The question we’re going to ask of our commissioned playwrights, our new play development staff — both at Theater J and perhaps elsewhere in the city, and the country as well, is “why commission?” What’s perilous about it for a theater? What’s wonderful about it for a theater?

How’s it an albatross of pressure and over-direction for a playwright? And why’s it wonderful for a playwright?

How does a commission work? And in those rare cases, how does a commission NOT work!?

We’ll do a shout-out for responses and post herein and below in the comments. Respond away!

Christopher Sellers (stage directions), John Lescault (Harry), and Gwen Grastorf (Gwen) in COLD NOVEMBER LIGHT.

We’ve received two interesting, contrasting readings of Stephen’s play from students in our “Theater of Politics/The Politics of Theater” course. COLD NOVEMBER LIGHT is a play that moves backwards in time and the simple question asked during the talk-back was, “what’s the function of such a reverse-action structure in a two-character play like this?” That question led to some insightful reflection as the night went on — a play that BEGINS with a bittersweet leave-taking between friends who’ve clearly had a positive impact on each other but are, nonetheless, saying goodbye to each other… (why must they part?, we wonder) and then we move forward in theater time while backwards in story-time to find out how difficult Harry, a largely autistic, genius painter, turns out to be and how uncivil so much of his interaction with his wheelchair-bound model, Gwen, turns out to be. But as the play unfolds, are we monitoring, or actively engaged in trying to deduce the answer to a Larger Dramatic Question hanging over the action? One student below is entirely captivated. Another less so, but still appreciative of much of the work. So what’s next for the playwright and the play? Stay tuned.

We look forward to more comments once others have caught up with the script.

Jon Spelman in THE PROSTATE DIALOGUES.

While we’ve been blogging a lot about THE RELIGION THING, we’ve stayed sort of quiet about, well, the religion thing.

Be assured, the play’s look at interfaith families has not gone unnoticed–either by us or in the press. The review in the Washington Blade starts with the line “They say couples who share the same faith stay together longer.” Reviewer Patrick Folliard is likely referencing this potentially controversial op-ed. But more on that later.

Rebecca Ritzel of the Washington City Paper found herself reflecting on her own blended family after watching the play, “I’d argue that for theatergoers—like me—whose families have found a way to blend their faiths for the sake of sanity, THE RELIGION THING offers a communal evening of comic relief. And so I endorsed the show to a skeptical cousin. “I don’t need to see that play; I’m living it,” she said. Then I told her about the scene (recounted in one fantasy sequence, with Mo wearing a negligee) where an ignorant Catholic wife accidentally sets a Menorah on fire during Passover. “Now that,” said my cousin, coming around, “that sounds pretty funny.” (A side note–Mo, the Catholic in question, displays the menorah after observing a Passover display at Whole Foods stocked with piles of Channukah candles. Think something like that could never happen? Think again.)

But you can't light candy canes...

Last weekend we hosted a series of discussions addressing the topic of interfaith couples and blended families. One of our guests was Susan Katz Miller, a writer who blogs about interfaith identity at her own site, and for the Huffington Post. Susan is a great writer and a compelling panelist, and we’re pleased any time she can join us. She’s started an interesting dialogue about the relationship at the center of the play over on her blog.

Susan writes, “The interfaith relationship in this play is not just conflicted: it’s a train-wreck. After four years of marriage, this fictional couple had not even discussed how to raise children. They excluded religion from their wedding. They failed to educate themselves or each other about their respective traditions.” All of this is true. But isn’t it also true that these kind of couples still exist? That bright, with-it folks can still avoid the conversations that everyone knows (including themselves) that they should be having?

Abso-friggin-lutely.

