Favorite Video Games, Part 3

I haven't seen any theatre in a couple weeks so I'll continue with round three of my system by system trek through the history of my favorite video games. Rounds 1 and 2 covered the beginnings of the Nintendo/Sega console war (as well as their handhelds, some early computer games and Atari).

Growing up, I remember regular trips to places like Outer Limits up at the Scottsdale Pavillions to enjoy a variety of arcade games (as well as the occasional laser tag, mini golf, or go karting). This was, of course, before it turned into a Fiddlesticks (which I still visited and had many a high school friends who worked there) and then later closed its doors all together (an early sign of the times and the collateral damage to the oncoming Playstation/X-Box console wars). With that in mind, I figured before diving into the Super Nintendo for the brunt of this piece, perhaps now is as good a time as any to slip some of my favorite Arcade Cabinets. Back in the days before something like Goldeneye on the Nintendo 64 or this little thing called the internet changed multi-player gaming forever, the arcade was the best play to go hang out with some friends and enjoy gaming together. Or if we wanted to divide and conquer, we could go our separate ways and enjoy games like Top Skater (that skateboarding one with the footboard and handrails, classics like Pac-Man and Asteroids, or on-the-rails shooters like the Star Wars Trilogy, Area 51, and Time Crisis. But screw the Dance Dance Revolution games. If I wanted to dance, I'd dance instead of spend my time coming up with elaborate moves to coincide with the button pattern of jumping around on those pads.

Favorite Video Games, Part 2

I've spent a lot of time over the past couple weeks enjoying South Park: The Stick of Truth. It is easily one of the funniest games I've ever played and the whole game is littered with fan-service references to the show's past. This coming week, I'll be diving into the Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster (the last games in the series I really engaged in and didn't just play hoping for the best) and Infamous: Second Son (the first next-gen game I'm really excited about). I imagine I'll write up some thoughts on each of these games in future posts.

So here is round two of some of my favorite video games/video game memories over the years.  If you're just joining me, you can catch up on my thoughts on Atari, early PC, and Nintendo games in Part 1.

ASU Gammages 14-15 Season: Webber, and Schwartz, and Fosse, oh my...

While writing up my next video game post tonight, I was following along to the live stream of ASU Gammage's 2014-15 season announcement. I'm a little mad at this blog right now because for some reason, none of my work saved so now I have to go back and rewrite the damn post. Grumble grumble grumble...

Add to that my very underwhelming response to the season and I'm not a happy camper tonight. But before I rewrite the video game post, here are my brief thoughts on the 2014-2015 50th Anniversary Season of Gammage:

Kinky Boots (Sept. 16-21, 2014) - The one and only show I'm really interested in seeing at Gammage next season.

Pippin (Dec. 2-7, 2014) - It's not often that Phoenix Theatre gets a show before Gammage does but because they'd had the rights since before the Broadway Revival actually happened, that's what we've got going on right now. Yes, the tour will probably have flashier, more big-budget spectacle, but you can also see it at Phoenix Theatre for the next two weeks in a much more intimate space (probably a little cheaper too).

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (Jan. 13-18, 2015) - Seen it. At Gammage.

Dirty Dancing (Feb. 17-22, 2015) - Baby, you stay in that corner. If I want to watch this story, I'll pull it up on Netflix. But I'm much more likely to just watch the Everything Wrong With video again.

Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella (Mar. 10-15, 2015) - The version with Brandy in the 90s was all I really ever needed to see.

Motown (Apr. 21-26, 2015) - I've never been one for musical revues so I'll just listen to a Motown playlist on Pandora or Spotify instead.

The Phantom of the Opera (May 27-June 7, 2015) - Seen it. At Gammage. Plus, I've got Gerard Butler as the Phantom on DVD thank you very much. I'd much rather get some friends together and Mystery Science Theater 3000 the hell out of that.

SPECIAL ENGAGEMENTS

Chicago (Mar. 27-29, 2015) - Seen it. At Gammage. And another fun one to MST3K. Or just have the world's most boring drinking game where you only drink when you can see Renée Zellweger's pupils.

Wicked (Aug. 26-Oct. 4, 2015) - Let's see, we had The Lion King at Gammage this season. And the season before that was Les Miserables (plus Phoenix Theatre is doing it in the coming months). That must mean Wicked gets back in the rotation.  Also. Seen it. At Gammage. And New York.

