Manhattan Digest

All you need to know about Manhattan culture and so much more...

OPINION

Theater Review: The Valley of Astonishment

by

THE VALLEY OF ASTONISHMENT (photo by Pascal Victor/ArtComArt)
THE VALLEY OF ASTONISHMENT
(photo by Pascal Victor/ArtComArt)

The Valley of Astonishment is sure to have its fans. It has already received rave reviews in London and will undoubtedly draw praise from New York City intellectuals. After all, famed writer and director Peter Brook (along with Marie Helene Estienne) is at the helm and his artistry is highly regarded on both sides of the pond.

And yet, there exists a stark, hollow quality to his latest work, which is intriguing, but empty. On a minimal set consisting of 3 chairs and a coat rack, Brook explores the concept of synesthesia, a physiological and psychological condition which affects how we remember and the tools we use in order to hold memory. For instance, the number 7 might appear as a handlebar mustache in the brain while the number 8 might evoke a fat lady.

A cast of 3 actors, identified only as “actors” and “actress” do a masterful job at attempting to explain the inexplicable mysteries of the mind. The actress (Kathryn Hunter) has an extraordinary capacity for memory and is encouraged by doctors to use this gift to become famous. Soon, she is thrust into the public spotlight but eventually begins to unravel as unanswered questions remain: Can memory be measured and studied? Alternatively, can the loss of memory be understood? An expressly spoken moment comes at a moment when psychiatrists ask whether it was a wise decision for her to seek their counsel in the first place. This leads to a greater inquiry : Does studying the mind create more madness for  the patient?

This 80 minute, intermission-less show is cerebral and profound and would make for an intellectually engaging  academic paper. As a piece of theater, however, this minimalist piece feels chilly and  fails to climb any mountains.

 

The Valley of Astonishment is playing now through October 5th at the Polonsky Shakespeare Center, 262 Ashland Place at Lafayette Avenue, Brooklyn. For tickets and more information, visit www.tfana.org 

Theater Review: The McGowan Trilogy

by

The antagonist, Victor M. McGowman (Paul Nugent) Photo Courtesy of Garlia C. Jones-Ly
The antagonist, Victor M. McGowman (Paul Nugent) Photo Courtesy of Garlia C. Jones-Ly

Don’t piss off Victor McGowan. His milky white complexion  and innocent eyes might seduce you. You’ll drink some ale, share some tales,and reminisce about the good ‘ole days. It will be like spending time with an old friend and it will bring  comfort. And then…(spoiler alert)…you’ll be dead as a doornail.

McGowman (Paul Nugent) is the central figure in Seamus Scanlon’s contemporary Irish play The McGowan Trilogy:  a Serial in Three Acts. In Act 1 (“Dancing at Lunacy”), McGowman bursts into an  Irish pub circa 1984.  At  first he befriends and later terrorizes  Ahern (Matt Golden),  Pender (Phillip Callen), and the barman (Conor McIntyre), each of whom have unknowingly irritated McGowan in a way that leads to their “permanent removal”.

The second act (“The Long Wet Grass”)  takes us into a wooded area where Mcgowan and a former love interest (Anna Nugent) meet to discuss their past.  Polite discussion ensues, followed by tense talks, and topped off with…you guessed it…”permanent removal”.

In the final act (“Boy Swam Before Me”)  McGowman is charged with taking care of his ill mother, May McGowan, a feeble, dementia and bed ridden soul whose constant questioning and singing exacerbates  her son’s angst. Eventually, things don’t end very well with her.

McGowan’s fiery revolutionary seems to respond to each of his discontents with abrupt violence. Maybe this is due to his fierce loyalty to the Irish Republican Army. Maybe paranoia adds to his  burden? . Whatever the case, life seems to be nettlesome and overwhelming. Nugent portrays him with honest sincerity and deep complexity. His fellow cast mates, however, seem to be playing on a different field.  The Irish brogues sound feigned  and it is difficult to pinpoint where they actually from.

