numbers is an operatic version of a musical-comedy version of Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice.  Emmy plays all the roles, switching costume pieces for each character.  Not only is the idea wonderfully absurd, but the presentation had the entire house on the floor. 

I know Emmy slightly through some friends with whose acting company she used to perform before she decided to turn her energies to preparing a cabaret singing act.  She was a good character actress, but she’s special in her new guise.  There’s something in her of the qualities of Edith Piaf and Lotte Lenya, though they haven’t fully matured yet.  I saw her act for the first time this week, though she’s been performing around the cabaret showcase circuit for about a year now.  My estimation is that as soon as she gets either a major review or the kind of exposure TV can provide, she’ll take off. 

She has no current plans for her next appearance, but she won’t be idle too long.  She’s promised to send me two flyers for her next performance.

*  *  *  *
MAN OF THE HEART
9 May 2006

I got an e-mail from an acquaintance—Suman Mukherjee—informing me that he was here in New York City with his latest directing project, Man of the Heart: The Life & Times of Lalon Phokir, a one-performer, multi-media piece about the life and philosophy of a 19th-century Bengali sage.  (‘Phokir’ is an alternate spelling for what we commonly call ‘Fakir,’ a Sufi Muslim ascetic who’s taken a vow of poverty and religious devotion, renouncing all connection to the secular world.)  The piece, written and performed by Sudipto Chatterjee from research he conducted, with Suman’s assistance, over some 15 years (including a recent trip to Bangladesh, where Lalon died in 1890 at about 116—and no, that’s not a typo!), reminded me very generally of Peter Brook’s Tierno Bokar, which I saw in 2005.  [My report about this play was posted on 28 August 2011]. 

It’s not that the pieces were alike in terms of production, or even theme, but both Man and Tierno Bokar are essentially single-performer pieces (Tierno Bokar had other actors and characters, but the focus was almost exclusively on the title character) and they’re both about religious figures, sages and teachers, who are generally unknown in the West, both of whom have ties to Sufi Islam, and both of whom lived in regions under the rule of European colonial powers (Lalon in the India of the British Raj and Bokar in French Africa).  Tierno Bokar, however, is about that colonialism and the devastation of intolerance (in this case, Muslim-on-Muslim intolerance) and Man is an exploration of the profundity of Lalon’s true philosophy, as opposed to the myths and legends that grew up around him and his legacy after his death.  Granted, the similarities are superficial—but nevertheless, unmistakable.

Though Tierno Bokar included some of Bokar’s teachings, most of the text of that play—and it was more of a conventional “play,” despite Brook’s proclivities, than is Man—was ordinary prose (performed entirely in English) adapted by Marie-HĂ©lène Estienne from Amadou HampatĂ© Ba’s biography of Bokar (Tierno Bokar, le sage de Bandiagara, 1957; translated into English as A Spirit of Tolerance: The Inspiring Life of Tierno Bokar).  Man of the Heart’s text—in English and Bengali (with supertitles)—is a combination of research (there is very little record of Lalon and even less that is reliable) and the songs he composed to spread his philosophy, which preached tolerance and an abhorrence for religious conflict. 

Brook’s physical production was simple, but it was a stage set; Suman designed a non-representative playing area—essentially a long white bolt of cloth and a stand-alone doorway, various parts of which also served as the screen—very interestingly used in several different ways—for the projections which were an integral part of the show at the little Off-Off-Broadway Kraine Theatre across from La MaMa in the East Village, where the show ran from 27 April until 7 May [2006].  (In this one, small aspect, Suman’s staging brings to mind the use of projections by Ariane Mnouchkine in Le Dernier CaravansĂ©rail at last summer’s Lincoln Center Festival, projected, like Suman’s, on different parts of the set and surrounding drapes—and, in several instances in Man, onto the back of Lalon’s robe which Chatterjee held spread out.  Mnouchkine’s projections, though, were all text, while Suman’s are text, occasionally title slides like Brecht might have used; charts, such as an abbreviated family tree; drawings; photos; and film/video—both original and “borrowed.”) 

Another difference between Brook’s effort and Suman and Mr. Chatterjee’s: Tierno Bokar was only curious for a while, then became entirely unengaging to me [as you can see from my report] but Man, though less smooth and polished (not necessarily a fault) than Tierno Bokar, was almost always interesting.  I attribute this to the content more than anything else: Brook was examining intolerance—certainly a worthy and potentially dramatic subject—but his vehicle was an extremely narrow point, whether a particular Muslim prayer should be said 11 times or 12, that is totally irrelevant and incomprehensible to us here in the West.  It was like Swift’s Little-Endians and Big-Endians.  But Man is an attempt to examine Lalon’s lessons about life and the spirit—a subject that has more resonance for all of us, regardless of our faiths (or lack of it). 