Other thoughts:

Obviously The Book of Mormon is still a no-show. The long-standing rumor (that-I-have-absolutely-no-evidence-to-support-but-we-all-talk-about-anyway-so-don't-sue-me) has for years been that allegedly Ira Fulton is a major supporter of ASU/Gammage and opposes the mockery of his faith in the show so it will never come through the roadhouse or supposedly he'll pull his funding. I hear this year after year but I also heard through a variety of theatrical back channels this year that Gammage had secured the tour rights anyway. Guess not. Well, I'll spend my money elsewhere. It's just a shame I can't compare to that housing market money.

Overall, it's a very safe 50th season:

• Two Andrew Lloyd Webber shows (Joseph and Phantom)
• Two Stephen Schwartz shows (Pippin and Wicked)
• Two Bob Fosse shows (Chicago and Pippin again)
• Two movie adaptations (Kinky Boots and Dirty Dancing)
• A musical from the "classic" era (Cinderella)
• And an everyone-loves-the-music musical revue (Motown)

(A previous version of this post had a needlessly snatchy bit about the presentation itself. Upon further thought, I've decided to remove it).

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the upcoming season. What do you think?

Double Double, Toil and Trouble: We've Got Magic to Do

Review of Pippin at Phoenix Theatre and Equivocation at Southwest Shakespeare Company

Last weekend, I attended the opening night performance of Pippin alongside many of my co-workers at Phoenix Theatre and followed it up Saturday night with a performance of Southwest Shakespeare Company's Equivocation. This wound up being one of the most oddly thematic one-two punches of theatre I can ever remember seeing.

Pippin features a troupe of performers telling a fictionalized version of the life of Pippin, son of Charlemagne. Equivocation features a troupe of performers working with William "Shagspeare" telling a fictionalized version of events in which the renowned playwright is commissioned to write a play about the infamous Gunpowder Plot.

Both productions showcase the idea of theatricality - often jumping in and out of their respective plays-within-the-plays, breaking the fourth wall, and embracing the magic of live theatre (Pippin somewhat literally on that last one). This focus on theatricality, however, also served as a metaphorical fork in the road of these two productions: one path really worked for me while the other did not.

My Return to the Opera

Review of La Traviata by Giuseppe Verdi at the Arizona Opera

First, some background. Growing up, my favorite (and really only) opera experience was the opera scene from Final Fantasy III (VI) on the Super Nintendo: a beautiful little 10-minute opera in glorious 16-bit form.

Following my graduation from Arizona State University with a degree in Theatre in the Spring of 2008, I spent the summer as an Apprentice Carpenter for the Santa Fe Opera. This was my first an only foray into Summer Stock and, by all accounts, they're a pretty top tier Summer Stock gig. I was one of two carpenters and I got hired on prior to most other applicants even being interviewed because the Technical Director also happened to be an ASU alum. Yay alumni connections (though it hasn't really proved beneficial since)!

Anyway, while there I got to see all five of their operas that summer: Falstaff, The Marriage of Figaro, Billy Budd, Radamisto, and Adriana Mater. Outside of some videos in my Theatre History classes, this was my first introduction to opera. On the carpentry side, I wasn't really doing anything I hadn't done working in the scene shop at ASU, everything was just way more expensive. On the performance side, however, I was largely disappointed.

Follow Up to Putting AZ Back in AZ Theatre

I have had a couple people reach out with some questions regarding my last post so I thought I'd take the time to add a bit more food for thought.

The brunt of my criticism was directed at Arizona Theatre Company. Due to many of shows being their co-productions with other regional theatres, this is where we end up getting the highest ratio of out-of-state to local talent (save for the touring houses like Gammage). I then opened up those criticisms to the likes of Phoenix Theatre, Actors Theatre, and Southwest Shakespeare. I should have done a better job specifying that when I was speaking of these other companies, it tends to be a few roles here and there (rather than entire productions). But they are often the Lead roles in those productions.

Side note: I did not speak to Arizona Broadway Theatre as another local Equity house because I have not actually seen any of their shows and so it slipped my mind. Same with Theatreworks if they have made the jump to Equity house (as I've only seen Ragtime out there). But it is my understanding that they both have cast shows in the same way (bring in a New York/LA actor for the lead(s) and cast the rest locally).

I'm not completely opposed to this practice but I wish it were more of a last resort than it seems to be. From a business perspective, I guess I have a kind of Local First mentality in this regard. And artistically/communally, I've watched people leave town saying things like, "the opportunities just aren't here and those that are will go to out of town talent over me."

I should take a second now to emphasize that I'm never actually IN any of the casting sessions at any of these companies so what I'm saying is really all pure conjecture on my part. That said, let's look at some examples.