Around the time that we first read Renee’s play I found myself watching an episode of the Bravo show “Pregnant in Heels” (don’t judge–we all have our vices) that addressed the addition of children to an interfaith marriage. The premise of the show is that Rosie, a maternity coach, intervenes with wealthy New York couples and helps prepare them for parenthood. The show’s lighter moments show done-up socialites in stilletos (hence the name) learning how to change dirty diapers and clean up drool. In this episode however, things got a bit dark. Rosie visited a Catholic wife and Jewish husband who were in great conflict about the faith of their future child, many months into the pregnancy. Both halves of the couple broke down in the session before eventually coming to some shaky agreement about sharing traditions. And I found myself thinking exactly what Susan expressed above–they waited until now to discuss the faith of their child?! Seriously? Talk of the show showed up on interfaith chat boards and websites around the internet.

I asked Renee if she’d seen the show. She hadn’t. (I know, I know–Renee probably doesn’t watch shows like this because she’s smart and authentic and wouldn’t waste her time on reality TV.) But the parallels between the teary conversation happening in this upper-East side living room and the melt down between Mo and Brian in this just-hatched play stuck with me. Because yeah, these conflicts really do happen.

This is called a "treenorah".

Susan’s strongest reservation is the using of air time (or in our case, stage time) to show worst case scenarios, without giving equal time to the healthier versions. Would it be great if we had a play we loved with a happy and communicative interfaith couple at the center of the story? Sure. And we’ll keep looking for that play. In the meantime, we’re glad to be sharing a complex and layered story with our audiences, that is inspiring much conversation.

And what about that Washington Post article we mentioned above? Susan breaks it down for us clearly on her blog, “…this play comes in the wake of a scandalously misleading Washington Post opinion piece that purported to show that interfaith marriages are prone to failure, using extreme anecdotes and outdated and twisted statistics.” (More here.) She calls for a journalist to declare his or her own biases in a piece like this. Now, this isn’t the way we go about things in the theater world–which is about fiction, and the artist’s right to creation, and hopefully not about an agenda. But I will say that many people directly or indirectly involved with this production come from quite successful interfaith unions, myself included. We do our best to approach the work without any bias, but if we did have one–you can be sure it wouldn’t be anti-interfaith.

As Ari rightly notes in the comments, “The play doesn’t aspire to be a textbook or manual on how to lead a more enlightened, sensitive life as an intermarried couple.” Rather–it aims to start people talking, be it in relation to their own lives or simply as observant theater-goers.

More to come–about our talk backs with Rabbi Noah Fabricant of Washington Hebrew Congregation, and Marian Usher, facilitator of the Love and Religion workshop at the DCJCC.

The first duty of a dramaturg working on a new play is to explain to everyone else what a dramaturg does (ha, ha, yeah, ahem–that’s a little dramaturgy humor there). The second duty is for the dramaturg to keep his eyes on the text, working with the playwright to help develop the piece, and with the actors to help them better understand the world of the play (through research, images, and conversation.)

I sat down with the playwright to talk about her new play, and how Theater J has worked with her over the past year and a half to develop it. I also took it as an opportunity to just talk about the play itself, as dramaturgs are wont to do.

The cast of THE RELIGION THING. Photo by Colin Hovde.

THE RELIGION THING deals with weighty topics including, but not limited to, religion (as you may have inferred from the title) and politics. As you watch the show, though, you will discover that our playwright never takes an opportunity to comment on her characters, or to inject her opinion into the play. Calarco, an award-winning D.C. playwright, says “I don’t have an agenda with this play. I didn’t want to reveal what my religion is, or what my political opinions are.” In the end, this makes THE RELIGION THING a much more complex and thought-provoking play, leaving the audience with a lot to sort out for themselves.

THE RELIGION THING is a case study on personal identity rather than any kind of argument for or against religious belief. Calarco shows how religion and faith not only affect the relationship between a person and his or her God, but also between a person and their own sense of self. Throughout the play we see conflicts that are created because characters’ religious beliefs–or lack thereof–clash with their past, or their future.

Okay, you caught me–if it sounds like I am being laughably vague, it’s because I am–THE RELIGION THING is not only a thematically deep play that will no doubt spark lengthy discussions (I suggest you and your fellow play-goers plan to spend a few hours at coffee shop or bar after the show), but it is also equal parts character-driven and plot-driven, with plenty of twists and surprises.