Some of Lalon’s songs are hard to interpret (part of his legend, because he had to disguise his intent in codes and misdirection to avoid persecution by both Muslims and Hindus), and the passages that are essentially lectures by Chatterjee were hard to stick with because they are uncharacteristically untheatrical, but enough of what Lalon and Man are examining is worth hearing to make the whole endeavor worthy.  While I didn’t walk out of Tierno Bokar wanting to know any more about Bokar, I left Man curious to learn more about Lalon.  That may have been in the nature of the two subjects, or it may have been because of the two performances.

[There were no reviews of the New York production that I could find at the time, but Suman and Chatterjee have staged the play many times around the world and I’ve collected several notices of other productions.  First, there’s a review of that Kraine Theatre mounting by Prachi Deshpande, who teaches history at the University of California, Berkeley, on a website called parabaas.com in 2007.  In it, Deshpande stated at the outset, “The writer-performer Sudipto Chatterjee and the director of the performance Suman Mukherjee deserve tremendous praise for their efforts to showcase the oeuvre and philosophy of this remarkable poet and thinker.”  He declared, “The performance succeeded above all in conveying the sheer joyousness and irreverence that pervades so much of devotional, mystic poetry across the subcontinent in so many of its languages.”  He praised Chatterjee’s performance, “which combines an intensely physical and energetic command of the stage with a clear monologue and rendition of some of Lalon’s most well known songs.”  The history prof, who speaks Bengali, added, “The live singing, it seemed to me, enabled Chatterjee to ‘become’ Lalon Phokir.”  Deshpande found the “multi-media format . . . rich and informative” as an effective way to place Lalon into the context of Indian and Bengali history, though he felt that Chatterjee’s lectures were presented “a little heavy handedly at times.”  The history teacher also appreciated the play’s “success in conveying complex philosophical concepts through an extremely sparse stage set up” of a few props and stage decorations.  “Mukherjee's direction makes excellent use of these props to convey these abstract ideas,” said Deshpande.  He concluded:

In all, this was an ambitious effort to showcase one of Bengal's most well known mystic poet saints; the broader questions it raises is testimony to its success in presenting on stage the rich philosophy and music of Lalon Phokir.

In the Times of India, Sreemita Bhattacharya wrote in January 2017 that Man of the Heart “narrates the story of 19th century Bengali Sufi saint and song-maker Lalon Shah Fakir . . . in a way that the moner manush [one of Lalon’s most famous songs of love and separation] tugs at your heartstrings.”  Bhattacharya also declared, “Simplicity is not easy to portray, especially on stage where every action is as deliberate as it is spontaneous,” adding, “Add multimedia elements to such a production and it becomes harder to retain and balance out the essence of the play.”  All together, the reviewer promised that “the play takes you on a haunting musical journey.”  “The elegance of simplicity in Lalon’s life of abstinence are highlighted in the costumes, stage design and props which accommodate only the necessary,” reported Bhattacharya.  Dismissing a few flaws, she concluded, “Above and beyond, the drama progresses on a soothing note as moner manush once again manages to find his place close to your mind and heart.”]

[Suman Mukherjee—or Suman Mukhopadhyay, as he also calls himself—is one of those acquaintances to whom I sent the theater reports before I started ROT.  He’d been a student of Leonardo Shapiro here in New York City, hence his interest in what was happening theatrically here, and I reached out to him when I was doing research on Leo and was looking for information on a production of Samuel Beckett’s Endgame he’d staged in Bengali In Kolkata in 1993.  I didn’t know Suman, but I found an e-mail address for the company that presented the production and he responded and sent me a packet of wonderful material.  We continued to correspond and then he e-mailed me that he was in New York with Man of the Heart.  That was the first time we’d met in person.]

