Back in the Loop

by Michael Orenstein, actor in Looped

 

I can do naught but apologize, dear reader, when I was asked to contribute to this blog I envisioned myself giving you all daily updates on the rehearsal process of Looped, not taking into account how tiring that process can be. So it’s been a couple of weeks since my last missive, and much has happened.

 

For the first week we used a rehearsal space, with tapelines marked out on the floor to simulate the dimensions of the actual stage at the Lincoln Theater. Rehearsals went well; each day tweaks were made to performances and to words and lines in the play itself. It was exciting to see not only the new things that Jay Goede brings to the role, but the changes in nuance his work brings to the production as a whole. Most of the larger changes were made to the opening scene of the play to give it more immediacy and to flesh out the character of Danny. As a consequence, the character I portray has changed quite a bit, in response to what Danny needs in the play. I have relished being able to play something somewhat different from the last two productions of the play – not that there was anything wrong with what went before, but it does help to keep it fresh and interesting to play something new.

 

We worked out new comedy and dramatic beats in the rehearsal space, and then moved into the final phases of rehearsal in the Lincoln itself. No matter how closely you try to make a rehearsal space match the actual venue, it’s not the same, and changes to timing, actor placement and even some of the words have been necessary since we got the thing up on its feet with lights and the set. Jokes that played well in a flat rehearsal space had to be reworked in the face of the immensity of the actual theater. Little tweaks, such as when a character moves, or which way they turn their head or move their arms, have been worked out by Rob, the director. Timing of lines was also changed to suit the new environs.

 

And now, we’ve put the show up in front of five preview audiences, and again, after each show, we’ve learned more about what works and what doesn’t quite. More little changes to movement and timing, a couple of word changes. As far as the changes go – it’s a delicate balance with the audience. The writer and director listen to the crowd to see what moves them, what holds their interest – but unlike in movies where often one test audience can alter large chunks of a film, we usually let a few audiences give us an overall feel for what needs to be done. If something hasn’t landed (worked the way the writer intended) with all (or most) of the preview audiences so far – you can bet that he, Matthew, has spent the last couple of days coming up with new ways to convey what he wanted in that moment.

 

Now we have two more previews, with rehearsal all day prior to the shows to incorporate the changes that Rob and Matthew have come up with, and we’ll see how the next two audiences respond. Then, it’s opening on Thursday night, and the play is essentially set – at least until it moves to another theater.

 

So, five previews – what has been the response? I don’t want to sound like a shill for the play – but they have been great. Each audience has laughed at different moments, hung on different words, as will always happen with live people; but equally, each audience has responded with incredible warmth and excitement. Our curtain calls have been somewhat rapturous – it feels like people have really been on a journey with us, which, after all, is the whole point.

 

I think we have a hit on our hands, and thank each and every one of you who supports the Arena Stage for giving us the opportunity to bring it here and to learn from you.

 

I hope to write more - no promises.

 

Comments

[Lou Partridge]

I was at the June 17 matinee performance. I didn't get the chance to read the bio notes in the program until after the post-show discussion and after I had left the theatre. That is when I read that you had a degree in cellular and molecular biology. It would (might) have been so off-topic but I might have asked how (what made) you switch from such a cool area of study. This question being asked by a science (and theatre) geek.

[Mike Orenstein]

Lou,

All my life I was torn between performing (acting, stand up) and doing research. I went to college in the mid-eighties, during the comedy boom - and started to stand up on the side, as well as appearing in a few school productions. When I got my undergraduate degree, I got accepted into a doctoral program at Michigan in pharmacy - I was still torn - on the way to visit some family, I stopped by a comedy club that owned a chain of other clubs around the country - I thought, I've proven I can get into grad school - not let's see if I can get work nationally as a comedian. They offered me several weeks work, and grad school became a memory and a constant source or irritation for my parents to bring up.

The thing I tell everyone about any kind of performing, or work in the arts in general, it has to be a compulsion - if you can see yourself being happy doing anything else - do that - if you can't, which was where I was when I made the decision - I loved research, but I couldn't see doing it for the rest of my life - whereas performing was more or less an addiction - if you can't, go into the arts. It's a hard, often depressing life - but the rewards and knowing you followed your heart are worth it in the end.

That said, if you good in the sciences - this country NEEEDS more and better scientists - either way, they are both very creative endeavors.

Thanks for you question

Mike O