Tuesday, June 25, 2024

Wandering Stars by Tommy Orange

Source of book: I own this

Wandering Stars was the selection for our book club this month. We previously read Tommy Orange’s first book, There There, before the pandemic, so we were generally eager to read this one. Some of those who missed reading the first book did so at this time. In my opinion, it is best to read the first one first, because the second one is both a prequel and a sequel to the first one. But the books can stand alone as well. 


 

Wandering Stars starts off with the Sand Creek Massacre, continues with the forced education of Native children (“kill the Indian to save the man”, and eventually the migration to Oakland - thus filling in the four or so generations before the characters in There There. This section is the first third of the book. It ends with the childhoods of Opal and Jackie - the grandmothers in the first book. 

 

The second two thirds follows the lives of the three brothers - Orvil, Loother, and Lony - after the mass shooting at the Pow Wow that ends the first book. 

 

Orvil was gravely wounded, but survived, albeit traumatized and now addicted to painkillers. Loother seems to have the most intact psyche, but he has largely withdrawn from the family. Lony is turning into a mystic, and has started cutting himself. 

 

We also continue with Jacquie, who has miraculously managed to stay sober for an extended period. Opal, who continues to hold the family together, has been diagnosed with the cancer that killed her mother, and has less bandwidth to monitor and care for the boys. 

 

I won’t spoil the rest of the plot, but the fates of all of these characters hang in the balance throughout the book, as does that of Sean, a mixed-race adopted boy who becomes the friend - and drug source - of Orvil. (Sean has his own trauma: his mother died horribly of an early-onset dementia, his dad is a professional drug dealer after losing his pharmacist job, and his older brother looks down on him for not being “blood.”) 

 

Tommy Orange’s writing is excellent. In particular, his writing about addiction is so very real and nuanced. I am not sure if Orange himself struggled with addiction, but he has said that it runs in his family. He avoids simplistic and simple answers, and neither excuses nor condemns. Likewise for the effects of trauma - there is always more going on than a simple “man up” or victimhood. Things are complicated. 

 

The title of the book comes from, of all places, the book of Jude, in the New Testament. It’s a rather weird book, full of references to angels fucking human women - those “wandering stars.” The earliest ancestor in the book names himself Jude after this book, finding in the language something too “foreign” to be truly a part of the white man’s religion that has been forced on him. 

 

A theme that runs through the book is that of running away. Jude runs away from the massacre, Charles runs away from a Native ceremony that goes awry, Victoria flees to Oakland first, then from her employers who want her unborn child, Jacquie buries her pain in alcohol, Jamie does the same and dies of her addiction, Loother hides in his love for his girlfriend, Lony in his mysticism and eventual flight from the family altogether, Orvil runs to drugs. And on it goes, down the generations. 

 

The book is not without hope, though - through it all, for the most part, the characters find their way and their identities. And the relics of the past are rediscovered and tie the family together in its own way. 

 

There are some fascinating lines in the book, insights into the experience of being human, and being a marginalized human. The first one is this one, in the last episode of the first part, regarding Victoria Bear Shield, who will become the mother of Opal and Jacquie. Her early experiences with men are, like that of so many women, appalling. Victoria fights back, though. 

 

Find ways to get back at them. Leak the air from their tires, call them in the middle of the night whispering sour nothings, let their dogs out of their yards, drop frozen fish in the open windows of their cars, call out their names on the street then hide; these men who hurt you, who wrong you, who hit you, make them miserable in every way you can. Some would call it spite, for women it will be called spite and being vindictive; while injured men receive their justice and pass out their vengeance, women will be called petty and catty, won’t get to feel the honor a word like revenge endows upon men. 

 

This is quite the statement. Women are indeed denied the dignity of “revenge” the way men allowed to experience. I am reminded of Nesrine Malik’s observation that white Americans love to look down on the Islamic world because of “honor killings,” completely oblivious to the fact that we in the West have our honor killings just as often - women are primarily killed by male intimate partners. Men are admired in a way, for asserting dominance and punishing women for getting out of line. But women are just catty when they do the same. Or even just fight back. 

 

Corresponding to this is a passage where Sean, who (surprise!) turns out to be gay or bisexual and non-binary (the book is a bit unclear in the epilogue), rejects the masculinity of his older brother. 