22 March 2013

'Old Hats'


A dictionary will define the phrase ‘old hat’ as ‘uninteresting, stale, or trite from overuse.’  Another definition is ‘long-practiced, well-known, or conventional.’  Third, you’ll find ‘being experienced or skilled.’  Of these definitions, the first one doesn’t apply at all to the Bill Irwin-David Shiner performance at the Pershing Square Signature Center the two physical comedians call Old Hats, which I caught on the evening of Friday, 15 March.  In the hands of the two master clowns, the material can’t be overused and will never be uninteresting, stale, or trite.  The second sense is true: Irwin and Shiner teamed for Fool Moon on Broadway 20 years ago, so the gags are clearly long-practiced  and well-known—and they wanted very specifically to revisit conventional clowning and pantomime that harks back to old vaudeville and music hall standards.  It’s true, but the label’s connotation that the work is somehow over-familiar and unimaginative isn’t the least bit applicable.  Only the last definition makes real sense: Irwin and Shiner, both separately and in partnership, are immensely experienced and skilled, having practiced the arts of clowning, mime, and pantomime for 39 years, in Irwin’s case, and 34 for Shiner.  Irwin’s a certified genius, having won a MacArthur “genius” grant in 1984, and Shiner has written and directed Cirque du Soleil productions such as 2007’s Kooza.  Of the title of their new production, which started previews in the Signature’s Irene Diamond Theatre on 12 February and opened on 4 March, Irwin himself said:

The idea of trying a new show feels old, now—like its practitioners—but Old Hats as a title, as the repository for the clown thinking of the last year—that feels new.  We tried for a name for a long time and just nailed this one recently, and I must say it feels like it may unleash some energy.  Old Hats.

Before I get too far into this report, let me cop to something moderately significant.  I’m not a fan of clowns.  I have nothing against them—I’m not coulrophobic or anything—and I don’t object to the people who play the clowns.  I’ve just never found clowning very funny, not in circuses or on stage and film.  I can admire the skill of Chaplin or Keaton, but I was never drawn to their movies; I wasn’t a fan of Gleason (I don’t like The Honeymooners even today), Skelton, Lucille Ball, or the Three Stooges, and I don’t much like Jim Carrey or Will Ferrell.  I also ought to admit that there have always been exceptions: the Marx Brothers and W. C. Fields, Carol Burnett, Robin Williams—and Bill Irwin and David Shiner. 

I first saw both these guys individually—Irwin in The Regard of Flight (1982) and Largely New York (1989), and Shiner in Cirque du Soleil’s La Nouvelle ExpĂ©rience in Battery Park City in 1990—and together in Fool Moon in 1993 (which won a Drama Desk Award for Unique Theatrical Experience in ’93 and was revived twice; in its second revival, it won the 1999 Special Tony Award for Live Theatrical Presentation).  I even got to kibbitz at a clown class Bill Irwin taught for an advanced theater program.  The man’s a terrific teacher, as you’d probably guess.  Irwin was the subject of a Signature residency in 2003-04, but I didn’t subscribe that season, so aside from his conventional theater and TV work, I haven’t seen him perform since ’93.  (He did a magical turn as The Flying Man in several episodes of the 1990-95 CBS series Northern Exposure in which he never spoke a word of dialogue.  Then he won a best-actor Tony for his performance as George in the 2005 revival of Edward Albee’s Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?)  I’ve never seen Shiner in any other role than his clown persona, though he’s appeared in several films and on Broadway as The Cat in the Hat in the 2000-2001 musical Seussical.  (Shiner also teaches, at the Bayerische Theaterakademie August Everding in Munich.)

Longevity and the aging that goes with it are a part of the concept for Old Hats, another implication of the title.  Irwin is 62 now (his birthday’s in April) and Shiner’s 59; when they first did Fool Moon, they were 42 and 39 respectively and when they started developing their routines, they were in their 20’s or early 30’s.  “At a certain age, you’re not the young lover anymore,” noted Irwin in an interview, “and you can’t even sort of pretend to be the young lover.  You have to embrace the stage of life that you’re at.  So that’s—hence the title: Old Hats.”  This necessitated changes, at least in attitude if not in outright technique, to such bits as the two (now middle-aged) businessmen on a commuter-train platform and Shiner’s perennial sleazy magician who flirts shamelessly with the women in the audience.  (Irwin, as his once-sexy female assistant, is unabashedly annoyed, but this portrayal must also have been adjusted as well.)  Irwin acknowledges that “there’s a big ache and pain factor” to the work these days, and adds, “In my mind it’s a lot of reflection on getting further into life and, you know, getting to the end . . . .  So it’s a different vantage point to look at life from.”  Youth in Old Hats is provided by quirky singer-songwriter-musician Nellie McKay, 30 (her birthday is also in April)—but more about her later.
 

