A Near-Perfect "Opus"

By Jana Pollack, New Rep Reviewer

"Opus" is a rare theatrical experience: a new piece of work that is different, moving, and swirlingly beautiful. In this ensemble drama, New Rep has produced a well-acted and well-staged piece of theater that explores an artistic community by bringing the audience directly inside and allowing us to watch it slowly explode.

The play chronicles the tumultuous journey of a renowned string quartet. The actors do not play their instruments, but it is better that way; they move their bows in perfect time with the recorded sound, and the effect is stunning. What is more impressive is their emotional responses to the music they are creating. Anyone who has ever collectively produced something beautiful will respond to this, as the looks on their faces clearly represent what it means to be taken outside of yourself by the act of producing something you love.

There are many good things to say about this production. I'd like to start by commending two actors in particular. As Elliot, the unhappy, closeted leader, Michael Kaye is fascinating to watch. His composure, outwardly perfect in his first moment onstage, is just an inch away from cracking in every moment that follows, and it is almost painful to bear the strain with him. But the instances when he lets his guard down are elating, and his presence on the stage is impossible to ignore.

Brilliant in a quieter way is Bates Wilder as Carl, the cellist. Carl avoids the drama of the group at first, and it is only halfway through the play that Wilder's impeccable acting becomes noticeable. He is all there, enveloped in his character, and when Carl becomes an important player in the tug-of-war, we've come to trust him so much that it all makes perfect sense.

The rest of the ensemble — Shelley Bolman as the laid-back narrator, Benjamin Evett in the difficult role of Dorian, the ousted genius, and Becky Webber as the protege replacement — is strong, as well. However, in playing crazy Evett occasionally takes it too far; especially in the scenes he shares with Michael Kaye, his emotions feel somewhat strained and unrealistic.

In mockumentary style, the action is interrupted so that individual actors can share monologues with the audience. This technique can be hard to pull off effectively, but it works quite well in “Opus.” One reason it is effective is the choreographed nature of the monologues. The play opens with the four members of the group standing in silhouette, and lights come up and down on each of them as they speak, often overlapping. This serves to set up the group dynamic, which continues to evolve as the play moves forward. The interview style is used throughout the play, and though it is not always as powerful or telling as in that first moment, it helps to preserve the feel of the piece as a case study.

Which, in many ways, is what it is. Watching "Opus" is like watching the best of documentaries; it feels that real and that gripping. The friendships, romances, and power struggles are clear and difficult, and the tension rises brilliantly. The elation, camaraderie, and deep disappointments that come from throwing yourself into your art form are crisply articulated. New Rep's production of "Opus" is a combination of technical triumphs: interesting, meaningful script, excellent acting, and skillful sound and lighting design. It is also a very human piece of theater with long-lasting reverberations.

While rehearsing the show's biggest musical piece, Opus 131, Dorian says to Elliot: "It's not good enough." Elliot responds that he can't be perfect. "No," Dorian says, "just ... closer." This play is not perfect. But it is close.

Opus Notes on the Production

THE ORIGINS OF OPUS

As soon as violist-turned-playwright Michael Hollinger picked up his long-neglected instrument, he felt compelled to write a play on a theme he already knew from the inside out: string quartets and the people who play them. “In some ways, this is my most personal play,” he allowed in 2007. “The characters are closer to me, demographically … Chamber music has been very good to me, and I finally felt like ‘Maybe I can actually write a chamber play about chamber musicians’ ... In some of my plays … it’s a very stylized language - heightened - it’s not designed to sound like life. Opus is the very opposite of that.”¹ The very concept of a play that is “designed” to sound like real life reminds us that writing authentic naturalism is not as easy as it looks. The richness and specificity of the contemporary world Hollinger creates is just one of the many things that make Opus such a compelling play. Perhaps more than any other contemporary playwright, Michael Hollinger remains interested in artistic process, perennially curious about why and how artists do the work that they do.

ONE GOOD VIOLINIST, ONE BAD VIOLINIST, ONE FORMER VIOLINIST, AND SOMEONE WHO DOESN’T EVEN LIKE THE VIOLIN
A string quartet is a small group of two violins, a viola, and a cello that operates without a conductor. The modern string quartet has its origins in 18th century Germany where it was originally referred to as haus musik (house music). Composers and musicians played in string quartets primarily for their own enjoyment and enrichment; devotees came to private homes and salons to listen to quartets for recreation. Fittingly, the Lazara practices in its members private homes, handles its money and business calendar without a manager, and makes decisions as democratically as possible. For the Lazara, music is not merely a weekly paycheck. This quartet takes everything — from stylistic interpretation to the selection of rehearsal snacks — to be deeply personal. Furthermore, Hollinger very deliberately matches each character in his fictional Lazara Quartet with an instrument:

Elliot (1st Violin): The first violin is the highest pitched and, therefore, most exposed instrument in the string family. Not surprisingly, the phrase “high-strung” has its origins in virtuoso violin playing. The first violin usually carries the melody and may give cues with his body. This person may sometimes act as the group’s public representative, and outsiders may automatically view this player as “the leader.”