 

Sometimes it felt like he just wished he did not have to belong to the group of men that made him a part of what Mike was all about. That square-jawed American brutishness, that surly dickishness. Sean had always felt uncomfortable being referred to as a boy, or as a young man. But, and he knew this was the biggest but, feeling nonbinary did not mean he wasn’t a man who directly benefited from being a man. Men were a secret cult. To be a boy being groomed to be a man was to be joining a secret cult against women, and against anything not squarely a man - square-jawed shape into the square-jawed hole. Not every single boy. Not every single man. Not Sean. He didn’t think. But he knew he was a part of it, and could not fully recuse himself from participation in all that it included. 

As a cishet white man, I definitely feel this. I am not much of a “masculine” sort in the way described. I’m a proud Beta, I like cooking and violin and flowers and poetry and ambling in the wilderness and being with my kids, and a bunch of other stuff that doesn’t code as “masculine” these days - although it did so more in the Victorian Era, ironically. 

 

But I can’t really opt out of the privilege I have. The most I can do is to treat women well, and use what influence I have to make the world better for everyone. 

 

If Sean wants to opt out of masculinity, Loother wants to opt out of society. This description is fascinating. 

 

Loother hates that he sees other kids all see-through like the sandwich baggies Jacquie packs those no-crust neat little triangle sandwiches in for their lunches, and that they see it too, that everyone seems to be so aware of it all being so see-through and painful and funny and embarrassing, most of all embarrassing, having to be in school together and paying attention or not paying attention to fashion trends, being active online and liking and following each other there or not, but then also how everyone acts like they’re all not doing it all so see-through, that gets Loother the most, how everyone acts like they’re not feeling too much, and at the same time trying to act like they’re too cool to feel anything. 

 

God, I’m glad I never have to repeat high school or especially jr. high. Good god no. 

 

I’ll end with the last bit of the book, where Lony writes a letter to the family after years of absence. He expresses what I have been feeling about my parents’ generation for years - the way they have plundered our future, and then blamed my kids’ generation for it. 

 

I’ve known what this world’s about. I been running into it. We young ones do. We who hate that we still believe something good could come of it. We the young ones have always suffered, inherited, had to know what it means to be left behind and left with shit and left with weight and left without you or any form of help or helpful policy to bridge what’s between the abyss and anything even resembling justice and equality. 

If only the young survive the selfishness of this dying world, of old whites who always thought they owned the earth, to use and expend whatever they can grasp with their cold dead hands, who’ve always let this country down its hole, to its inevitable collapse. We who inherit the mess, this loss, this deficit, this is my prayer, for forgiveness, we the inheritors of a world abandoned. May we learn to forgive ourselves, so that we lose the weight, so that we might fly, not as birds but as people, get above the weight and carry on, for the next generations, so that we might keep living, stop doing all this dying. 

 

I have had some older relatives of mine react with fury when I have suggested that once my parents’ generation dies off, there will be a lot more hope that we can actually address the serious issues that face humanity: climate change, growing inequality, dropping life expectancies, low birth rates, and the other burdens they chose to place on the young people. Rather than spend our time (as we do now) on endless culture wars and hatred of white middle class Boomers toward anyone different from them. 

 

Now that both books are out, they can be read together, as perhaps the first two installments in Orange’s family saga. It will be interesting to see what he writes next. 

 

Monday, June 24, 2024

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (BCT 2024)

I was surprised looking back to realize that it had been 12 years since I read this play, and, since I am middle aged, I somehow forgot that it was three acts, not two (or five for that matter), and realized at the second intermission that I wasn’t imagining that there was more story. Call it a senior moment or something. 

 

Anyway, I was looking forward to seeing this one live, as I had not previously. I also haven’t seen any of the movie versions - I’m not that much of a moviegoer, preferring to read in the evenings. 

 

Bakersfield Community Theater has been a on a bit of a roll lately with some classic productions. Every local theater has its own flavor, so to speak, and role in the community. For BCT, it skews a bit older in audience, and doesn’t do as many musicals or new works. (This isn’t an absolute, just a general tendency, and there is nothing wrong with a niche.) 

 

I think that BCT is at its best with classic stage works, using veteran actors, and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof fit that bill. 

 

I already wrote a good bit about the plot when I read it - you can read that post here. (And, if you like, perhaps compare who I was a dozen years ago with who I am now…) I won’t reiterate the plot in this post. 