 
In their original Broadway pairing, New York Times reviewer Frank Rich, reporting that Shiner and Irwin should be added to “that short list of unbeatable combinations that includes bacon and eggs, bourbon and soda, and Laurel and Hardy,” concluded “that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts even when the parts are as great as these two beloved clowns.”  The two artists, however, come from quite different backgrounds.  Irwin was formally trained, graduating from the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College in 1974, though he didn’t join that circus.  Instead, he went west and helped found the Pickle Family Circus, a small, innovative troupe based in San Francisco.  He left the Pickles in 1979 and began his solo career, working on stages rather than under tents.  Shiner, on the other hand is self-taught, having begun on the streets as a mime and busker.  In 1984, he was discovered in Boulder, Colorado, by the Paris-based festival Cirque de Demain.  He went on to perform with several famous European troupes, including the Circus Roncalli and the Swiss National Circus. He joined the Montreal-based Cirque du Soleil in 1990, becoming one of the company’s best-known performers.  Back Stage writer Lisa Jo Sagolla sees Bill Irwin, whose “body seems to transform into a gooey substance that gracefully stretches into all sorts of nuanced postures, gestures, and attitudes,” as “a dancer’s clown,” whereas David Shiner, whose “physical work is more about character, narrative arc, and the slick design of funny actions” that “targets our emotions,” is “an actor’s clown.”  Irwin, born in Santa Monica, California, lives in New York City; native Bostonian Shiner resides in Munich, Germany.

It’s probably out of order to do this here, but I will anyway: Watching Old Hats, which lists Tina Landau as director, I wondered how—or even if—anyone actually directs a show like this, by two (if you will) old hands who’ve been doing this stuff for so long—73 years between them by my calculations—it’s part of their nature.  What did Landau, a well-established director of Broadway and Off-Broadway plays and rep theater productions (she’s a member of Chicago’s Steppenwolf Theatre Company and worked extensively with New York City's En Garde Arts which specialized in site-specific productions), have to do while Old Hats was developing and rehearsing?  Obviously, she never had to stand in the back of the house and shout the famous direction attributed to George S. Kaufman: “Louder and funnier, please!”  “Louder” isn’t applicable since Irwin and Shiner don’t speak except in one bit, and they couldn’t be funnier.  I suppose she had to be the tech director, shaping the lighting and soundscape for the production, and the traffic director, keeping the performers from getting too far up- or downstage, too far right or left.  I’m not saying that Landau didn’t do anything—clearly Shiner and Irwin didn’t have to have a director if they didn’t want one (no director is credited for Fool Moon, for example), so they must have felt the need—but I just don’t know what she did do for Old Hats.

David Shiner says when they work on a new show, “We basically goof off until we find something funny,” and Bill Irwin says the work is “really a sort of doodling until you feel like you may have started to draw something.”  I suppose Landau could have been sitting in the room reacting to the doodles and the improvs; if she laughed, then the guys could feel they were on to something.  Shiner says they tried to follow the advice his wife gave him: “Just try to have fun in the studio and forget all the other stuff.”  I recently quoted (in my 17 March report on The Dance and the Railroad) my friend Kirk Woodward from a booklet he wrote on directing as asking, “Will this set be fun for the actors?  . . . .  Will they have a good time in it?”  For this kind of work, described by Irwin as “often a semi-improv process,” that atmosphere is pushed back to the rehearsal space, which is “like a big playroom,” according to Jeff Lunden, a radio reporter who observed a day of the work: “there are all kinds of homemade props littered about, just in case Shiner or Irwin want to try something new.”  Maybe Landau, whom I don’t believe ever worked with Irwin or Shiner before, could toss out ideas, but something tells me that not only don’t the two clowns need the input, but that they have their own (successful) gag-generator.  “It just starts with an idea,” explains Shiner, then, Irwin notes, “one of us does something and the other goes ‘oh yeah . . . well, what about THIS?’”   The inspiration can come from anywhere.  “I cannot now remember how we began on some of the bits and ideas that feel most promising in Old Hats,” confesses Irwin.  “Sometimes it’s because something is at hand—a prop happens to be there.” 

Much of the development of a new show like Old Hats is mysterious.  The prop that inspired a routine?  A happy accident, right?  “But then how did that prop happen to be there?” wonders Irwin.  “Better not to think about it sometimes.”  “No one ever knows how you make clown material,” Irwin reveals.  “Starts to feel and sound very silly when examined too closely,” he adds, and then repeats, “—that’s why we often don’t think about it too much.”  In a way, that’s how the two clowns came together, before collaborating on Fool Moon.  They’d seen and admired each other’s work and set up a meeting when Shiner was in New York City in 1990 with Cirque du Soleil.  The meeting didn’t really work—probably it was too contrived and deliberate.  Then they were cast together in Sam Shepard’s Silent Tongue as two medicine-show clowns, and while filming in 1992, they began improvising together—and it clicked.  The next year, Silent Tongue was released in January and Shiner and Irwin opened on Broadway in Fool Moon in February.  Of course, none of this is really easy (dying is easy, as everyone knows, comedy is hard!).  Mystery or not, “It’s hard work,” points out Shiner.  (A little harder now than it used to be, according to the guys.)  So Landau could certainly have served as a sounding board, a friendly presence. 

