Every Christmas Story Ever Told, Dec. 21 at MAT-Great Falls

Last night I saw the MAT-Great Falls production of "Every Christmas Story Ever Told," and overall wasn't that impressed.
I will add a few qualifiers before getting to that, though. The story has some potential. There were a few moments that made me laugh and I wouldn't say it was completely worthless. It wasn't.

I also should add that I left at intermission. Out of respect to Dana, Josh and Aisha, I offer my sincerest apologies for leaving early. I experienced a circumstance beyond my control that made me unable to return.

But, I will, however, offer my thoughts on what I saw.

The good
I enjoyed watching Aisha's enthusiasm for her role. Connie, too, had lots of enthusiasm and almost childlike wonder. This was her first experience acting, and it showed, but she was indeed full of energy and life. I also liked the light show as the first half was ending and seeing the three actors, the previously mentioned Aisha and Connie along with Josh Wendt, dancing silly-like on stage to the music while the Christmas lights flickered in sequence.
Finally, the scenes where they asked someone from the audience to get up and help with the scene worked wonderfully. The person asked to get on stage often added something quantitative to the show that garnered some of the biggest laughs.

The bad
Firstly, I understand why Josh had a script in his hand as they had an actress drop out at the last minute forcing him to fill-in. I understand that.
However, when I saw the show it was Josh's third weekend performing it. Granted he did not glance at the script much at all, probably the least he had of all the weeks, but the fact remains he was up there with a script.
It might not be fair to compare local actors, but I think this comparison has merit.
When Krystine Wendt, Josh's niece, was asked to step in at the last minute in I Hate Hamlet, and in Steel Magnolias, she did so without a script.
Maybe that shows how well Krystine is at memorizing her lines more than anything against Josh, but well, there's just no way this aspect of the show can be construed as anything but a distraction, however small or big depending on your preference.
Like I said, I didn't notice Josh looking at the script hardly at all, but he did still have it and did still look at it so it's always going to be something I'll mention.

Secondly,
I think what made the end of the first act work for me, like I said earlier, was the decorations. The rest of the time the set was plain black. Perhaps some garland or some colored lights, even a Christmas tree, might have added to the atmosphere. I kept wishing there was any kind of small Christmas decoration during the entire show.
I also had a hard time following the plot during several of the skits. The Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer skit was all sorts of confusing because for some reason they made the reindeer have a green nose and made him not a reindeer. There were several other instances where the plot seemed to be so convoluted I wasn't sure quite exactly what was going on.

Thirdly,
The lighting at times didn't quite spotlight all of the actors on stage. The opening scene, in particular, was troublesome as you could see Josh and Aisha fine but Connie appeared to be standing in the dark for a good majority of the scene. It would have been nice to be able to have lighting on each person. It wasn't noticeable for the whole show, but I did notice it now and then.

Lastly,
There were times where it seemed like someone would just be talking without any reason to be talking. Between a few scenes, Josh had a voice-over where he listed off names of Christmas characters and songs and a whole slew of other things that I wasn't sure why they were being mentioned.

 If it was funny, that would be one thing, but I'm afraid to me it just seemed like someone listing off things.

Since the show's run is over, I'm writing this more as a recommendation about some of the things I noticed for next time.
Theater is hard. Producing a good show is even harder.
This one might not have worked as well as it could have, but, everyone involved still put in the time and effort to make it happen and give the community an artistic endeavor to attend.

Despite my thoughts and the thoughts of some others involved in the theater community here, there were still people who were laughing and having a good time at the show. That's really what it's all about.

I'll be watching for the next show sometime later this spring. My hopes are that some changes will be made and the people who care about getting better will improve and the theater will experience another insurgence. Great Falls will be a much better place for it.

"Come Blow Your Horn" at the University of Great Falls, Nov. 9

Taryn Judah and Tim Stoddard in Come Blow Your Horn. 

Last night I watched the UGF production of "Come Blow Your Horn." It's an entertaining, albeit slightly flawed, show.
First let's get into what I thought worked well and why I feel is worth purchasing a ticket to see. If you're not aware of the plot, I'm not going to go much into it, but you can read up on it here.

