Displaying items by tag: Elizabeth Glass

Santa Fe-based Theater Grottesco's new show, produced with Fay|Glassman Duo of Urbana, IL, is having its Chicago premiere at the Facility Theater on California near Division, brings a new approach to the performance and script design. The one-hour “Action at a Distance. . .in 2025” consists of six different plays, all performed simultaneously by the troupe of four actors. Devised by Lisa Fay and Jeff Glassman, “Action at a Distance” is probably unlike anything you will have experienced; it was for me.

The plays involved are these:
1. A family with a crying child frantically prepares to evacuate their home in advance of a hurricane.
2. An international human rights lawyer flees her international arms-dealing partner.
3. A filmmaker interviews a doctor who volunteered at the Occupy Wall Street tent camp in 2011.
4. A union local hosts an address by a revolutionary Venezuelan union leader.
5. An artist prepares a gallery installation of the UN negotiator's office for the 1948 Palestine Mandate, just before the negotiator’s assassination by the Stern Gang.
6. A financial mogul is unnerved by a rock, with a photo attached, smashing his window.

Each of these descriptors, provided by Fay|Glassman, suggest provocative and even enticing drama. They are not, however, played in a sequence of say, six 10-minute plays performed consecutively. Instead, all six are performed at once. Perhaps to ease the audience into what is without question a jarring experience, the performance begins with a clearly identifiable scene from the fifth play in the series.

In this one, the Artist (Apollo Garcia Orellana) is arranging the installation of the UN negotiator’s desk. A kaffiyeh scarf on a coat rack cues us to the scene as the Artist types words that would have appeared in the typewriter moments before the negotiator was assassinated. The Artist is carefully arranging the negotiator's books, sets his chair at the angle it occupied, while another character, perhaps his spouse (Elizabeth Glass), nibbling on a sandwich, nitpicks at his work and intimates the futility of the project as a whole.

“You’re doing a whole installation about Palestine and you’ll never get another grant,” the spouse declares, to which the Artist retorts, “It’s genocide.” He encourages her to find something to occupy herself, as she devilishly rearranges the gloves on the desk each time the Artist places them just so - a subtle skirmish between the two.

Soon enough two new actors enter the scene, and we can determine we are witnessing play number three, the camera-toting Documentarian (Danielle Louise Reddick) interviewing the Volunteer Doctor (John Flax) about his time in the 2011 Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. The characters offer exposition by self-description. If I recall accurately, the Artist is still upstage, doing some stage business from his scene, while the Documentarian and Doctor deliver their lines stage front. “When did you first get involved in Occupy Wall Street,” the Documentarian queries. The Doctor later reveals, “My mother told me that racism was the best way to control white people.”

That scene dissolves as Reddick now becomes an adult trying to comfort and distract an unseen child as her family prepares to evacuate before a hurricane. A suitcase is rolled into the action and the rest of the company joins a flurry of angst-ridden preparation flavored with recrimination and peremptory orders as they all prepare to flee.

Soon Reddick introduces an unseen speaker to an unseen audience. “Everyone, this is Dr. Lenzo, from Venezuela,” and we know the address by a revolutionary Venezuelan union leader has commenced - the fourth of the plays. And so on until all six plays are in motion on stage.

Striking lines jump out from the individual plays, and at times all the players are involved in a scene in which the dialog has meaning for all of them. “Would you take that out in the hall please?” On the whole, “Action at a Distance. . .in 2025” has no obvious meaning, and seems like a jumble of vaguely related utterances that finally give way to a single, diminishing spotlight on a one actor, and then darkness.

It was only in the discussion with the cast and the co-creator of the script, Jeff Glassman, that some light was shed on what the viewers had witnessed We learned that half the play is partly unscripted, and that the occasions in which an actor is playing to an invisible person are called “manifested absences.” Glassman declares that never happens in theater, though that is patently incorrect, and the one-sided phone conversation is a familiar example.

The six plays run largely independent of each other, except for two occasions when the action of all of them converge. Garcia Orellana holds up a color coded timeline, explaining, “There are two places where we all land on the same page.” This timeline reflects the acting and directorial planning to keep the action straight. 

The effect, regardless of the intellectual construct behind it, seems Dada-esque. Though in some respects the show is engaging, it wasn’t particularly enjoyable or satisfying for me.
An over-arching theme for the stories is one of failure, Glassman says.“It points at the fact that there are many failures around us that are compounded. There’s no excuse for it.” Viewing “Action at a Distance . . .in 2025” requires real effort from an audience member, and certainly the activation of their imagination. “In order to get out of that [failure],” Glassman says, “we have to use imagination.”

As to the style and structure of the show, Glassman poses a question. “Why is theater about one person going through life?” In other words, why is it about a protagonist encountering obstacles and reaching some kind of resolution, along a linear timeline? Why not dispense with timeline, and allow multiple themes to be expressed simultaneously on stage in a play?
“Dance, music, have done that,” Glassman says. Why not theater?

Here's why. Music is purely aural, dance is visual and aural. Humans can hear and see multiple themes running simultaneously and register them in a wide panorama of experience that affects us non-verbally. Plays use words. The words don’t have meaning when they aren’t delivered in a reasonably sequential manner. They just become a word salad. We come away with very little.
Theater Grottesco describes this as “immersing audiences in a constantly shifting mosaic of interactions and emotions,” and “much like the bustle of a crowded airport, ‘Action at a Distance’ captures the unpredictability within human connections.” Somehow, I think sitting in the concourse of Terminal 1 is more enjoyable than this Facility Theater show.

Perhaps Glassman’s approach would have validity if it were used for a single play, not six of them at once. For me, it was an interesting thought experiment, and it will be intriguing to see if anything comes from any quarter of the theater world, in the development of this approach. “Action at a Distance” runs through November 16, 2025 with performances at 3 pm and 8 pm.