I Gelosi (review)

Spoilers ahoy!

Helsinki West is a new company, and David Bridel's I Gelosi their premiere production.  Last year Four Clowns did his Noah and Jonah (which proved amazing).

This play tells the (fictionalized, but passionate and powerful) story of one of the earliest and most famous Commedia dell'arte troupes in Renaissance Europe. We meet them all at the start of the play, as they introduce themselves and note each is dead, has been for centuries. We follow their history as they tell it--the three battle-scared veterans Guilio (David Ryer), Simone (Joseph Santos) and their leader,

Francesco (Sean McDonaghy) barely eking out a living until the lovely Isabella (Milly Sanders)--a poet and natural actress--joins them, the first actress of the era!  Soon they attract a fan in the person of Orazio (Victor Manso) who happens to be the nephew of the Duke of Milan (Richard Garnett)! The Duke offers his sponsorship provided they accept his mistress Vittoria (Kristyn Chalker) into the company. Soon they so impress Charles IX (Alex Choate) they end up invited to the French court, to the less than rapturous approval of the King's mother Catherine De Medici (Ann Levin). On the trip, a former maid named Sylvia (Jessee Foudray) saves their lives and also joins the troupe.  In France, Francesco's rage at the powers that be who abandoned him and others in the war motivate him to demand I Gelosi (which means "The Jealous Ones") perform a political satire mocking the Pope. From there, internal debate and emotional as well as artistic agendas begin to tear the group apart.

Sounds like a perfectly workable plot, doesn't it? The stuff of an interesting, dramatic, entertaining work, don't you think?

It proves much more than that.

The script itself for example manages to put us through the emotions of every single member of the troupe, so we totally sympathize and feel total judgment on each one. No small feat, especially since in some ways we dislike more than one of them. More, it isn't simply a matter of what they individually want. What they desire, expressed from the very start, runs virtually the range of human desire. Love. Food. Fame. Revenge. Yet not as written--nor, crucially, as performed--do they once become caricatures or archetypes instead of people. The kind of consistency of this throughout lets me know just how good a director Marjo-Riikka Makela must be, not least because of her casting choices!

Also all the details about this show form one cohesive--and let me note as well, beautiful--world for the performance. Costumes by Amanda Maciel Atunes did wonders in suggesting the opulent styles of the period, while the music and sound design by Ellen Burr sucked us into the feel of the Renaissance when kings and dukes and popes wielded enormous power amid an odd glamor as we look back upon it today. Alex Choate doubled in creating an amazing scenic and lighting design that left me with a distinct feeling theater directors all know too well--space envy.

This marks one of the half-dozen best productions I have seen in Los Angeles as well as among the top dozen theatrical productions I have ever enjoyed. Missing this production would count as genuine lost opportunity, to be regretted for years and years.

Note: The cast of this production varies night to night, as a true ensemble. I for one am tempted to go see it several more times for that very reason!

I Gelosi plays Saturdays and Sundays, 2pm and 8pm, until May 31, 2015 at Studioo Six01, 630 Flower Street Burbank CA 91502. For tickets call (800) 838-3006 or go here.

The 99 Seat Plan

Strong opinions ahoy!

Anyone even remotely involved in Los Angeles live theatre already knows the basics of the controversy underway.  In essence, the (very large) theater community here (400-600 small theatre companies by most counts) has for thirty years had what passes for a "showcase code' in regards Actor's Equity. This allows members of the stage actors' union to perform for a tiny fraction of what is the usual Equity standard for theatres with 99 or fewer seats. It is somewhat more complicated than that, but that captures the essence.  What makes L.A.'s situation different is a lack of limits on number of performances.

As a matter of history, Equity didn't want this plan and a lawsuit pretty much forced their hand back in 1988.

Last September, at a meeting local Equity membership (reported by several news sources), complaints were heard about how the plan lacked enforcement--namely, that actors were being taken advantage of.  Now the union has an alternate plan that scraps the old one in favor of something far more restrictive.  A "non binding referendum" is to take place in April.

Here are my concerns:

First, this new plans answers the concern for enforcement by scrapping all Equity protections of any kind from members performing for less than Equity standard! Honestly, how does this make any sense at all?  In what conceivable way is this a good thing for members? Quite apart from the fact this is precisely what the members evidently did not want!

Second, this means a lot of Equity actors are simply going to get less work.  Period.  There's no real way to get around that brutal fact.  Smaller theatre companies cannot afford to pay Equity standard.  For the companies themselves, this means not using a certain pool of actors, many of whom have individual relationships with said companies.  That is a shame, to be sure, but hardly a death blow to most (or so it seems).  But it becomes a serious blow to actors who will now have far less opportunity to practice their craft, unless they go and pay for acting classes and the like. Again, does this make any sense at all?

Third (and this is most long-term, albeit subtle point), this new plan erects a very real obstacle in any smaller theatre company from growing. Lord knows that process remains difficult enough already!  But look for example at the East/West Players.  Today they  have their own space in downtown, with major productions and name actors, enjoying a national (at least) reputation.  Yet prior to 1999 they did all their performances in a tiny black box theatre, enjoying the practical benefits of an Equity waver.  But could they have made that switch, grown in terms of budgets and prestige while never using any Equity performers? Maybe.  But it would have been much harder. Why on earth would anyone desiring more opportunities for actors create such an obstacle?

Especially in a market sorely lacking in medium-sized theatres?  Hamstringing smaller theatre companies won't create more medium-sized ones.  Quite the opposite!

So what gives?  What on earth is the actor's union thinking?  Frankly I think maybe it would have been wiser and better for Equity to have spent the millions of dollars used to build a new headquarters in enforcing protections of its members.

That is my couple of pennies.