The show is directed by Ed Moran and stars UGF students Glen Weeks, Payton Henley and Taryn Judah, UGF alumni Janette Conley and community members Tim Stoddard and Sarah Hood.
Moran and Michael Gilboe together did a great job of casting the roles. Each piece fit well and the on-stage chemistry made it easy to get lost in the story of these fallible characters.

Glen and Tim, the lead characters, especially did a fine job with their dialogue-heavy parts. They hardly ever fumbled a line, and if they did it was very quick and hardly noticeable, almost as if it was written that way.
I think some of the funniest parts of the show, for me, involved Janette's answering the telephone what seems like a dozen times and her inability to find a pencil despite there being a jar with 5 or 6 pencils visible to the audience.
It might not sound that interesting describing it, but once you see it's execution, or if you're familiar with that part of the play, you'll understand it's brilliance. Conley for her part did a great job of playing the typical Jewish-sounding mother from Manhattan.
 Her accent, too, was by far the best of the bunch, which isn't to say there was a bad accent in the show. I've heard some really bad accents at other shows and was pleasantly surprised at how well they were done this time around.

Janette Conley in "Come Blow Your Horn"

While Weeks and Stoddard were the leads, for me the women stole the show. It was by far the most fun whenever Sarah, Janette and Taryn were on stage. You couldn't help but start to long for them to get back up there when they were gone.
They also play three distinctly different characters which is a credit to their skill as actors and the well-written script from Neil Simon.
I also loved how Payton, who played the brothers' father, has a chance to show both his soft side and his hard-ass side. Too many times in plays and movies we see one-dimensional supporting characters who only have one emotion throughout the entire show. This script has some of that, but a few of the supporting characters get to show their complexities that real human beings are capable of feeling.
Finally the set and the costumes were well-done, also. A bad set or bad costumes can make a show look bad. The set pieces, costumes and lighting weren't all that noticeable, mostly because they didn't have to be, but they didn't take anything away from it either.
If anything the apartment seemed a little TOO big, but the actors used nearly all of the space and it never took anything away from the performance.

If I was going to nit-pick, I'd say that because they had a piano on stage, they could have had someone perform on it, which is similar to the trope "If you introduce a gun in act one, you better have somebody fire it in act three."
Nobody sat at the piano and it was not a central part of the apartment, but just having it on stage there's likely going to be a portion of the audience who expects someone to sit down and play it.
With that I'll get into a bit about what I didn't like as much about the play.
Glenn and Tim in act one convincingly set up their characters. Watching it and you believe that Glenn is the freewheeling playboy and Tim is the naive younger brother who's not nearly as worldly or experienced with women.
But the third act, to me, is a bit of a make-or-break moment. In act three we see Tim's character turn into the playboy and Glenn turn into the rule-abiding sibling. It's a difficult role reversal but one that I feel is the take home portion of the play.
My problem with act three is that it seemed as if both Tim and Glenn were less comfortable switching their roles. Maybe that's how it's supposed to be played, but I had a hard time grasping how quickly both characters changed and how subtly unnatural it felt. Mind you it wasn't bad, there were no bad performances. And, as a non-actor I can only imagine how difficult it must be since you're essentially playing two characters in one.

Glenn Weeks and Sarah Hood in "Come Blow Your Horn"

But, I would have liked to seen the natural flow of the brothers' characteristics show in the first to acts carry over into act three.
A part of me wanted to see Buddy's suave side come out more. Maybe if, for instance, he had a scene where he romantically kisses a woman. That might not have been in the script, but something like that might have helped.
Also, at one point Buddy says to his brother, and I may be paraphrasing, but he says something along the lines of "I've changed completely thanks to you, Allan." I kept thinking, well, I wouldn't say that's entirely true.

Because this was the first time I've actually seen the entire show, I may be commenting on something that's written into the script. I stand by the critique either way, however, because if you're going to make characters change their identifying traits, I feel it should be done confidently and convincingly.
It was an admirable attempt, I'll give them that, and they have nothing to be ashamed of with their performances. I just kept waiting for more. I kept hoping for that artistic moment that moves the audience into seeing the world a bit differently, or feeling something that they might not have if they chose to stay home or go do something else.
So, in conclusion, I do recommend that everyone see "Come Blow Your Horn." It's a funny show that meets the bar of expectations that continue to be pushed higher in our fledgling artistic community. The performers all work well together and you'll leave the theater with a smile on your face.
It's a good, funny show -- just not quite a great one.