Alan (2nd Violin): Contrary to its name, the second violinist’s musicianship must rival that of the first violinist, but in a subtler way. Precise rhythm and intonation (playing in tune) are their most important responsibilities.

Dorian (Viola): The lower-pitched viola contributes a great deal to the quartet’s tone, color, and mood. In a four-part arrangement, the viola’s note will often be the one to turn a simple chord into a complex, colorful sound. Although the viola has a distinctly lovely tonal quality, it rarely carries the melody and is often considered the least “glamorous” quartet instrument. Interestingly, Dorian’s name comes from the Dorian scale in music, a minor, eerie-sounding scale in which the sixth scale degree is raised an additional half step, changing the sound of the natural minor scale.

Carl (Cello): The only quartet instrument written for bass clef, the cello provides a steady rhythmic grounding that propels the quartet forward and acts as the quartet’s firm foundation. It rarely has virtuoso passages, but when it does, they are extremely moving.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE?

Many artistic ensembles persist in functioning well without defined leaders, examples include post-modern dance ensembles (The Judson Dance Theater), ensemble and process-based theatres (Chicago’s Goat Island), and jazz bands managed on the commonwealth system. There are some key differences, however, between these ensembles and a professional, world-renowned string quartet like the Lazara.

Ensemble dance and theater groups generally form because their members want to push the boundaries of the form, create a new artistic vocabulary, or emphasize process over final product. They rarely form with fame or success as a goal. Jazz bands often operate on the commonwealth system to avoid greedy agents or bandleaders, or in order to focus on group improvisational techniques which expand the definition of their art form.

String quartets, however, are more like tiny, meticulous orchestras than freewheeling, creative ensembles. Most quartets concern themselves neither with process nor experimentation, nor with expanding the boundaries of their form. Quartet musicians spend most of their time attempting to play intensely difficult music that was written hundreds of years ago exactly as it appears on the page. Good quartets must accurately represent the composer’s written intentions while simultaneously putting a fresh, interpretive spin on music that has been played by others many times before. As if four headstrong musicians of the highest caliber striving for the same objective standard of perfection wasn’t enough, in a quartet they must do it symbiotically and in very close quarters. While it behooves them to bring the best of their individual talents to the rehearsal room, they also spend a great deal of time suppressing them for the sake of consistent blend and cooperation within the group. Essentially, string quartets are an art form of absolutes without any absolute authority.

In Opus, the Lazara Quartet faces enormous pressure not only to perform difficult music accurately and beautifully, but also to make all the right decisions as a group, even as the line between the personal and the professional gets continuously blurred. Where does the “buck” stop? Does it have to? What is whose business? Who is right, who is wrong, and who is acting in whose best interests?

WHY 131?

Opus 131 is one of Beethoven’s “late quartets,” written after Beethoven had not only lost his hearing, but was also grappling with illness, family strife, and the fear of his impending death. 131 is a monster of a string quartet. It is forty minutes long and written in seven distinct movements using seven equally distinct key signatures. Still, there are a number of string quartets in the repertoire whose grandeur lies somewhere between the Canon in D and Beethoven’s most formidable masterpiece. Given this, whywould the Lazara Quartet decide to tackle 131 days before their televised performance at the White House? Perhaps for some of the same reasons Beethoven had when he wrote it.

GLOSSARY²
Dorian: In music, a minor scale whose sixth scale degree is raised an additional half-step, changing the sound of the minor scale.

Vibrato: The extremely slight fluctuation in the pitch of a note that results in the pulsating, emotional sound used most consistently in orchestral and quartet music.

Concertgebouw: A concert hall with famously excellent acoustics in Amsterdam.

Sinfonia concertante: A genre of composition for violin, viola, and orchestra.

Molto espressivo: A diacritical (instructive) marking in music meaning “very expressive” in Italian.

Sforzando: Meaning “forced” in Italian, it instructs a musician to play a particular note with sudden emphasis. It is written over the note, above the staff.

Hairpins: The common term for a crescendo immediately followed by a decrescendo, indicating a change in dynamics over a short period of time. They are written below the staff.

Sharp/Flat: The raising or lowering of a note by a half-step. It can also refer to a musician’s inability to correctly play a note on its exact pitch.

Double stop: Two notes played simultaneously on a stringed instrument using two separate strings.

Adagio ma non troppo: A diacritical (instructive) marking in music meaning “At ease, but not too much” in Italian.

Poco crescendo: A diacritical (instructive) marking in music which calls for a small dynamic increase.

Poco ritard: A diacritical (instructive) marking in music which calls for a small decrease the speed of a piece.

In tempo: In time, or, at the intended speed of a piece, as opposed to a slower rehearsal tempo.

References:

1 Haun, Harry. “Mr. Hollinger’s Opus.” Playbill, Aug. 7, 2007. article/110146-Mr._Hollinger%27s_Opus>.

2 Cole, Richard. “Virginia Tech Multimedia Music Dictionary.” Virginia Tech, 1996. vt.edu/musicdictionary/>.

Further Reading:

Crow, Bill. Jazz Anecdotes: Second Time Around. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Eisler, Edith. 21st Century String Quartets. St. Anselmo, CA: String Letter Publishers, 2000.