We’re not supposed to see any of that hard work, of course.  “The last thing you ever want to do is show any effort,” insists Irwin.  “Even though there's a lot of work involved, and it's—you don't want to show any effort!”  Of course, that’s generally true of all performing, but when the effort is as prodigious as it must be here, the implication of such an axiom is major.  What we see is a seemingly effortless, smoothly presented, and seamless show, with the only hitches and accidents provided by the audience.  Set up like an old-time vaudeville evening, there are ten or a dozen separate routines of varying lengths, including interstitial mishegoss, over a two-hour performance with one intermission.  The bits, which are unconnected thematically to one another like standard music-hall entertainments, are separated by musical interludes by McKay and her band—Alex Davis on bass, Mike Dobson on percussion, Tivon Pennicott on sax and flute, and Kenneth Salters on drums; McKay performs either sitting at or standing by her upright piano—she also plays the ukulele for some numbers—on a little extension off stage right or before the curtain down front on the apron.  (G. W. Mercier, who’s also responsible for the costumes, included a replica of an old-fashioned proscenium arch with a gold-trimmed, red velvet drape in his scenic design for Old Hats.  The Diamond doesn’t ordinarily have either.)  Some of the routines are . . . well, old hat (not a negative) and others are obviously new or retooled, but they have two things in common: they’re all imbued with the irrepressible spirit and dynamic of Shiner and Irwin, an unmistakable characteristic, and there’s an element of competition running through the whole show.  “One of the primary ingredients is always competition,” asserts Irwin.  The competitiveness is a theme and it’s a structural through-line (and I’ll get to that shortly). 

At the stage-left edge of the platform is a signboard, just like in old-time vaudeville theaters, which announces the title of each bit (“The Businessman,” “The Debate”) and McKay’s songs (“Mother of Pearl,” “Bo De Ga”)—except that the sign in Old Hats isn’t a placard that a scantily-clad chorine comes out to switch between routines . . . it’s an electronic video screen, like a giant tablet or a TV monitor standing vertically, which magically changes graphics, still in an old vaudeville style.  I don’t know if that was meant to be important or just a convenient solution to a technical need, but it tickled me: a 21st-century update to a little bit of 19th-century pop entertainment tradition.  Just a tweak—harmless, but clever and kind of fun!  And I must mention, at least in passing, the opening sequence, which is a marvel of live actors playing off of computer-controlled technology.  It’s a little reminiscent of Indiana Jones (I won’t go into specifics) and many space operas, and it’s exhilarating.  The projection designs are by Wendell K. Harrington, who surely must be a genius in his own right, and the by-play between his creations and Irwin and Shiner, the way the two clowns work with the projections and the way the projections essentially pull them in (literally at times) is truly magical.  (I’m compelled to quote sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”)

The competition between the two clowns, as I said, is a theme of Old Hats, but it’s also a unifying element.  It’s an aspect of their creative process together, too.  “The one constant when David and I are working is competition—the utterly predictable idea of male competition,” explains Irwin.  “It’s like a fuel source—you can almost always make wheels turn with its power.”  When one artist responds to an idea of the other by exclaiming, “Well, what about THIS?,” there’s implied one-upsmanship in play—and that’s how the two come up with their gags.  It’s in the routines, too.  The most obvious application is “The Debate,” a skit about two over-earnest pols standing behind podiums as they vie unabashedly to sway the voters’ allegiance.  (Make note of the Mitt Romney-inspired wigs, designed by Erin Kennedy Lunsford, and the gleaming Jimmy Carter teeth.)  Not a word is spoken (and wouldn’t that be a boon!), but each time one candidate makes a point or scores one, the other comes back with a topper.  When Shiner’s office-seeker tries to reach out to shake the hand of a spectator, he can’t reach far enough.  So Irwin counters by sending a fake hand on the end of an accordion grabber that shoots out through the front of the lectern into the house!  The competition is measured by the two large arrow dials, one behind each candidate, that rotate up when one scores a point and down when he loses one.  In “The Encounter,” a piece that appeared in Fool Moon and has been adjusted to reflect the passing of years, two commuters meet on the platform as they await a train.  They argue and scold one another wordlessly, but with unbelievable physical control that’s perfectly matched between the two performers.  Eventually they compare ailments and pains and share their remedies and pills—and Shiner gives one to Irwin that gives him an instant erection, visible even though the two are wearing the world’s baggiest pants!  (One pill makes them larger—in specific ways, it seems—and one pill makes them small.  Ahem.)  Surely this is an allusion to the proliferation on late-night TV of ads for what Craig Ferguson, host of The Late Late Show on CBS, likes to call “boner pills,” something new (or at least more prominent) in our culture since Fool Moon. 