Pippin just opened at Phoenix Theatre this past weekend and I find it hard to believe there wasn't anyone local who could have played the Leading Player and/or Pippin but both of these roles were cast from a New York casting call. And that's not to take away anything from the performances of those two actors (which I'll try to write about later in the week) but I could have also seen a handful of local actors who would sunk their teeth into those roles. Going back to my original post, something like casting Kathy Fitzgerald in Gypsy makes sense because that's a name that means something in Phoenix and (even though it was before my time with the company) I remember Phoenix Theatre built a marketing campaign around her. But when we bring in that out of town talent without any kind of name recognition, we lose that option and have to rely much more on good word of mouth about their performances.

Actors Theatre's marketing of 4000 Miles was an example of utilizing this option with the local twist. I don't know if it was an intentional marketing strategy but everything I saw about the show also mentioned Patti Suarez (with many people throwing in superlatives like "Valley-favorite" before her name). You couple that with performances in a venue much more appropriate for their current audience than Stage West and you have sell-out houses. When they could afford to bring in out-of-towners, I personally think it was hit or miss. Bringing in someone when they were the originator of the role or someone who had done the show before (a la Triple Espresso or Andy Warhol: Good for the Jews?) makes sense, but bringing in the leads when there are local actors willing and able (a la Dead Man's Cell Phone or In the Next Room (or The Vibrator Play)) was money that might have been better spent elsewhere. Again here, I'm not speaking to whether or not the performances were good, but rather if they were worth the added costs when compared to a local artist.

I also saw Southwest Shakespeare Company's Equivocation this past weekend and I think it is a great example of why this mentality of casting out-of-towners is NOT necessarily needed (and really the whole "living within their means" side of my argument as it was a scaled-down production compared to some of their other recent works). This is another one I'll try to formulate a more focused write-up about later this week but I loved everything about that show and it is a testament to the talent we have around town. Now, does that come as a result of Director David Barker's involvement across the Valley scene? Maybe. When I think about the Southwest Shakespeare shows I've really enjoyed the pass few seasons, it has been those with David Barker or David Vining at the helm. I would submit that those two work on and see enough theatre around town that they have a great grasp on the community. And this knowledge of who's out there puts them in a position where they are able to identify somebody who might be great for a role. Other directors with less of an external focus in the community might have a much smaller idea of what talent we actually have in town.

There's also certainly an argument here that the local actors just aren't showing up to the auditions so the companies have to look elsewhere. I've certainly sat through auditions where people I knew just didn't show up. Hell, I myself have backed out of a handful of auditions (though I always notify the company because I know how frustrating no-shows are). There's a chicken and egg thing at play here, too. Regarding the local actors I do see on stage: do I see the same actors on these stages because other actors don't show up? Or do the other actors not show up because they always see the same actors onstage and think "what's the point?"

Or do I see the same faces because everyone shows up and I just have an over-inflated sense of the talent pool? As always, I'm eager to hear your thoughts about this as well.

Put "Arizona" Back into Arizona Theatre

Commentary on Other Desert Cities by Jon Robin Baitz - Arizona Theatre Company

Note up front that this is a commentary inspired by the show, not a review of the show itself. And if you're new to my writing, I would encourage you to check out where I'm coming from in my introductory post.

I liked Other Desert Cities just fine. I enjoyed the script when I read it (save the last scene which feels off tonally from the rest of the show; as if it's the Sixteen Candles Pretty in Pink of plays where an original ending focus-tested poorly so the current ending was created instead). And as I've described the production to friends, I found Arizona Theatre Company's rendition "adequately serviceable." And by that I mean, not bad (solid performances all around) but also nothing that is going to stay with me. But watching this production and reading through the program got me interested in another topic: the lack of "Arizona" in a lot of what Arizona Theatre Company does.

Not a single role in this production was cast from local talent. There seems to be this pervading belief at a lot of the Equity houses in town that Arizona talent just can't compare to the kind of talent New York or Los Angeles or some other major theatrical city (i.e. Chicago, Seattle, Minneapolis) can provide. As an artist who has seen a lot of theatre in this town (likely more than some Artistic Directors because they are often too busy running their companies, or in rehearsals, or even out of state on other directing gigs), I take great offense to that assumption. The talent is here. I've seen it first hand. And using it could save companies a lot of money.