The play itself carries the same tone and pacing of a Martin McDonagh piece. It us unpredictable, warped, and shocking. Only McDonagh’s language is clever  and darkly funny. With him. there is no attempt to be provocative. There simply is provocation. Playwright Seamus Scanlon appears to be emulating the same subversive style , but is unfortunately coming up empty-handed

 

The McGowan Trilogy plays now through Oct. 5, 2014 at the Cell (338 W. 23rd Street between 8th and 9th ave.) For info and tickets, http://www.thecelltheatre.org/events/2014/9/11/the-mcgowan-trilogy-7-pm

Nail Polish Prevention: How Society Chooses to Address Sexual Assault

by

Since Undercover Colors went public earlier this summer, many have reacted to the company’s effort to aid in sexual assault prevention, which involves nail polish that changes color in the presence of “date rape drugs” slipped into someone’s drink, the idea being that a woman dips her finger into her drink to give it a stir and subtly procure information about the drink’s possibly insidious contents.

The North Carolina State University students who are developing the polish don’t actually suggest that it will solve the problem of date rape and other sexual assaults aided by drugs like Rohypnol, GHB, and benzodiazepines (those that the nail polish will detect). They plan to proffer it amongst a slew of “technologies” meant to “empower women to protect themselves from this heinous and quietly pervasive crime” known as sexual assault, according to the Undercover Colors Facebook page.

At first glance, this may seem (as it did to me, to be honest) like a cool, not to mention helpful, product. It’s empowering women by adding another tool to their self-defense kits! It’s subtle enough to prevent women from feeling burdened by it! It’s a health-positive fashion statement! Even women who are careful never to put down their drinks at bars or parties could consider this product helpful when it comes to the first or second dinner date, in which one might abandon her glass to go to the restroom without yet having gained full trust in her dinner companion.

After engaging in such reveries about the nail polish created to prevent sexual assault, it becomes easier to fasten on its many problems. First of all, it’s inherently gendered. Though I’m by no means saying that men do not and should not wear nail polish, the product is specifically aimed at women, sending the message that sexual assault happens only to women, or is only a women’s problem. It’s in part because of this attitude that sexual assault goes so frequently unreported amongst men.

Undercover Colors uses language like “empower” to suggest that it’s fighting the dynamic in which men traditionally have the upper hand over women. However, is the dynamic changing when it remains on women to have to work towards sexual assault prevention? In other words, it’s not a bad thing that, thanks to the polish, women have another tool to add to their anti-SA toolkits (sidled up to pepper spray in pink containers and purse-sized revolvers), but the product markedly keeps the responsibility of ending this kind of assault on the side of the potential victims.

As Undercover Colors puts it (again, in their Facebook mission statement), “Through this nail polish and similar technologies, we hope to make potential perpetrators afraid to spike a woman’s drink because there’s now a risk that they can get caught.” Is this really the best approach to stopping sexual violence, by scaring potentially violent aggressors into accountability (not to mention the, if small, possibility that they already can get caught—but no need to go into the legal system that’s overwhelmingly soft on these kinds of perps, police that have trouble taking these crimes seriously, and the stigma and shame associated with reporting them)?

Working on prevention that targets these possible perps would send a much stronger message than prevention tactics that tend to shift the burden onto women. For example, with the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses, more of these institutions are implementing workshops and information sessions aimed at prevention. These hope to foster awareness and group discussion rather than encourage women to endure the possibility of sexual assault “discreetly,” in silence.

Also, by putting the responsibility on the side of the women the product aims to protect, it presents possible detrimental consequences for them. For one thing, bystanders who know that a woman is wearing her Undercover Colors may be less likely to interfere on her behalf if she’s in trouble. They might assume that this puts her in complete control of her ability to detect and avoid predators. However, alcohol alone often proves sufficient as a date rape drug, and it’s always worth looking out for your friends when out on the town. Let’s think even further forward, to the post-assault moment when ill-informed cops ask questions like, “Well, did you say no?/Is this what you were wearing?/Then what did you agree to leave the bar with him for?” Say technology like this nail polish becomes mainstream. Would police then ask survivors, “Why weren’t you wearing your nail polish?”