In “The Magic Act,” David Shiner plays a smarmy stage magician (with an act so old, it creaks) who flirts blatantly with the women in the audience.  His competition, in this instance, isn’t another magician (so don’t think of The Incredible Burt Witherstone), but his jealous assistant, played by Irwin in drag.  “She” shoots him looks that would wither an ordinary man and steps in to interfere when he gets too close to connecting.  But there’s implied competiveness in some of the solo bits as well.  In “The Businessman,” Bill Irwin is essentially drawn into a mortal struggle with his iPhone and iPad, which threaten to swallow him up.  The image on the tablet, which is ultimately projected on a giant screen upstage into which Irwin disappears, is Irwin’s own face, and the tablet and images become living partners in performance.  Irwin’s in deadly competition with his e-avatar!

Watching Irwin, open-faced, affable and innocent, and Shiner, spikier, edgier, and darker, play off and with one another is a wonder.  I saw Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy work together and, before that, Celeste Holm and Wesley Addy, two of theater’s best-matched acting couples.  This clown couple’s duo work is stunning in its coordination and near-telepathic communication, but their solo work is magnificent, too.  Irwin’s “Businessman” is not just a terrific commentary on personal technology but an impossibly clever and inventive performance in 21st-century theater: a live actor playing off of computers and technology.  The coordination of Irwin, the tablet, and the big-screen projection is astounding: the control alone, to keep things in synch, must have been daunting.  (“The Businessman” is one of the bits that was inspired by new cultural phenomena: experimental tablets appeared around 2005, the iPhone in 2007, and the iPad didn’t come out until 2010, over a decade-and-a-half after Fool Moon.  Irwin explains, “The place these things have in our culture is so fascinating and so potentially, eh, useful for a clown that I just said, ‘Oh, we have to have [a] piece in the show where a guy is totally mesmerized by his two pieces of equipment and then they take over his life, in a bad dream way, from thence!’”  The piece couldn’t even have existed without the proliferation of tablets since a smart phone wouldn’t have been visible from the stage.)

The most poignant and moving performance of the evening, a distinction all the greater because of the superlative quality of the whole presentation, is “The Hobo,” Shiner’s homage to Emmett Kelly.  “I've always wanted to do a hobo,” declares Shiner. “Always.”  And so, he presents his version of Weary Willie, a sad sack for whom nothing comes right.  He sits dejectedly on a park bench and rummages through a trash can.  He finds a lovely flower, which delights him briefly . . . until it wilts in his hand.  He finds a stuffed animal . . . but it’s broken and falls apart.  There’s a kitty . . . but, of course, it’s dead.  A jack-in the box looks like fun . . . until it opens to emit naught but a blast of dust in Shiner’s face.  A cell phone works . . . but it calls 911 to remind him (and us) that this world is fraught with unpleasantness.  Finally, he assembles from an old broom, a piece of discarded cloth, and an empty liquor bottle, a female companion—the best he can do and, sadly, it’s enough.  For a funny man, Shiner sure knows how to tug the heartstrings!  (I’m desperately trying to provide an idea of Old Hats while at the same time not giving away the wonderful surprises and turns the gags all take.  The show, which was originally scheduled to close on 7 April, has recently been extended until 9 May, allowing plenty of time for ROT readers to catch it for themselves, and I don’t want to spoil it.)

Shiner’s signature gag is to get the audience to work with him, as anyone who’s ever seen him will know.  He does it in every performance.  First, he goes into the audience and essentially annoys some select spectators.  (My mother was one of his targets years ago when she saw a Cirque du Soleil production in Washington.)  “I love going into people’s private space without being invited,” he admits.  Every time I’ve watched him do that—he actually used to climb into the audience, over the seats and through the spectators sitting there—I wondered how he managed to get away with that without someone hauling off and slugging him!  In Old Hats, Shiner doesn’t climb through the house, he goes up the aisles and gets to people seated along the edges of the auditorium.  Maybe that’s another concession to age (or the Signature nixed the idea of climbing over the brand-new seats in its two-year-old home).  Nonetheless, he still gets away with it, and the viewers all howl, even the butts of his tomfoolery.