Giellette, Jonathan and Marion McCollom, Eds. Groups in Context: A New Perspective on Group Dynamics.

Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Welsey Publishing Company, 1990.

Lewis, Ferdinand, Ed. Ensemble Works: An Anthology. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 2005.

McCormick, Malcolm and Nancy Reynolds. No Fixed Points: Dance in the Twentieth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.

Steinhardt, Arnold. Indivisible by Four. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 1998.

Stowell, Robin, Ed. The Cambridge Companion to the String Quartet. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Notes on the Production written by Adrienne Boris

Opus Meet and Greet/First Rehearsal

Can you believe we just had our first rehearsal for the 2nd to last show in our 2009-2010 season? I just can't believe how fast this season has gone! I just wanted to share some highlights/inspiration that took place in the rehearsal. For some great facts about the show make sure you keep up with our tweets for the next few weeks on Twitter.

Where the magic starts:


Eric Propp shares his costume inspiration:


Take a look at some of the costume inspiration boards he showed the actors:



Here is a peek at the set rendering (designed by Cristina Todesco)

Hope you enjoyed this small sneak peak into the world of Opus! Opus starts performing on March 28th. I will try to give you some more behind-the-scene peeks while they are in rehearsal.

-Desiree Pedrami, Marketing Associate

Boom - J.K. Cosmos / Reviewer

Boom – Review by J.K. Cosmos

Expectations aside, what was the point of ‘Boom’. Keeping an open mind, was this production entertaining? Was it informative? Was it engaging? Mastering language and staying in focus. Are these the requirements of an effective play? What is it that holds the audience and speaks to us as individuals? What is it that we seek when we take the time and buy the ticket?

Mulling it all over in my mind and reviewing the particulars, ‘Boom” is not it. The playwright tries very hard to create a work that is significant. He does not succeed, in this reviewer’s humble opinion.

How does the New Rep select their season is the next logical question? Not knowing the answer to that one, we can only hope for the best and wait on the next play that comes along in Watertown.

The scenery and costumes as has been the case in this season’s productions are fabulous. Really exceptional and not a disappointment. Kudos to those in charge and those accomplishing a fab set and dressing the actors.

The Actors over the top and the swearing and vulgarities were for what purpose? The repetition of swears and crassness, if it adds something to the work is fine. But when it is there and purposeless, then it is not fine at all. It grates. It annoys and looking to get out of my seat and out of the house, as soon as possible. The three actors tried to save this play, giving them some credit. To no avail. The 'woman' behind the scenes, Karen MacDonald, made sounds effects that was the closest to a female Mork from the popular show "Mork & Mindy". Not very effective use of talent. MacDonald is a talented actor, however, this play doesn't add to her creative process.

Some of the audience laughed at a few points in the play and it was hard not to notice the heartiness. So the question becomes were those few laughing, relatives or friends of the actors?

This is a production that you may miss. This is one that is not recommended and a true disappointment. This saddens this reviewer to have to share this negative opinion, as any creative endeavor deserves a shot. Unfortunately, there are so many playwrights working hard and having something to tell, to share or to just give us a reprieve from our daily routine, that this one is just not up to snuff in any way.

Reviewed – J. K. Cosmos

"Boom" Makes an Impact

I fully enjoyed New Rep’s production of “Boom.” This is a unique piece of theatre that is certainly worth seeing, and I commend New Rep for choosing to present it.

The basic concept – boy meets girl, boy traps girl in bomb shelter so as to re-populate the earth once comet hits – is rich with comic opportunity, and the two actors, Zofia Gozynska and Scott Sweatt, are able to capitalize on that quite well. There is less success with the few dramatic moments that are attempted, but they are rare enough not to detract from the piece as a whole. The added layer, provided by Karen MacDonald’s museum guide who is presenting this story to a tour group far in the future, opens the play up to more laughter, as well as providing a bit of mystery; small pieces of information are revealed one by one in her monologues, allowing the audience to slowly piece together what is going on.

There are many strong elements of this production. Jennifer Guadagno’s costumes are interesting and evocative, and play a large part in character development. MacDonald’s character, Barbara, is a complete joy to watch. Sweatt, as Jules, emerges more and more strongly as the piece goes by, and his excellent comic timing provides many of the larger laugh moments. The weaker link is Gozynska, as Jo. Unfortunately, this character is underwritten; she is essentially a pile of clichés, and never prevails over them. Gozynska gives it her best shot, but she is unable to infuse Jo with enough life to overcome the script’s shortcomings.

This underwritten part is one of the pieces that makes the script feel a bit like a work in progress. The plot of “Boom” is a funny and interesting idea, made more interesting by the play’s format of a story within a story. But this is a bit of a difficult construction, and the connections between the two stories, while present, aren’t fully explained or realized, which prevents the play from being quite as good as it could be.

Despite these few complaints, “Boom” is an exciting new piece of theatre, and this production is a whole lot of fun to watch.