Of course, that’s looking at an extreme possibility, one that would come long down the line considering the Undercover Colors product is still in development. Regardless, it’s worth thinking about the implications behind any means of sexual assault prevention and asking what kind of overall dialogue it fits with, one in which sexual assault is a women’s problem, or one in which it’s a human problem. Naturally, we should aim for the latter.

__

*Image credited to The New York Times, Samantha Rapp

Theater Review: MIGHTY REAL: A FABULOUS SYLVESTER MUSICAL

by

Mighty Real: A Fabulous Sylvester Musical Theatre at St. ClementÕs Photo courtesy of Joan Marcus.
Mighty Real: A Fabulous Sylvester Musical
Theatre at St. ClementÕs
Photo courtesy of Joan Marcus.

Unlike the rigid rules you’ll encounter at an amusement park, you won’t have to wait until the ride comes to a complete stop to spring from your seats at the Theatre at St. Clements. In fact, you may get a reprimand from a fabulous disco queen if you DON’T get up and shake your moneymakers. After all, a song called “Dance” isn’t meant to be enjoyed sitting down. Honeys, Sylvester just won’t have it!

Mighty Real: A Fabulous Sylvester Musical is the latest biographical jukebox show from a phenomenally talented Anthony Wayne . It spins the tale of a young, black, pentecostal gospel singer turned flamboyant, charismatic and unapologetic diva who found his treasure under the gleam of a disco ball. In addition to portraying Sylvester, Wayne penned the book and directed the show along with his real life partner and co-director Kendrell Bowman.

Wayne’s performance is appropriately caffeinated and exceedingly astonishing. His 90 minute embodiment is tireless and heartfelt. Adding to this musical can of red bull are his fellow singers, Anastacia McLeskey and Jacqueline B. Arnold, who play The Weather Girls. True fans may recall their 1982 smash hit, “It’s Raining Men” (which is included among the musical numbers), but prior to that hit, they toured with him as back-up singers.

Sylvester was deeply troubled and admitted to feelings of ongoing loneliness. Beneath the outlandish costumes, expensive jewels, and chauffeured limousines dwelled a troubled soul who yearned for greater substance. Ultimately, the nightlife of the disco decade lost a bedazzled jewel when this consumate performer lost his battle to AIDS in 1988. Wayne’s book doesn’t shy away from this darker side. The problem is that the narrative is too abrubt. He works so hard to raise the temperature of the night and the audience, only to quickly shift gears into a tale of woe, leaving the show’s pacing awkward and flat. We’re forced to trudge through a somber diatribe of loss and regret  before these talented performers once again manufacture enough energy  to knock the disco ball out of the decade with a rousing upbeat number. While there are valuable lessons to be learned from this incredible star, the true point of attending should be to seek unadulterated fun. And you will find it.Stay seated at your own peril.

 

MIGHTY REAL: A FABULOUS SYLVESTER MUSICAL now playing  at Theatre at St. Clement’s (423 W. 46th Street between 9th and 10th)  through Sunday, October 5th. Tickets are available at  (866) 811-4111 or by visiting www.FabulousSylvester.com 

Theater Review: “The Last Days of Cleopatra”

by

last_days_of_cleopatraFamilial dysfunction in drama can often be the basis for a well-executed and entertaining train-wreck. Call it “Schadenfreude” or simply good old-fashioned entertainment, but when relatives unravel, our collective tongues salivate in relief. “Thank God that’s not us”, seems to be the familiar refrain.  At Manhattan’s Urban Stages, one such family is on the brink of implosion.