Shiner also confesses, “I love bringing people up that are unprepared and don't know what they're getting themselves into and pushing them to the limit,” and he proves it with his other signature piece, the “Cowboy Cinema.”  If you’ve ever seen a David Shiner performance, you know that he goes into the audience and shanghais three spectators to appear in his silent western, and one to be his Cecil B. DeMille.   He gets his “villain” to grab the “ingĂ©nue” he’s never met before and kiss her and throw her onto the bar; he gets the “hero” to pretend to ride a horse like a little kid playing Wild West and throw a temper tantrum before he gets shot a dozen times and has to jerk about with each bullet strike until he collapses on the floor.  Meanwhile, “C. B.” (who on the evening I saw the show was David Cote of Time Out New York and New York 1) has to scratch his butt and grab his crotch in front of 300 or so total strangers each time he comes out to slate the take with the clapperboard.  And they do it every time—with a little prompting and several “retakes” as everyone, including the “actors,” belly-laugh all through the proceedings.  (Some commentators I read suggested that these volunteers might be ringers, pros planted in the house for Shiner’s benefit.  Unless Cote has a Doppelganger who’s an actor—and not an especially good one—I don’t buy the contention.  Remember, I used to be in that line, and no actor can act that badly on purpose.)

All these scenes are enacted without words—and very few vocal sounds.  (There are other sound effects, principally those handled by Mike Dobson, the percussionist, who’s also credited as the Foley artist because he makes the non-musical sound effects that punctuate some of the gags.)  Between the gags, Nellie McKay covers the costume and set changes, and she occasionally interacts with Shiner and Irwin (as when she and her band come in late to the performance), but while McKay speaks, the two clowns don’t, responding in pantomime the way Harpo Marx played off of Groucho or Chico.  But in the second half of the show, McKay encourages the guys to speak—and the dam bursts briefly as Bill Irwin breaks into a rendition of “Oklahoma!” and David Shiner, one-upping his partner again, spews out Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy.  For a while, we get to hear all the things the silent clowns keep bottled up all their performing lives: lines from every imaginable movie.  Needless to say, it’s a godawful mess, and finally the genii is shoved back in the bottle, but not before McKay, Shiner, and Irwin get together for one of her off-beat numbers.

McKay, by the way, is a trip all by herself.  I can’t say that all her material dovetails with Irwin and Shiner’s hijinks; some of it seems to be in the wrong key for this show.  For the most part, however, her interludes are off-center and skewed, especially coming from a petite blonde pixie who looks like she ought to be going off to the prom with the captain of the baseball team.  As Bill Irwin characterizes McKay, who joined the ensemble in 2011, “She is as wild and eccentric as any of our work is.”  In “Mother of Pearl,” for instance, a song opposing women’s activism, the refrain is “Feminists don't have a sense of humor," and it ends with the declaration: “I’m Michele Bachmann and I approved this message.”  In “Won’t U Please B Nice?” which sounds like a sweet ’30s ballad, McKay sings lyrics such as: “If we part / I’ll eat your heart / So won’t you please be nice.”  (McKay won a Theatre World Award for her portrayal of Polly in the 2006 Broadway revival of Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weil’s Threepenny Opera.  She’s released five albums, wrote and recorded songs for the 2005 film Rumor Has It . . . and appeared in the 2007 film P.S. I Love You.)

The press, as you might guess, was ecstatic nearly across the board.  (Bill Irwin and David Shiner are like puppies in a way: how can anyone say anything bad about them?)  Since I’ve already mentioned the Times, let me start there.  Charles Isherwood was positively giddy, calling Old Hats an “ebullient new show” in which the “supremely talented performers display the bubbly energy and shining vitality—not to mention amazingly elastic faces and limbs—of men half their age.”  In conclusion, Isherwood asserted, “Inspiration almost never flags in ‘Old Hats.’”  Joe Dziemianowicz of the Daily News described the show as a “comic tasting menu,” which I think is very apt (and not a complaint).  “The goal here,” he affirmed, “is simply to make you smile and laugh for 110 minutes,” to which Dziemianowicz correctly declared, “Mission accomplished.”  The clowns’ performances, the News reviewer wrote, are “supple and elastic,” and so are “their creative brains and body language.”  In the New York Post, Elisabeth Vincentelli called Old Hats “one of the funniest shows of the past few years,” pointing out that “not many can pull gales of laughter out of thin air the way Irwin and Shiner do.”  Newsday’s Linda Winer characterized Old Hats as a “delirious joy of a show” which Landau “directed with helium-weight virtuosity.”  (Of McKay, who got great notices in all the press, Winer said, “If Nellie McKay did not already exist, Bill Irwin and David Shiner would have had to make her up.”)