 

I did have some new insights, however, having seen it live. This play turns very much on dialogue - it is very wordy, and people just talk, and go on and on. I’m not complaining, because Tennessee Williams uses the abundance of words - and indeed the way the characters repeat themselves, doubling back and becoming caught in their own cycles of words and the trauma that underlies them. Since I am a Henry James fan, I actually like this sort of thing, the way the psychology is illuminated in part through the way the characters work out their own thoughts as they speak. 

 

There are also some things that come alive on stage that might not in a reading. Maggie, for example, is a lot less likable on stage. In this production, Petra Carter makes it clear that Maggie’s motives are far from pristine. Yes, she wants Brick to love her, and is frustrated by her lack of sex and children. But she also is determined that Brick will have his inheritance, and is willing to do nearly anything to get it. 

 

Brick (Josh Carruthers) and Maggie (Petra Carter)

 

As far as that goes, there is not a single likable character in this play. Everyone is terrible in their own way. This isn’t to say that there aren’t some characters that are more sympathetic than others. Maggie isn’t really in the wrong, even if I would never ever want to be married to someone like her. (I’m not nearly rich enough to make it worth her while, so no risk.) 

 

The first act is dominated by an extended dialogue between Maggie and her husband Brick. Except that to call it a “dialogue” is to mischaracterize it. It is really an monologue by Maggie, with Brick trying to avoid getting involved in it. He says a few words, but very few. Most of his role is to grunt and avoid. And drink. Constantly drink. 

 

I was fascinated by the way this came off in a live production. Petra Carter (last seen as another frustrated and wronged wife in The Crucible), managed to sustain an arc of fury and frustration and longing throughout the entire act - and the sheer memorization to get all of those lines down, and remember where to move on stage was impressive. 

 

In contrast, Josh Carruthers as Brick (last seen by me in The Importance of Being Earnest) had to do most of his acting without words, pacing on his crutch, drinking, emoting through body language and facial expression. 

 

I loved the chemistry the two of them had in this play - they really brought the characters fully to life. 

 

The other central character, who gets a heck of a lot of lines, is Big Daddy, the suddenly mortal plutocrat and patriarch. Mark Price (last seen as the Cowardly Lion) blustered and bullied his way through this role, with a eye patch, and a sense of entitlement perfect for the character. (Also fun: on his facebook page, he has been putting totally inappropriate captions to the still shots from the play - I have been dying laughing at them.) 


 Brick (Josh Carruthers) and Big Daddy (Mark Price)

But the character is deeper than he might appear at first. Yes, he is selfish, entitled, greedy, monomaniacal even; but he also knows Brick all too well - they are very much alike deep down, and the bombast of Big Daddy is a self-protection mechanism every bit as much as Brick’s withdrawal into booze and his own head. 

 

Thus, I felt very much that small line, where Big Daddy tells Brick that what Brick is really all broken up about isn’t that his friend (and crush) Skipper desired him, or that he committed suicide. Rather, it is that Brick rebuffed Skipper’s advances and feels guilty about it. And not merely that this precipitated the suicide - as bad as that is to have on a conscience - but that, despite all of his protests that he isn’t homosexual, Brick very much is, and very much desired Skipper, and the rebuff was violence to the both of them. (Big Daddy also stops barely short of outright saying that he would have accepted a gay son, which, given everything else he says, is remarkable.) 

 

The two are also joined by the unhappiness of their marriages. And unfortunately, I agree. As little as I would have wanted to be married to Maggie, Big Mama would have been a thousand times worse. She is like everything I can’t stand about a certain kind of woman from the Evangelical and Southern subcultures. (And no shade on Vickie Stricklind, who directed and played Big Mama - that was good acting, which is why I cringed so much at the character.) 


 Maggie (Petra Carter), Big Mama (Vickie Stricklind), and Mae (Janice Bondurant)

I already mentioned in my previous post that both the doctor and the minister are portrayed very negatively. Both are happy to hang out and feel important at the parties of the rich, but as soon as either is expected to actually provide comfort, they are out of there. While I won’t say that this is my experience with ministers - they vary quite a bit, and I have seen others who humaned up and brought solace in times of trouble. Doctors, though? Don’t get me started on all my wife’s stories about having to force doctors to actually talk with their patients. 

 

Ben Soelberg and Logan Scott played the doctor and minister, respectively, in this production. Both are minor parts, and they were fine in these limited roles. (I’ll mention Scott’s fall schedule, which included a pair of Shakespeare plays and Lucky in Waiting for Godot. He has the lugubrious schtick down pretty well.) 