All photos were taken by Michael Gilboe.

Album review of Jacuzzi Boys' self-titled CD

I recently gave a listen through the new Jacuzzi Boys' album, which comes out Sept. 22 through Sub Pop Records.

On the band's Facebook page, they describe the album, saying "It’s like that movie you once saw. The one with the boy and the girl and the plastic lounger on the beach. “Be My Prism” was the invitation. “Black Gloves” and “Double Vision” the promise. “Dust” was the rising tide. “Rubble,” the dirty uncle. “Hotline” was the lightning storm, and “Ultraglide” was the ending, the part where he drove her home with the windows down.You remember you liked it. It stayed with you while you swam alone in your pool that night.

Right off the bat, I found that the album doesn't take a whole lot of thinking to digest. It's light, breezy and smooth. It has a light bit of rock solos and riffs to it, but not enough to make you feel like you're listening to anything but alternative pop-rock. 

In a way I would describe it as a take on the "Big Me" era Foo Fighters. 

I felt it a little too simplistic at times. Other times, I felt like it had just enough of the elements to make the sound work. 

In a way making an album is a bit like cooking a meal. You have the ingredients, the cooks, the equipment and the skill/experience of the people making it happen. 

With "Jacuzzi Boys," the cooks seem to be talented enough to make some decent music. But, don't expect a Led Zeppelin-like complexity to the tunes. 
Whereas a band like Arcade Fire might be Julia Child, the Jacuzzi Boys are more akin to Rachel Ray. 

Some of the highlights for me are "Heavy Horse," "Hotline" and "Rubble," which might be my favorite track of the album. I found myself listening to it two or three times in a row.

That was in contrast to "Domino Moon." The song has some heavy riffs and aggressive pacing, but they're kind of negated by the overly laid-back vibe from the vocals.
I found myself wishing there was more angst in the singer's approach

 Then, finally, on "Ultraglide," there's still something that feels a little off about the vocals matched up with the music. It's got that very lo-fi feel to it. I think that sound can make your band seem endearing. Some of the songs on this album, it does. On this song, it sounds a bit amateurish.

If I were summing this album up, I'd say first and foremost, this is good-time music. 
The artwork, too, is a trip. The cover art is probably the funkiest I've seen in a while. There's really no way to describe it with words, but you can see for yourself here: 

 The handwritten linter notes on the inside and cursive track listing on the back makes it feel very indie/hipster. It's like one of those albums that's unheard-of listening to on anything but a record player. 

As far as the music goes, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these songs on the soundtrack of a romantic comedy or two.
 But, as far as advancing the genre, this album doesn't do much in that regard.  Maybe the next album they'll try some more risks and take things to different places that you might not expect. 

The potential is there, so I'll definitely have my eyes on what these guys end up doing next. 
 

"The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged) at Montana Actors' Theatre-Great Falls, Aug. 31

Levon Allen, Josh Wendt and Bob MacNamee perform a scene from "The Complete Works of Willam Shakespeare (Abriged)

Last night at the MAT, I experienced several oddly specific theater firsts.

I was kicked out of my seat so one of the actors could sit in it. I was (fake) puked on, twice, by Mr. Levon Allen, and I was asked to run laps back and forth on stage during the second act. I thought it all was great fun.

This script calls for audience participation just at the right moment, in my estimation. From a director's standpoint, you need to have the audience on board totally with you or else it won't work. Once they're invested in the story, then you can get them to do anything, almost.

A big part of what makes it work is the fact that Levon, Bob MacNamee and Josh Wendt have great onstage chemistry.

Which is good, because it's hard to perform all of Shakespeare's plays at once, sort of, if all of the actors aren't on board together.

Much of the performance is dedicated to parodying Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet. Some of the other plays are mixed in, as well, but aren't given as much time. They're still funny and effective in their condensed versions.