Old Hats is “a vaudevillian lark that's all pleasure,” said Alan Scherstuhl of the Village Voice, and “every bit as funny as a charitable theatergoer might hope for.”  Marilyn Stasio described the performance in Variety as “a brilliant oddball of a show” and a “comic puree of ancient vaudeville routines, traditional circus acts, and classic mime pieces” which have been “overhauled with biting wit for a modern-day sensibility.”  “[S]martly staged by Tina Landau,” affirmed Stasio, the show is “loaded with sly insinuations about who we are and how we live today.”  In Back Stage, Lisa Jo Sagolla characterized the performance as “[a]n uproarious comic revue” which “make[s] us laugh hysterically.”  It offers “something for everyone,” the Back Stage reviewer asserted, “no matter your clowning or musical tastes.”  Describing Old Hats as “an evening of deliciously absurd skits,” even though “some of the skits are more sobering; even melancholy,” Jan Rosenberg of Show Business warned that “some of the clown humor does get tiring after a while, and some acts meander on for a bit too long.”  The Show Biz writer does conclude, though, that “overall, it’s quite impossible to sit through Old Hats without laughing.  Unless, that is, your funny bone is not in tact [sic].”  In Time Out New York, Adam Feldman wrote of the two stars that “their polymorphous complementarity leaves the audience buzzing with joy.”  (I just had to put that in!)  He summed up by stating, “If you let yourself miss this marvelous diversion, the more fool you.”  Hear, hear!

In the cybersphere, reviews mostly were along the same vein as the printed stuff.  Deirdre Donovan on CurtainUp pointed out, for instance, that “Old Hats is . . . loaded with laughs” even as it “adds new-fangled material.”  “The light-hearted show has its sobering, and even tragic-tinged, moments,” remarked the cyber-reviewer, however.  Old Hats is “a brilliant new piece that has one foot in the past, one in the present,” concluded Donovan, but “[t]here's nothing stale here.”  On TheaterMania, Kimberly Kaye asserted, “We laugh, inexplicably and uproariously” at the “parade of vignettes and musical interludes.”  Of the clown pair, she wrote,Their ability to defy and exceed expectations simultaneously is the magic trick that dazzles most, and lingers.”  Finally, Talkin’ Broadway’s Matthew Murray struck the only generally negative note.  Having extolled the wonders of Irwin and Shiner’s gags, Murray added that they “don’t need any additional help—yet they receive it anyway.  It comes courtesy of Nellie McKay and her band.”  While he didn’t object to the songs themselves, he complained that “so many such additions (there are seven full-length numbers), which receive so little participation from the ostensible stars, quickly spoil the flow and flavor of the proceedings.”  Then Murray noted that “[director Tina] Landau has apparently not entirely decided whether this is supposed to be a rebirth of a moribund form or an elaborate comment on it,” observing that there was a lack of coordination among Mercier’s costumes and sets, Peter Kaczorowski’s lighting, and Harrington’s projections with respect to the tone.  In the end, Murray insisted, “no point beyond the resiliency of the practitioners is ever made.”  (I’m not sure what he expected from a clown vaudeville.  It isn’t Ibsen or Chekhov he was seeing!)  Murray’s final comment?  “The biggest flaw of Old Hats is that not enough people involved have seen that they can, and should, leave Irwin and Shiner alone far more often than they do.”  (By the way, how come all these cyber-reviewers have double initials: DD, KK, MM?  Is that a job requirement?)

Look, I said I’m not a big fan of clowns as a rule, but I enjoy Irwin and Shiner thoroughly.  I don’t find them so bereft of import as Murray apparently does—it’s just subtler than straight drama, and it’s couched in clown terms, so you have to suss it out a little.  But it isn’t supposed to be so laden with social commentary that the silliness is overwhelmed—that isn’t clowning.  Do people go to ballet to see social commentary?  Not much, I wouldn’t think.  They go to see superb physical control and graceful, powerful movement expressing emotions and thoughts.  Well, that’s what Irwin and Shiner do—with an emphasis on humor rather than grace, perhaps, but with the same display of bodily control and expressiveness.  It happens that these two go beyond mere expert physicality: they’re immensely clever, inventive, and creative, so that what they do isn’t just well-executed, but often surprising and astounding.  That’s way more than enough to make good theater—and good clowning.  To demand more strikes me not only as excessive, but arrogant as well.