Mo and Brian are our main protagonists of the play. A successful D.C. couple, she’s a quick-thinking lawyer with a sharp tongue and he’s a laid-back lobbyist who is a little lost in life. When Mo’s friend Patti mentions that she and her husband Jeff are thinking of having a baby, it sets something off in Mo and the arguing begins.

“I’m tired of waiting for you, Brian,” Mo says mid-way through the first act, when the two are alone. “I am not waiting until I’m 40 [to have kids].”

“So the religion thing is what?” replies Brian. (Hey, that’s the title of the play!)

“The religion thing” is a point of contention that Mo and Brian have been avoiding confronting for their entire four years of marriage. You see, Mo is Roman Catholic (“lapsed Catholic,” points out Brian) and Brian is Jewish (“You haven’t set foot in a synagogue since I’ve known you,” Mo shoots back at him).

Neither of them is particularly religious. And yet, neither is willing to budge when it comes to “the religion thing.”

“Our children are not being raised Catholic,” Brian says sternly.

“What, you want them to be raised Jewish?” asks Mo, though the disbelief in her voice shows it’s not really a question.

This is where THE RELIGION THING is at its most engaging and thought-provoking. Faith isn’t so important to Mo and Brian–what their kids “believe,” matters of heaven and hell, and spirituality aren’t the point. The real issue here is identity. While Brian hasn’t been to a Kol Nidre service in eight years and Mo only goes to Mass on Christmas Eve, they both still identify strongly with the religion with which they were raised; neither would consider converting.

What makes this situation so difficult for us as the audience is that we can see that Mo and Brian are perfect for each other in every other way. They way they can riff off of each other and trade lighthearted insults can only be described as endearing. But Calarco gives us no easy outs – and she refuses to show us her judgments of the characters in the play.

“What do you hope happens to Mo and Brian after the end of the play?” I ask her eagerly, hoping she’ll give me some solace after the uncertainty of the play’s final scene.

“I think they’re doing what they should be doing at that moment in time,” she responds with a slight smile. Well, I suppose I can read whatever I want into that. Thanks, Renee.

Jeff and Patti, the other couple in THE RELIGION THING, have similar problems, but from a totally different perspective: both are born-again Christians who make faith central to their lives. As Patti reveals in the first scene, they are planning to begin a family soon. But both are dealing with issues from their past which threaten to disrupt not only their marriage, but their beliefs about who they are. Both of them cling to their faith, but both of their pasts come into conflict with their present lives. These issues of faith even threaten to end Mo and Patti’s nearly two-decade friendship.

Calarco presents religion and faith at an individual level, exploring how each person finds faith, or uses it to define themselves. Another playwright might slip in hints as to what their opinion is, or resolve things neatly so that we can see who is “right” and who is “wrong” at the end. But Calarco does none of that. Instead we get a story that is much more natural, more human, and more moving.

Liz Mamana and Chris Stezin (Photo by Colin Hovde)

Origins (or, “Theater J Questions Title, Gives Playwright Key to Play)

THE RELIGION THING has a long and storied past. Okay, maybe not that storied, but it’s been in development since 2004, when it was in a completely different form. At that time, the play, then called Good Counsel, was only ten minutes long “and was not quite a play, but not a sketch.” After being heard at the Source Theatre Company’s 10-Minute Play Competition and at Page-To-Stage at the Kennedy Center in 2004, the playwright began to think of expanding the piece. “The characters were telling me they wanted to be in a bigger play,” she says. “I felt like they had more to say.”

The idea for Good Counsel came from a newspaper article Calarco read in the Post about a married couple that did peer-to-peer marriage counseling. “There was nothing particularly unusual about this couple, but it got me thinking, ‘What about this couple makes them experts in counseling other people?’ And then I made a leap from that to, “Oh, wouldn’t it be funny if they were completely unsuitable?’” Yes, it would be – and is – quite funny, often in an uncomfortable way. Calarco describes the play as having characters who, despite being caught in terrible situations, “are funny in a way where they can’t help themselves.” The results, as evidenced by the audiences that have seen the show at Theater J so far, are several moments in the play where we can’t help but laugh at how badly the characters are screwing up their lives.