There's also several popular references, subtle Shakespeare references and physical gags. All and all it's a nice mix. Plus, Levon is quite funny in a dress. A man in a dress is ALWAYS funny. That should be written in the official rule book of comedy. It's never not funny, even if you try to make it so.

Thinking about it more, in a way, Josh, Bob and Levon are like conductors taking the audience on an adventure. I think that effect worked better at times than others, but more or less, the audience is as much a part of the show as the actors.

The costumes, props and lighting really were handled well, also. Sometimes in a show the props can detract from it if they don't fit in with the feel the actors are giving. For this show, however, the props and costumes fit the mood perfectly.

I also appreciated the fact that the script includes passages right from Shakespeare. At times I found myself yearning for more actual Shakespeare, but, that would've made it a different show.

Essentially this was the Naked Gun of Shakespeare. And, that's okay.

As I was leaving the theater, one of the ladies in front of me said to her friend "I haven't laughed that much consistently for a long while."

That, to me, speaks more about the play than anything I can write. That's what people will be telling their neighbors.

I've been thinking about some critical things I can say, but I can't think of many.

The weakest scene, to me, was the middle part when they read the combination of Shakespeare's comedies from the sheet-music stands. About midway through it, I found myself waiting for them to get back to the physical acting.

I guess it created a contrast. I'm just not sure it's quite as effective contrast as some of the other ones they used. But, it still had it's funny lines that engaged the audience. Maybe just the stands between the actors and the audience created a barrier, ever so subtle, that made the difference.

All and all, though, this is a quality show. Levon, Josh and Bob are all confident in their performances. It's a small thing, maybe, but it makes a big difference.

I recommend seeing "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged). It only shows for one more weekend, so catch it while you can.

"A Little Murder Never Hurt Anybody" Aug. 24 at the 3D International in Black Eagle

Kirsten Kreutz and Dyllan Storm interact in a scene from "A Little Murder Never Hurt Anybody"

Last night I had a front-row seat at the 3D International's dinner theater showcase. Anytime a place offers guests the chance to enjoy a meal, and some live theater, my interest is already piqued.

It's hard to recommend if the show, or food, is bad, but last night I'm confident in saying that the show, and the meal, were both solid.  

"A Little Murder Never Hurt Anybody," follows the Perry family at New Year's Eve. Mr. Perry, following his friend's loss of his wife, finds that he wishes to kill his wife so he, too, can enjoy the freedom and independence that his friend now does.

So, Matthew, played by Allen Lanning tells his wife Julia, played by Tianta Stevens, that for his New Year's Resolution, he vows to kill her.

Julia, taken a bit back by this, doesn't believe he has it in him to do it. And, she's mostly right. She vows to stay alive to see their daughter, Bunny, played by CMR senior Kirsten Kreutz, marry Donald, played by Dyllan Storm. The final pieces to the puzzle are the cunning butler Butram played by Dan Mitchell and the clueless inspector played by Keern Haslem.

The reason this premise works is the nonchalant attitude the whole cast has when it comes to killing people. As audience members you don't see any deaths on stage, mostly, and it's a very tongue-in-cheek approach. That, to me, is the source of the most amusement -- seeing how blasè a group of people treat such a serious crime.

At the same time, many of the laughs come from the cluelessness of the characters, particularly Keern's inspector, Bunny and Matthew. I find it difficult to make morons come off as funny without resorting to cheap gags, but they pull it off nicely here.

Keern Haslem lays motionless in a scene from "A Little Murder..."

Between the second and third acts, I believe, the 3D staff served the audience dinner. I chose the salmon, which, although was a LITTLE dry, it was still enjoyable.

Maybe another sauce on top of the salmon would have added to the flavor. But, a minor complaint this is. At my table, the other people all had different options -- steak, chicken, prawns and pasta. Everyone seemed satisfied with their meals. Having a full bar right next to the stage was a great perk, too!

More than anything, I think this play shows what a group of experienced actors can do with a good script. The characters were believable, everyone's timing was spot on, and you found yourself engaged in what happens. Everyone is likable even the main protagonist/antagonist Matthew, who's trying, and failing, to kill his wife.

The fact that each of the characters have equal importance throughout the show only gives more proof of how well it all works together. It was truly an ensemble performance.