Playwright Laoisa Sexton is  an edgy new playwright who received the NY Times Critics Pick for her last work, For Love. Her latest work, The Last Days of Cleopatra is a challenging, slow   journey into the souls of well-acted, but hugely unlikable Irish characters. The show centers around an unseen force, Tess, the dying matriarch. Her disjointed family assembles to revisit old wounds and sling accusations towards each other.  Each of them rarely interact with one another and the lines are delivered in the manner of  long, monologue-like asides.

Harry (Kenneth Ryan) is the father and fancies himself a ladies’ man, although he looks like Tom Skerritt gone through the ring cycle after a  long night of Jameison’s.  Furthermore, he takes no responsibility for his actions or inactions. His constant refrain is, “That’s what yer up against. Ye know it yerself.” His son, Jackey (Michael Mellamphy) is an insolent homosexual who is essentially bitter about himself, everyone around him, and the world he inhabits.  Playwright Sexton steps into a role she created as daughter and sister Natalie, perhaps the most tolerable of this bunch. She earns her keep dressing in a variety of costumes for parties and role-playing.

The program notes that the setting is  “Ireland in the middle of its’ never ending recession”, but after awhile, the audience begins to feel as though the play  itself might also be never ending, as it seems to grasp for a target. This isn’t to say that Sexton’s  writing isn’t merited. Irish immigrants may appreciate the inside humor and colloquial feel. Upon entering the lobby, there is a glossary of slang terms used in the show. The list is long and one can’t help but think that the play, as seen through the eyes non-Irish folks, lands like an episode of Seinfeld to someone who doesn’t understand English.

 The Last Days of Cleopatra plays now through Sept. 7 at Urban Stages, 259 W. 30th Street between 7th and 8th ave. For tickets and more information, visit: http://www.thelastdaysofcleopatra.com .

 

 

 

Race Issues & Self Identification- Bear Or Life Problems?

by

Self Identifying yourself, endless race issues- WHY?

Last month I experienced my first ever Bear Week, held in the historic Provincetown, Massachusetts.  I had the time of my life, and it was the first article that I have ever written about the bear community that was 100 percent positive minus a couple of restaurant snafu’s. The main purpose behind that article is to really make that week, and any event in life, what YOU want to make of it.  Just rely on yourself to have a good time and not outside voices that could influence your everyday decisions.  So when I went to go post about it on my personal Facebook page, and thank the many people who made the week amazing, I wasn’t expecting a debate to occur about the exclusion of particular races as an end result.  This was the comment that set everything off-

Ryan Shea, thank you for your work. I applaud your auto ethnographic script, however, there is an opposition to the experiences, in which you describe. To refocus one premise, one can make Bear Week what they want is a fallacy due to a multitude of factors. Although we attempt to hide it, the error of racial and economical differentiation it highly visible and widely practiced; often times these actions are unconscious efforts, while other times the conscious efforts are design to exclude. Case in point, racially, Bear Week has a number of ethnicities attending its function; instead of generating social activities that are diverse, one is left to select only from Eurocentric activities that are constructed and produced for the ease and comfort of those who subscribe to Eurocentric norms. Here, I do want to impress upon the notion that I’m not in favor of a dualistic event, however for an event of this magnitude, a conscious level of pluralism is expected. Secondly, to error of dividing participants along economic lines is highly documented by the accepted practices of location, location, location. Mind you, I know this is a widely accepted practice in US society and the reflection at Bear Week evidence this practice; still it promotes an air of eliteness and “A” bear list status. These two examples are minor grains of sand to a major beach of social inequalities of Bear Week, yet participants wallow in the joy of second citizenry of this event. Now, personally I’m a decent person, who has been described as easy on the eyes, in addition, I like to believe I’m socially well adjusted and very capable of engaging others. Even with these very desired qualities, many times I found myself marginalized, left out, and over looked. Initially, I didn’t have a response, however after much internal analysis of the external factors, I hypothesized that ethnicity and economics are major contributors to the pervasive inequalities presented by Bear Week facilitators and it’s participants. We can not excuse injustice, regardless of how it comes about. With that being said, these particular injustices regardless of how they are packaged must be underscored and addressed – so to look at what doesn’t happen as a lens for action, it becomes evident that it is not solely incumbent on the individual to make Bear Week what they want it to be, instead an examination into the institutionalized practices of Bear Week to motets might reveal a better way to organize the event so to truly offer an experience where one can own it, thus having access to the same levels of enjoyment as other participants. Truly, I am sympathetic to the participants, and as a participant I can see the joy in the surface of the event. But once there’s time for reflection, one can not escape the idea that if I wanted make Bear Week what I want, am I getting what I paid for…and Bear Week as advertised was certainly not it.