Arizona Theatre Company famously (at least if you follow Arizona theatre news) had a million-dollar deficit at the end of their 2012-13 fiscal year. That's not the kind of thing that just creeps up overnight. I imagine there were plenty of warning signs along the way that just went unheeded in the lead up to that announcement. But as they have poised themselves as Arizona's Premiere Regional Theatre, there were also probably a lot of costs they couldn't cut: shows that they were committed two because of partnerships with other organizations. Two of my favorite productions last season across the Valley were Next to Normal and Clybourne Park, both of which were Co-Productions with other Regional Theatres.  And again, to the best of my recollection, neither of those productions featured local talent (save the miniscule walk-on role at the close of Clybourne Park that could have been - and often is - cast from one of the other seven actors in the show). That's twelve actors that the company had to provide housing and per diems for over seven weeks of performances (three in Tucson and four in Phoenix). Not exactly a small line item in a budget.

As I mentioned above, all three of these productions (as well as another recent favorite of mine Red) have been Co-Productions with other Regional Theatres. This likely reduced some of the costs associated with design elements like set and costumes. In these arrangements, production costs are typically shared between the two producers. Other Desert Cities, for example, was a co-production with Indiana Repertory Theatre. It would appear that the set and costumes were built down in Tucson for the ATC run down there, then trucked up here for the Phoenix engagement, and then were immediately shipped off to Indiana for a March 12 - April 5 run. And given that four of the five actors were making their ATC debut, but the understudies were Tucson-based, I would gather that the show was primarily cast from an Indiana (or LA/New York casting pool) but rehearsed in Tucson (adding another couple weeks of housing and per diem costs).

But what are the revenue gains by this kind of production decision? The one actor who had performed on the ATC stage before was here back in 1998. So you can't really market the actors of a show as familiar faces to your audience ("You loved John Doe in Last Year's Award-Winning Drama so we brought him back for you: our loyal audience."). They probably weren't sooooo amazing in that one episode of Law and Order they were in that anybody would recognize them, let alone decide their "star power" was worth dropping the money to see them in a play. And it is unlikely (though not impossible) that they have a lot of friends and family in town that would come out to support them. So you're left paying a lot of extra money for this out-of-state talent for things that you wouldn't have to pay using local talent. Yes, there'd still be some costs for a Phoenix actor in Tucson or a Tucson actor in Phoenix but casting locally would cut those line items nearly in half at least. And you potentially gain any kind of following that those actors have. Because trust me, I've heard the little old ladies in the lobby saying "Oh I love him, I'll see him in anything he does. If I was forty or fifty years younger..." (Not about me of course but that's beside the point.)

"But what about the talent and experience out-of-state actors bring with them?" you're asking. Well, imaginary reader, how is it any different than that of our local actors and actresses? As I watched Other Desert Cities, I thought of at least two other local actors I could have imagined seeing in each of the five roles. Our actors have their own talent and experiences, as well. Whether or not they've done a national tour or had one line in a television episode nobody saw doesn't matter if they can do the part. And the only thing keeping them from doing the part is this belief that Arizona actors are somehow inferior to these other locations.

This doesn't even get into the notion of the ego that someone from New York or L.A. might have. If someone considers themselves a New York actor, they're probably getting cast in an Arizona production because they're not getting cast in New York. But rather than appreciate that they've been given an opportunity to play a dream role, they focus on this idea that Arizona is beneath them and so why should they bother listening to what the Arizona director has to say and they phone in their performances and cash their checks and enjoy the weather and end up letting the Ensemble of local talent completely outshine them. We the audience are left with a lackluster performance that would have been a hundred times better if that Ensemble who was so hungry to show what they can do in this community were given the leading roles instead. And the company wasted a bunch of money on those per diem and housing costs for actors who never really left New York.

This post has largely harped on ATC for this issue as it is my most recent example and the spark for this conversation. But the scenario I just provided wasn't an ATC situation but rather my perception of how my own company's production of season opener RENT could have been better than it was. I can't confirm that's what happened, but that's sure what it looked like to me.

All four of our major Equity houses have gone through financial troubles in recent years (in my opinion) because they've forgotten how to live within their means.  There were some very plush years, but we're in a funding drought right now and you need to find a way to reign in the costs in if you want to weather the storm. You can only raise ticket prices so high before you tip the scales and people stop providing that income as well.

And as a member of this incredibly talented community, I believe putting the Arizona back in Arizona Theatre Company, the Phoenix in Phoenix Theatre and Actors Theatre of Phoenix, and the Southwest in Southwest Shakespeare Company would be a solid first step on this road to recovery. Ideally, you'd do it because you want to and believe in this community and not out of some kind of financial necessity but I really can't speak to why these companies make the decisions they do. I can only hypothesize that going this route would help balance some books; it's up to them to perform the experiment.