If I were going to give any constructive criticism, it would be that I felt that at times the plot was a little predictable. You could see things coming a scene or two before they happened.

Again, this is minor, because I suppose not every story needs a twist ending or a surprise character or some kind of ambitious goal to make your audience go out and change the world.

Sometimes, we want a show that gives us good laughs and a happy ending.

One more thought is I guess the price tag might keep some people from attending.
$70 for two people can be expensive. I look at it as a matter of what you pay for and what you get in return.

You're paying for dinner and a live show. Many shows cost $35 without dinner. You can spend $70 on a dinner, easy, without seeing a show. Having both makes $35 reasonable, I can understand that for some people it's a bit out of their price range for entertainment, however.

As such, I recommend seeing "A Little Murder Never Hurt Anybody" at the 3D. It plays again on Sept. 13 and I was told they will have two more encore showings later next month.

Electric City Invitational Poetry Slam @ Magnificent Seven, Aug. 3

Last night I had the pleasure of judging the inaugural ECC poetry slam featuring some of my favorite local poets.

It was a difficult task to judge mostly because I respect each of them. Anyone easily could have won the competition.

Ultimately, I felt Ian Court was the deserving winner. His first poem brought out captivating, harsh and real emotion that felt what it would be like to be a cougar shredding through its prey.

I don't believe he was speaking about his mother in the poem. It was, however, about SOMEONE's mother, and he had a lot to say that was well-presented, authentic and touched the audience in a way that as a poet you strive to do with anything you write.

The difference, I feel, between a decent poem and a great poem, is taking the emotion of a rant, exploring it and creating something literary that makes that feeling blossom into art.

Plus, a great performance poem sticks with your listeners.
I'm sorry to admit it, but I've already kind of forgotten what some of the poems were about. A good poem, to me, is one that you remember days after hearing it.

On that note, I really enjoyed Jeff's opening poem about his unborn child. It was sweet, direct, full of intriguing metaphors and phrases, and in Jeff-fashion, leaves you with a sense of "hey, all right, maybe life isn't so bleak."

What more can you say about Jeff's poetry? He's established his voice, and it shines through every piece he reads, much like Krystine's. Her expressive voice is well-established. The intruigue comes when she does something new...much like everyone. Her writing and performing are both equally moving.

It came as no surprise, then, that Krystine had her game ready for her new poem.
I felt it really touched on hope and optimism nicely.
Perhaps the only down side to reading a new piece is that it's not quite as polished. But, that, to me, is an acceptable trade-off because you're presenting something unique for the very first time. I guess I value that over something that we've heard several times before delivered excellently.
Similarily, if Krystine reads her piece again, I look forward to seeing how she improves upon it. :-)

Sarah Raines, who took second place, read a piece about a man and a woman and how while they're connected in some deep way, they'll never be involved in something messy, which relationships tend to be. It's kept, as she puts it "clean and dry," which works on the literal sense, they're at one point standing out in the rain, and the figurative one.

That dual meaning takes a certain amount of literary magic to make it work. Her repetition of the phrase "Clean and Dry," cuts to the heart nicely. That, added to her ability to deliver the piece, made her an easy choice for the second round.

She had a couple of flubs performing her second piece, which was a bit unfortunate given that the rest of it was delivered excellently. I felt she may have won the slam if she performed her third piece, Proof, second, as it was touching and really made a connection with the audience. The fact that it was totally off-the-cuff and full of emotional pauses really added to the effect.

Traci Rosenbaum's poem, I felt, was the best written one of the night. I gave her a 10 in the literary category. Her performing was a little flat, which happens. Several times I've written what I felt were great pieces..on the page. Then, however, when I go to the mic and perform them, they come out not as powerful as they seemed on the screen while I was typing them.

That happened a bit with Traci's poem, I felt. Her performing is strong, but firstly, she is a wonderful writer. She makes me a little jealous, truthfully, because I've heard several of her poems and they're always quite moving. :-)

Allen Lanning's piece about Montana getting it right was thought provoking. It was bold, strong and to the point. At times it felt it was a bit too much on the storytelling side vs. the poetic side, but it had plenty of strong, well-crafted language.