 

Let’s see, who else? Well, Brick’s older brother, Gooper, the successful (and unscrupulous) lawyer, his hyper-gravid wife should be mentioned. And a pair of thoroughly horrid people they are too. Troy Fidis took advantage of being the tallest person in the play to loom and tower and do the thing I get (as a shorter guy) from certain lawyers - that projection of size into personal space in an attempt to intimidate. Very believable.

 

Janice Bondurant got the role of Mae, visibly pregnant, and maternal in the “see how well I perform femininity” version - the kind who thinks of children as trophies, while she not so secretly dislikes them. Again, another female character I would never want to be married to. (And, unfortunately, I am all too familiar with this behavior - currying favor with parents through children and flattery - unfortunately for me, it is far more effective in my own family than it is in this play.) 


 Reverend Tooker (Logan Scott), Gooper (Troy Fidis), Doctor Baugh (Ben Soelberg), and Mae (Janice Bondurant) 

One might generally think that Williams is a misogynist, given the utter lack of likeability of his female characters. Except that very few of his male characters are endurable either. Certainly, in this play, everyone is terrible. The only somewhat sympathetic male character that comes to mind is Tom in The Glass Menagerie, and that character is pretty obviously a stand-in for the playwright. 

 

Also, in a rather fascinating turn, Williams (practically unique among his contemporaries) openly insists (through Maggie) that women are entitled to sexual pleasure in marriage just as much as men are. Which is something that far too many men (and far too many Evangelical gurus) pointedly ignore or deny. 

 

A few other observations. The reason this play is a masterpiece is the way Williams is able to show that every main character is hiding from themselves. Brick is hiding from his sexual orientation by drinking and withdrawing, Maggie is hiding from her terror of poverty by gold digging and hypersexuality, Big Daddy has hidden from his unhappy marriage and fear of death by chasing wealth and bullying his way through life, Big Mama is so fake that it isn’t entirely clear what she is hiding from behind her fantasy of the perfect family where everyone loves each other, Mae is avoiding the drag of being a decent person by being the Perfect Wife and Mother™ and parading her children to that effect, Gooper is hiding from his pain at being rejected by his parents by being competent and thus demanding their approval. 

 

It’s a mess all around. 

 

For all the talk in this play, there is precious little genuine connection. Periodically, it looks like something might happen - a few moments between Maggie and Brick, and later between Brick and Big Daddy - but as soon as intimacy looks possible, the characters pull sharply back from it. In the end, the connections are missed, and the cycle of trauma continues. 

 

Overall, I think this was a good production, with particularly great work by the main characters in bringing Williams’ vision to life. The casting helped this, with actors I have enjoyed in other roles, who seemed particularly suited to play these characters. 

 

For more information about tickets, visit http://www.bctstage.org/

 

Wednesday, June 19, 2024

Empedocles on Etna and Other Poems by Matthew Arnold

 Source of book: I own this

 

It has been over a dozen years since I read any Arnold. At the time, I noted that I felt his version of Victorian idealism and disillusionment (he shows both) hadn’t worn that well, and there were definitely a few poems that reminded me of that. However, I read his early poems at the time, and perhaps didn’t get an entirely representative selection. 

 

I don’t remember exactly which library edition I read, but now I have my own Wordsworth Poetry Library edition, which should contain the complete poems. 


 

One thing I did discover with this edition is that, unlike modern poets, Arnold released his poems in collections that were largely duplicative. He would just add a few to some of his older ones, and sell a new edition. This means that to read any particular release, except for a few, you have to jump around in the book. 

 

In this case, I read the collection sold as Empedocles on Etna and Other Poems, published in 1852, and containing several poems that were repeated in other collections. 

 

The title poem is by far the longest, at over 460 lines, and is in the rough form of a play. Despite the form, it is mostly sermonizing on a variety philosophical themes, followed by the disillusioned title character throwing himself dramatically into the volcano. 

 

Here are a few of the most interesting passages. In the first, Empedocles rejects the idea of propitiating the gods. 

 

Mind is the spell which governs earth and heaven.

Man has a mind with which to play his safety;

Know that, and help thyself. 

 

And this one:

 

The sophist sneers: Fool, take

Thy pleasure, right or wrong!