That was a lot to take in for one, but the gist of what this particular person is saying is that Bear Week, and many bear events, are not really what you make of it, it is what they present that you have to deal with.  So if you aren’t of a certain ethnicity, financial or “popular” status where you are considered a bearlebrity of sorts, then this event really isn’t designed for you.  I find this very troublesome for so many different reasons.  For one-  the outside voices that I neglected to listen to while I was there that pretty much said this entire event was Muscle Bear 101 wasn’t completely true.  Were there Muscle Bears?  Sure, but for the most part they were incredibly friendly and didn’t go by the Manhattan type attitude which is if you don’t look like us than you can fuck with or us.  That is just one part of this.

The second part is race, which is something that has had more of an open discussion in recent years.  A big debate I saw happen on some particular Facebook pages was the scandal surrounding last year’s Bear Week cover photo, which was all white men.  Several people of color and Caucasian men scowled at this and were quite offended, claiming that this further proved a general mindset that the bear community is white designed and doesn’t particularly advertise any men of color as being apart of it.  After a lot of back and forth about this, it seemed to have some sort of an influence as the 2015 cover photo now features men of many ethnicities.  Now the new problem is that several people are saying that there are no hairy men in this photo, and the bear community is known for obviously being hairy.  OY VEY.

My general response is the following to all of this-  Why care?  Why do we let a simple photo dictate what we do with our lives?  I am a shorter blond cub with a bit of weight on him.  Did I see that in a photo with only 7 MEN?  No.  Do I let it affect if I show up to something or not?  No. Do I see both sides on this when it comes to the race issue- yes I absolutely do.  My personal thoughts is that the photographer should go to the Boat Slip during Tea Dance and take a massive photo from the top of the deck where you can see every type of guy down below.  That way if there is someone who doesn’t feel like they fit into this crowd due to size, color or whatnot, they can find something in that particular picture.  Sort of like a Where’s Waldo of sorts, although from my POV it really shouldn’t have to happen that way.

I think the issue in today’s society when it comes to self identifying yourself not only in the gay, bear or any type of community is resorting back to your middle school years where you feel like you want to belong.  In other words, conform to where you feel comfortable in that particular position that you are in.  This goes way beyond Bear Week, it can be so deep as to how someone operates in life.  At what point do we stop dealing with this whole mob mentality in life and really just go into something without fear of rejection due to how one looks?  Are we really that shallow of a society where someone’s skin color or financial status determines what land they can actually freaking walk on?  I think if that answer is true than we have a lot to work on as a community.

What do you think about this? 

The Short Form: The 66th Emmy Awards

by

Laverne Cox (source: E!)
Laverne Cox (source: E!)

The Short Form: The 66th Emmy Awards

Seth’s Hosting Job: I think Seth did a great job at keeping the proceedings going, but at times the show hit a very late night vibe with minimal grandiosity. This may be in part because his monologue was so brief and he was introduced with minimal fanfare (there wasn’t much of an opening credit sequence that you tend to see in awards shows), but what should be considered one of the big four awards shows almost seemed infinitely smaller than it should have. His monologue was not only short but seemed to fall fairly flat with the crowd, which was unfortunate because it was actually very funny, but the crowd seemed to appreciate the jokes more as the night went on.