The play has seen many iterations over the past seven and a half years, and has received readings at the Charter Theatre’s First Draft Reading Series (with current cast member Chris Stezin reading Brian) and the Geva Theatre Center’s Regional Playwrights Festival. Theater J got a hold of the script in July 2010, and many overhauls have happened since. “I wouldn’t even call them ‘revisions,’ they were more like different versions,” says Calarco. “At one point I had two completely different Act Twos.”

One of the first things that got changed once Theater J began to develop the piece was the title – Good Counsel. “They [Theater J] rightly said ‘What’s with this title?’ ‘What’s this play about?’ They didn’t say it was a horrible title, but it really was.” In fact, Good Counsel is indicative of the previous structure of the piece, which was centralized around a court case that Mo was arguing throughout the play. “It was just so pretentious and so awful,” recalls the playwright with a laugh. “One of the first things I reexamined was the title. I thought, ‘What is this play about?’” Soon, she realized that the theme of religion and religious identity was prevalent, and picked up on Brian’s line about ‘the religion thing.’ She had found her new title. “That moment was when I realized that the play was not ‘X,’ it was ‘Y.’ I would not have come to that realization without Theater J guiding it through the process.”

In July 2010 Theater J held a reading of THE RELIGION THING as part of its Tea at Two reading series, with current cast members Liz Mamana and Chris Stezin as Mo and Brian. Since then, Theater J has worked closely with Calarco to develop the play.

“Knowing that I was meeting with people who had read the play and thought about it in a deep way was kind of intimidating,” recalls Calarco. “Because I’m so close to [the play], and because I’ve been so close to these characters . . . for so many years, I haven’t had to think very deeply about them – they just were in this little space. So knowing that there were other people who hadn’t known them as long as I had gave me the impetus to focus my attention more on it.”

Theater J brought The Religion Thing to the Kennedy Center Page-to-Stage Festival this past September, featuring the five actors in the current production. “Since Page-to-Stage, I don’t imagine anyone else’s face whenever I write those roles—it’s always Will, it’s always Kim, it’s always Joe,” remarks Calarco. “It’s an astonishing cast – it’s amazing. They’re fearless and they’re funny and wonderful people. It could not be any better – it’s fantastic.” I’ll agree with her: it’s hard to imagine any one else playing these roles. Liz Mamana, Chris Stezin, Kimberly Gilbert, Will Gartshore, and Joe Thornhill all deliver excellent performances that capture the conflicted and complex natures of each of the characters.

One of the most interesting things about this production is that it is being directed by Renee Calarco’s brother, award-winning director Joe Calarco. Having sat in on rehearsals and witnessed first-hand the two working together, I can say that it’s a perfect working relationship for this play. Joe Calarco, a playwright himself, can approach the play from a writer’s standpoint, asking Renee the right questions not only about the world of the play and the characters, but also about the mechanics and structure of the piece. I ask Renee if there were ever any conflicts that came about from working with her brother. “No,” she replies, “I know that’s a boring answer, but Joe and I work great together.” Boring or no—this harmony is clearly beneficial for the play.

Concluding Thoughts (or, “Why Haven’t You Reserved a Ticket Yet?”)

You might think that I have a biased opinion, and you may be right. But as the dramaturg, I try to be as objective as possible and be an advocate for you, the audience. THE RELIGION THING is an exciting new play from a vibrant voice in D.C. Theater, and Theater J is proud to be producing it. It is one of the most provocative and intelligent new plays that this dramaturg has ever come across, and is sure to leave you talking for hours after the curtain call.

Like I said, make plans for the inevitable post-show conversations.

These were two one-person, author-read readings about very intimate subjects. Totally riveting, so personal, and I would describe them as autobiographical documentaries as opposed to plays. I’m wondering if Ari Roth disagrees. I hope to see them again when they’re finalized.