The pious wail: Forsake

A world these sophists throng!

Be neither saint nor sophist-led, but be a man.

 

These hundred doctors try

To preach thee to thy school.

We have the truth! they cry.

And yet their oracle, 

Trumpet it as they will, is but the same as thine. 

 

There is also another long poem, a retelling of the legend of Tristrum and Iseult, which is the earliest of what became the Arthur stories. You might know the story under one of its other spellings, Tristan and Isolde, Wagner’s haunting opera based on the story. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fktwPGCR7Yw

 

I won’t quote from it, but is a fine piece of work, much like Tennyson’s retelling of the Arthur stories in poetry. Well worth reading. 

 

I also should mention my favorite poem of the collection, “Youth’s Agitation,” which I won’t reproduce here, because I already mentioned it in my previous post on Arnold.  

 

There are some other short poems I liked. This one, for example. 

 

Despondency

 

The thoughts that rain their steady glow

Like stars on life’s cold sea,

Which others know, or say they know - 

They never shone for me.

 

Thoughts light, like gleams, my spirit’s sky,

But they will not remain.

They light me once, they hurry by,

And never come again. 

 

And this one as well:

 

Revolutions

 

Before Man parted for this earthly strand,

While yet upon the verge of heaven he stood,

God put a heap of letters in his hand,

And bade him make with them what word he could.

 

And Man has turn’d them many times: made Greece,

Rome, England, France: - yes, nor in vain essay’d

Way after way, changes that never cease.

The letters have combin’d: something was made.

 

But ah, an inextinguishable sense

Haunts him that he has not made what he should.

That he has still, though old, to recommence,

Since he has not yet found the word God would.

 

And Empire after Empire, at their height

Of sway, have felt this boding sense come on. 

Have felt their huge frames not constructed right,

And droop’d, and slowly died upon their throne.

 

One day, thou say’st, there will at last appear

The word, the order, which God meant should be. -

Ah, we shall know that well when it comes near:

The band will quit Man’s heart: he will breathe free. 

 

It is a fun counterpart to Joseph Conrad’s later riff on the failures of Empire - over 50 years before Conrad’s book, Arnold already saw the failure of all of the good intentions. 

 

There are a number of poems too long to quote in full that have some excellent lines. This one, from “The Buried Life,” caught my eye. 

 

But often, in the world’s most crowded streets,

But often, in the din of strife,

There arises an unspeakable desire

After the knowledge of our buried life,

A thirst to spend our fire and restless force

In tracking out our true, original course;

A longing to inquire

Into the mystery of this heart that beats

So wild, so deep in us, to know

Whence our thoughts come and where they go.

And many a man in his own breast then delves, 

But deep enough, alas, none ever mines:

And we have been on many thousand lines,

And we have shown on each talent and power,

But hardly have we, for one little hour,

Been on our own line, have we been ourselves;

Hardly had skill to utter one of all

The nameless feelings that course through our breast,

But they course on for ever unexpress’d. 

And long we try in vain to speak and act

Our hidden self, and what we say and do

Is eloquent, is well - but ‘tis not true. 

 

The collection closes with a sequence of poems about the nature of man, the nature of nature, progress, the future, and so on. The opening of “The Future” is excellent, although I felt it fell flat at the end. 

 

A wanderer is man from his birth.

He was born on a ship

On the breast of the River of Time.

Brimming with wonder and joy

He spreads out his arms to the light,

Rivets his gaze on the banks of the stream.

As what he sees is, so have his thoughts been.

Whether he wakes

Where the snowy mountainous pass

Echoing the screams of the eagles

Hems in its gorges the bed 

Of the new-born clear-flowing stream:

Whether he first sees light

Where the river in gleaming rings

Sluggishly winds through the plain:

Whether in sound of the swallowing sea:

As is the world on the banks

So is the mind of man. 

 

It was good to return to Arnold again, even if I do find other Victorians - Tennyson, the Brownings - to be more to my own preference. At his best, he has some great lyrics, and his skill with words never ceases to be tasty. 

 

Tuesday, June 18, 2024

Six Characters in Search of an Author (Stars Playhouse 2024)

Stars Playhouse, under the artist direction of John Spitzer, has earned its reputation as Bakersfield’s most avant-garde theater. From reviving old John Ford plays from the 17th Century to bringing modern female playwrights to Bakersfield, to exploring some of Thornton Wilder’s less-familiar one act plays, to hosting a traveling re-imagination of the old Greek myth of Medea, it has taken some risks and showcased some works that otherwise would never have made it to our town. Even their version of The Tempest was creative and unexpected. 