The Show Itself: This show seemed to completely lack luster from well before the show even began (as one can expect from a show that scared off of a Sunday for the friggin VMA’s). Normally from awards shows we expect a pompous overblown affair with tons of glad-handing, self-aggrandizing, multiple sets and set changes and **shiver** overwrought musical numbers, however we got a bare minimum of those tonight. The one area the show completely dominated over the prior edition however, was in it’s memoriam segment, while last year we got six funeral dirges, this year we got one simple, classy, memoriam with Billy Crystal providing the best awards show eulogy for a man I’ve ever seen in his speech about Robin Williams.

It was a surprisingly good night to be CBS (or Modern Family): If last year was the story of cable and Netflix burying those last shovels of dirt on the big four, then this year would be about the big four making the most of their nominations. CBS picked up three Emmys on three different shows (Allison Janney for Mom, Jim Parsons for The Big Bang Theory and Juliana Margulies for The Good Wife). Modern Family also picked up a trio of Emmys for Best Supporting Actor, Best Directing and Best Comedy Series, meaning that yes, those pesky broadcast networks managed to pick up all but two of the major comedy awards tonight.

Breaking Bad Gets A Stunning Victory Lap: Up until the 10pm hour, the story of this night seemed to be parity. The comedy category split awards between five different shows (Modern Family, Louie, Veep, Mom and The Big Bang Theory), The miniseries hour saw similar division. However, once 10 pm hit, it was win after win after win for the last half-season of Breaking Bad. The final list included Best Supporting Actor (Aaron Paul), Best Supporting Actress (Anna Gunn), Writing (Moira Walley-Beckett for Ozymandias), Best Actor in a Drama (Bryan Cranston), and Best Drama Series.

Lena Dunham (Source: E!)
Lena Dunham (Source: E!)

On the Red Carpet Front: The story of this night on the red carpets is most definitely the color red. You could find red dresses anywhere on the red carpet, from Heidi Klum to E! Host Giuliana Rancic to Julia-Louis Dreyfuss and Christina Hendricks. While red is typically a very bold choice, the color seemed to work equally well on everyone wearing it even as the cuts varied wildly.

In terms of winners and losers, this is a night with way more winners than losers, especially on the comedy side. In addition to the red dress brigade, I was a big fan of Sofia Vergara’s white and gold combo, Sarah Silverman’s jade green dress, and . I think the big winner of the night was Laverne Cox who shone through the sea of champagne and red with an amazing and downright sexy white dress.

What didn’t work on the red carpet? I wasn’t a fan of Lena Dunham’s light pink look. While Dunham typically goes for something a little more anti-fashion as a rule, the dress, her skin, and her hair somehow managed to clash horrendously. Similarly Hayden Pannettiere’s decision to combine a deep plunging neckline and a third trimester baby bump just did not work for me. But for me, the biggest loser of the night was clearly E!’s clutch cam, which didn’t provide either the scandal, entertainment value or buzz (seriously people, it’s a bag – I may watch red carpet but I draw the line at accessories).

The Night In Speeches: In keeping with the pace of the show, everything seemed quick and to the point. Ty Burrell opened up the night with a pretty funny speech written from the kids on the cast of Modern Family. Sarah Silverman gave a similarly funny but incredibly winged speech after winning the writing award for her recent comedy special on HBO – thanking her agents while naming them after The Three Stooges and a number of other close confidants in one of the rare speeches that can be categorized as both short and rambling.