Allen's poem made me think of what a real poem should be. How does one tell the difference between a rant, a poem and a short story? Should there be a way to seperate them? They're all poems in the sense that they're being performed on stage at a poetry slam. But, can a poem be a strong opinion delivered with flare? Can a poem be a string of obscenities repeated every sixth word?
Or, is a poem only something that follows an established formula such as Iambic Pentameter or a Haiku?
It's an interesting discussion, and one I'm not sure there is a right answer to.

Finally, Anissa impressively made the final round despite not knowing she was supposed to be performing!

 For whatever reason, I had a bit of a hard time hearing her first poem, but she was extremely engaging. Her mannerisms are wonderfully natural and draw in you with laser-like focus. She's grown as a poet by leaps and bounds, which is impressive given that she was a great poet already.

Like Sarah Raines, she flubbed a bit on her second poem. It wasn't that noticable, but in a competition those are the little things that stand out. It didn't take away from the message or emotion, however.

Her third poem, which, I was happy we got to hear, was also perhaps her strongest. The final line, which I might be paraphrasing incorrectly was, "How can dying be so beautiful?" was probably the best closing line of the night.
 Choosing between her and Sarah for second place was the hardest ruling to make. If I had to pick one over the other 10 times in a row, I'd probably go back and forth every time.

If you're a fan of poetry, like I am, you had plenty to love about the Poetry Invitational. A diverse mix of poets delivering new shit, old shit and wonderfully unscripted shit left for a great night out on Machinery Row's patio.

I look forward to the next one, and hopefully this event helped raise more awareness in the community that the poetry scene here isn't some overnight fad.

And that, I feel, was the biggest success of the night.

Gosh it's been forever. Here's a review of Mudhoney's album "Vanishing Point"`

Well then.
Most of you probably thought I've vanished from the planet.

Turns out, you CAN'T trust chimpanzees to write reviews. Lesson learned. :-p

I was gone for a while, but I'm back. Also, I recently was given 12 CDs from Sub Pop Records in Seattle. One of them was Mudhoney's newest album "Vanishing Point."

Listening to the entire track list, there's 10 breezy tracks, earlier today, I literally chuckled out loud in the middle of the office.
"I Like It Small," especially, is hilarious. Like, if somebody told me one of the original grunge rock artists would someday release a song called "I Like It Small," with the following lyrics, I would've thought you were crazy. But it works.

Excerpt of Mudhoney's "I Like It Small" 

"I don't need no magnum
A snub nose would do just fine
And I'll take GG Allan
Over long dong silver any time"

It works because they're obviously in on the joke, and they rock the shit out of it.

EDIT:
After a closer listen to this song it isn't TOTALLY funny.

 They're also talking about their preference not to be a big-label, major-radio-airplay, arena-touring band. It takes a few listens, but it's definitely in there.
So, there's that, too. That's probably the real message of the song. And in a way, it's a rather deep one. You don't HAVE to be a Nirvana or Soundgarden to consider yourself a successful band. :-) I dig it. 


Another highlight for me is the track "Chardonnay."

"But for me you don't do nothing.
I see through the ole charrade.
I Hate you Chardonnay

You're the soccer mom's favorite sipper, 
Well I can't think of nothing sicker, 
Get the fuck out of my backstage." 

Nobody else is writing songs like this, I can guarantee you this.

Finally, the album ends, fittingly, in my estimation, with the song "Douchebags on Parade."
After a haunting intro where you're almost not sure if the same album is in the player anymore,
Mark Arm (The lead singer dude, duh!) starts in going off about the literal parade of douchebags.

This might not be the most serious album in the world, but why does it need to be? It's rockin', it's fun and I get a kick out of listening to it.

What's funny is I saw these guys when they were in Missoula opening for Pearl Jam. The set was rather forgettable for me, though, mostly because I think I was so psyched to see Pearl Jam.

They could've had Kanye West and Macklemore opening for Pearl Jam together and I wouldn't have cared for it. Maybe I should have listened a little closer!

So, that's it. Check out "Vanishing Point."

And then, like I said earlier, I have 12 new CDs I've been listening to, and I plan on reviewing all or most of them.

Let me know what you think!