 

There are a lot more than these I have listed that were excellent. Unfortunately, I have only been able to see a couple of productions a year here - last year I saw a total of 22 live theater events, both locally and elsewhere, but that still works out to only enough time to see some at each local theater, not everything. This year, I am already up to 13, thanks to our New York City trip and the Broadway productions we saw there. I’m hoping to at least catch Doctor Faustus in a few months. 

 

So, this is definitely one of the weirder plays I have seen. It was written in 1921 by Italian Playwright Luigi Pirandello, who was a forerunner of the Absurdist movement, exemplified by Samuel Beckett and Waiting for Godot. I am not sure which translation was used (although Spitzer indicated it was public domain and that they modified a number of lines.) 

 

Six Characters in Search of an Author is very much meta-theater. The framing story is a group of actors rehearsing a play by…Luigi Pirandello. None of the actors seem to be enjoying their roles, and the director openly dislikes the play. But money must be made. I am reminded of Mozart’s snide dig at The Marriage of Figaro during one scene in Don Giovanni

 

The publicity for this play only mentioned the actors for the framing story, by the way, which is the reason we didn’t realize our friend Marina Gradowitz was in the play.

Marina Gradowitz as the Stepdaughter

 

These other characters are just that: characters. They crash the rehearsal, explaining that their author somehow made them “real,” but put the story aside and never finished it, so they are caught without a resolution. They need an author to fill things in and make a complete story they can live. 

 

The director is cajoled into serving as the author, and he departs the stage with the Characters to do so. In the original, this was literally a 20 minute gap in the action with a blank stage. It wasn’t quite as long in this version, but it was the same weird gap, with the house lights still down, and no explanation. 

 

When they come back, the characters keep interfering in the attempt to put on their story, claiming the actors are getting it wrong. Eventually, things get so bad that the Characters leave after the culminating scene, which is a drowning and suicide. 

 

The director then throws up his hands and complains that he has wasted the last two hours. And the play ends with that. No curtain call, hardly any applause, because we weren’t sure it was the end. 

 

So, definitely weird. 

 

But also fascinating, because of the discussions between the “real” characters and the Characters about the relationship between authors, characters, and actors. 

 

I mean, characters live forever in largely unchanging form, while us mere mortals are in constant change, and then we die. The Characters make a compelling argument that they are actually more “real” than we are - despite existing only in fiction and as portrayed by mortals. 

 

I won’t even try to explain the plot that the Characters are living in, other than to say it is a lurid one, with betrayal, prostitution, quasi-incest, and the aforementioned drowning (of a small child) and suicide. It is completely over the top, which allows the Characters to over-emote and bicker constantly. 

 

The bulk of the lines end up going to three of the characters: The Director (John Spitzer), the Father (Karl Wade), and the Stepdaughter (Marina Gradowitz.) As a trio of actors, this was great casting. I love Spitzer and Wade in everything I have seen them in, and Marina is not only a friend, but a talented up-and-coming actor who always shines on stage. (As she did here, in the most over-emotive of the roles.) I’ll also note Jaspreet Singh as the Son. While this isn’t as big of a role, he had to be the counterweight to the others - he doesn’t want to be there, didn’t want to be in the plot in the first place, and really just wishes he could leave. 

 John Spitzer (Director) and Karl Wade (Father) get into it...

The rest of the cast mostly had minor lines, but played their parts well. The Characters literally steal the show, but it is the three that drive most of it. In fact, of the Six Characters, two were played by dolls, because they have no lines. And, arguably, there is a seventh Character who has to be summoned for her brief appearance. Such is absurdist theater. 

 Jaspreet Singh (Son) wishes everyone would just go away...

This play isn’t the usual fare, but it is interesting, and Stars Playhouse did a good job of making it work. I’m glad they were willing to take the risk.

 

This runs on weekends through June 29. Attendance was, unfortunately, sparse when we were there. I encourage my local readers to go see it - we really need to encourage local theaters to take these risks and put on stuff that is out of the ordinary. If we do not, we will just see the same old reliable warhorses over and over, and nobody wants that. Also, if you hang around afterward, it is fun to talk with the actors about this one.