Steven Colbert and Jimmy Fallon teamed up after a flub filled award win for The Colbert Report to put together a pretty funny speech in which Colbert put words in Fallon’s mouth ultimately forcing the censors to jump in (in retrospect, I wonder why NBC didn’t offer Fallon the gig, he seems tailor made for stuff like this). Weirdly enough, the funniest speech of the night was Bryan Cranston’s self deprecating speech for Best Actor in A Drama

In Summation: This was a surprisingly tight show, fitting pretty squarely inside the 3 hour window NBC gave for the show. The Emmys also managed to avoid the funeral dirge angle that last year had with it’s six memoriam segments (five spotlights and the one usual montage) but also still seemed to miss the celebratory nature of these sort of shows. I think that the blame rests squarely on NBC, whom clearly treated this show as an afterthought (there’s still time left in the broadcast, let’s rush Vince Gilligan offstage in the last award of the night!), with little pomp and less circumstance. I don’t necessarily think that the show was bad, just lacking in star power (the only music segment featured “Weird Al”) and grandiosity (when you’re taking the backseat to the lowest wattage VMA’s in recent memory in spectacle, you’re clearly doing something wrong) and almost felt that the awards were reduced to a formality – a function i’m willing to guess was in part a result of the lack of love the peacock got in the nominating process (CBS and ABC did quite fine thank you).

Last but not least, this is my last day at Manhattan Digest, so I want to take this moment to thank Ryan for giving me a forum to grouse about TV over the last year and a half. It’s kinda crazy to see how I’ve grown as a writer and even moreso as a pop-culture consumer (lets just say I’ve watched more E! and Bravo in the last year and a half than I had any business doing in the 26 years of my life prior). I also want to thank all of you whom have read, commented, and devoted a little bit of time to reading this.

Fall Preview 2014: ABC

by

 

Fall Preview: ABC

Last year, ABC’s went through a big shuffle, blowing up Tuesdays in the hope of capitalizing on Disney’s Marvel movie universe. This time around, ABC keeps a very similar lineup only switching up some new shows while generally standing pat.

Sundays feature the usual cocktail of dramas for ABC, with Once Upon A Time, Resurrection, and Revenge (all return 9/28) returning to their regular slots of 8 and 9 and 10pm respectively. Mondays also feature their usual lineup of Dancing With The Stars (9/15) leading into Castle (9/29). While Dancing with the Stars received a cut in hours last year, the show maintains it’s 2 hour slot this year, preventing any further time related clawbacks for the veteran series.

Tuesdays, which was the alphabet’s trouble spot last year, still maintains the seemingly hodgepodge scheduling ABC gave it last year, but a slight shuffle makes the lineup start to make a little more sense. The night is still built around tentpole show Agents of SHIELD, which moves to 9 pm (9/23), allowing for both the lead in and lead out effect of last year’s most hyped show to positively affect the remainder of the night. The night begins with two new comedies in Selfie and Manhattan Love Story (both debut 9/30), and in a positive development, ABC finally stops pairing non-family comedies with Modern Family. Following Agents in the ABC’s Tuesday 10pm death slot (which killed three series last year) is Forever (9/22 – time slot premiere 9/23), a show that melds crime procedural, medical procedural, and vampires.

Wednesdays are still ABC’s comedy wheelhouse and the lineup resembles what ABC should have gone with last year. The Middle and The Goldbergs hold the 8pm hour firm leading into Modern Family at 9. It’s another year, and another lead out for ABC’s most watched comedy, as the show melds into urban family comedy Blackish at 9:30. Nashville survives another year to round out the lineup at 10 (all shows debut 9/24). The thing I like about this lineup is ABC finally figured out that it should just keep it’s family centric comedies together. At no point was the audience for Modern Family, The Middle, and Surburgatory ever really going to go for a show like Super Fun Night, Happy Endings, or Don’t Trust the B.

Thursdays see a slight shuffle with Grey’s Anatomy moving to 8pm while Scandal finds it’s home in the 9pm slot. New show How to Get Away with Murder premieres at 10. This is a very strong lineup, if only because it effectively counterprograms against the newly enhanced Thursday Night Football menace (more on that tomorrow) by focusing on three shows that will likely skew heavily female (all shows debut 9/25).