I’d say I agree and disagree. They were intensely autobiographical documentaries. AND they were terrific plays in the making, soon to be shared as fuller-length events when they’re presented individually later in the Festival (check the website for various performance times).

What’s the distinction between a “documentary” for the stage and a play? Between story and play? Looking forward to reactions…

Are we doing the right thing? Is The Post right, in its showcasing of DC Playwrights, that what we really need next, in this theater town, is an aesthetic, and a series of voices, that really express who we are as a capital city; as a fusion of specific neighborhoods and communities?

What are your thoughts about the maturation of the DC theater community and the weekend’s coverage?

From: Joshua Greene
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:00 PM
To: Tell Ari
Subject: Thank You

Dear Ari,

Thank you for bringing The Religion Thing to performance. This is a remarkably skillful play that addresses taboo subjects in a way that the audience can appreciate. I’m sorry we couldn’t stay for the discussion, but the three in our party loved it and the performers.

My one comment (apart from the very sharp transitions between humor and serious discussions) was that the Catholic girl seemed, stylistically, more Jewish (in a typically Ashkenazic way) than her Jewish husband (who seemed far too calm and reserved for the Jews we know). Could that be what attracts them, at least in the playwright’s mind: that the guy (who probably threw spitballs in religious school) is more comfortable with an excitable (translation: Ashkenazic Jewish) woman than a calm (translation: non-Jewish) one?

Thanks again for bringing this show to stage.

* * *

Tell us your thoughts!

Pay-What-You-Can Previews Start Tonight for Renee Calarco’s wonderful world premiere, THE RELIGION THING. Read all about it everywhere!

Here’s the first piece, in today’s Backstage column of The Washington Post:

Unfaithful
“The Religion Thing” is the inaugural play in Theater J’s “Locally Grown” festival, featuring work by D.C. area playwrights. The show, which opens Wednesday, focuses on two couples: one an interfaith husband and wife and the other their longtime friend, a recent born-again Christian, and her new honey, whom she met at a church mixer. The evangelicals are devout in their devotion to both God and each other.

Chris Stezin, plays “a non-observant Jewish guy married to a lapsed Catholic,” half of a couple who, as they age, “begin to miss the rituals of their childhoods and, I think, the substance that observing those rituals lends. . . . They try to navigate this minefield.”

Renee Calarco, the playwright, described herself as “Jewish and somewhat observant. . . . My mother is Jewish. My father was Catholic and he converted before marrying my mother. So half of my extended family is Catholic.
“Oddly enough it’s been a defining thing in my life. . . . How do you relate as a Jew in a Christian world? (read more here)”

Next great feature is in today’s Washington Jewish Week.

Participating in community-supported agriculture programs during the spring and summer growing season has become a popular way to eat healthy and subsidize local farms. At the Washington DC Jewish Community Center and synagogues throughout the region, weekly boxes of fresh vegetables and fruits arrive ready to savor during peak months from May through September. Why not, asked Ari Roth, artistic director of the center’s Theater J, and Shirley Serotsky, director of literary and public programs, support locally grown theater as well.

“There’s a precedent here at the DCJCC with the farm-share program,” Serotsky noted last week, “so it felt right to look at the JCC involvement with the locally grown movement and explore how it might work with theater artists.”

Locally Grown: Community-Supported Art From Our Own Garden is the result: a brand-new theater festival that shines a spotlight on Washington, D.C., metropolitan area playwrights, and includes a world-premiere mainstage production by the District’s Renee Calarco, along with a series of staged readings that run in repertory through Feb. 13. Altogether six playwrights will receive opportunities to share works in progress, develop new ideas or fine tune not-yet-produced works.

Read more here

And one last feature in Playbill.com.

Happy Preview!

]]> http://theaterjblogs.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/tis-a-new-year-and-a-new-festival-sprouts-forth-pwycs-start-tonight/feed/ 0 tellari locally_grown RT pix in post #2 fileMasthead logo