Fridays bring the usual mix of Shark Tank, 20/20 (both return 9/26) and the return of Tim Allen’s Last Man Standing (10/3), while adding quirky comedy Cristela (10/10) to the mix. ABC has found a surprisingly high amount of success with this hodgepodge lineup over the last couple of seasons and there isn’t much of a reason to change it. Saturdays meanwhile are the domain of College Football, a recurring trend that one can expect to see across over all four networks.

Tomorrow: CBS’s fall lineup features some interesting moves. Keep following us at Manhattan Digest for more.

 

Theater Review: Revolution In the Elbow of Ragnar Agnarsson Furniture Painter

by

CADY HUFFMAN as Manuela in REVOLUTION IN THE ELBOW OF RAGNAR AGNARSSON FURNITURE PAINTER . Photos: Carol Rosegg
CADY HUFFMAN as Manuela in REVOLUTION IN THE ELBOW OF
RAGNAR AGNARSSON FURNITURE PAINTER .
Photo: Carol Rosegg

There is something to be said for starting a revolution. In the case of the new off-Broadway rock musical Revolution In the Elbow of Ragnar Agnarsson Furniture Painter, the most obvious comment  might be:  “What in the holy name of  Robert Redford is this show about?”  Why Redford? Because his name is frequently evoked  and a prayer is made to him by residents  of Elbowville in this head scratcher of a show.  Effective revolutions generally require a strong sense of organization and logic in order to thwart oppression or overthrow power.  This one only demands a taste of irony and the ability to comprehend non sequitur jokes about lobstering and living in the physical space of someone’s elbow.

Press releases and “googling” suggest that our Elbowvillians are spinning a tale which reflects the Icelandic Financial Crisis. (It’s a good idea to have a bit of background going into this, so you can brace yourself for the oddities that await.)  Here’s the gist: In this once serene place, a driven boy wonder, Peter (Merrick Smith) unveils a new “prosperity machine”, a contraption which produces money. What happens when the cash runs low? Simply turn on the machine and voila!- more monetary merriment abounds. In theory, it seems like the perfect utopia. Yet the dollar weakens and once the material possessions of homes and cars are purchased,  there is no way to pay back the loans. Sound familiar? It should, as it paralleled the economic woes of our own Nation starting in 2008. A search was made high and low for a musical team to write Revolution In the Left Ventricle of Dick Cheney  Devil Incarnate but no one had the heart to stage it. Sarcasm aside, there’s more to the story; as the perception of acquired wealth growths for the elbow inhabitants, they desire more and are led down the path of dalliance by the leaders of the town, Kolbein (Patrick Boll) and Manuela (Tony award winner Cady Huffman). And because everything but the dish and spoon are already crammed into this show, a Faustian-like character, Mandrake (Rick Faugno) also makes an appearance.

To be fair, the show has inexhaustible energy, exciting choreography by Lee Proud, and a driving, infectious score.  Although some  songs end with anti-climactic buttons and one wishes that composer Ivar Pall Jonnson would have taken them to a higher plane, for which he is certainly capable.  For a rather confusing piece, this gifted cast makes the most of the material and generally, the show is often entertaining. It  is certainly one of the more unique offerings to be staged in some time. Jonsson, a native of Iceland, also wrote the book and lyrics.  It remains unclear exactly what his intended meaning might be. Perhaps the point is that we are all occasional victims of cosmic chaos and that there is little which is absolute? Who knows!  In the early nineties, C&C Music Factory had a hit song called, “Things that Make you Go Hmmm.”  Revolution In the Elbow… is one of those things.

 

Revolution In the Elbow of Ragnar Agnarsson Furniture Painter is now playing off- Broadway at the Minetta Lane Theater, 18-22 Minetta Lane between Ave. of the Americas and Minetta Street. For tickets visit  http://revolutionelbow.com.