On the Aisle: Oscars, actors, sports, second helpings -- and plays not to miss

People say they most miss my weekly column, so here's a sort of (irregular) equivalent.

OSCARS AND ACTORS: The big news for actors this weekend is the Oscars, for which I've dutifully submitted predictions to several contests. My problem is that for once I've seen too many of the films to be as cynically dispassionate as you need to be to do well in your predictions. You're better off not having seen them at all, so you can just sift the buzz, rather than develop favorites. This is why passionate sports fans don't make the best betters. As to the relation between movies and what I really care about, live theater, it's this: movie work keeps actors employed. So feel free to go to the Pittsburgh Film Office Oscar party, virtuous in knowing that it helps bring movie work to Pittsburgh, which allows a few more local actors to subsidize their stage work.

ON STAGE THIS WEEKEND: Three noteworthy shows are concluding all-too-short runs this Sunday. The one you're going to most regret in the long run not having is Thom Thomas' "A Moon to Dance By," based on the 1939 encounter among D.H. Lawrence's widow Frieda, her lover Angelo and her long-estranged son, Monty -- played very notably at Playhouse Rep by Jane Alexander, Robert Cuccioli and Gareth Saxe. Seriously: this is a national-class feather in Pittsburgh's cap (here's my original review) and it brought me back for a second viewing (more below). There are still two performances Saturday and one Sunday.

Two one-person shows are closing: Herb Newsome in his own "FreeMan in Paris," an intriguing faux-biography of a mid-century black jazz musician, for New Horizon at the Kelly-Strayhorn -- you can hear him talk about the show and also about August Wilson in this week's podcast interview; and Rita Gregory in Nilaja Sun's "No Child...," about a caring teacher in a tough high school in the Bronx, for Open Stage in the Strip.

Wali Jamal's one-man "Martin R. Delany: The Pittsburgh Years," about the pre-Civil War journalist, doctor, poet and black nationalist. This is the second of Jamal's projected four plays for his company, History's Flipside. The first, staged last year, was about Robert Smalls; the next two, coming later this year and next, will be about Daisy Lampkin and Mary Cardwell Dawson. 

(I reviewed all three shows in one piece Thursday. The two pictures here are of Newsome as two of the many characters he plays; both Gregory and Jamal play multiple characters as well.)

LAST WEEKEND: Life isn't all theater, there's also dance and sports. Last weekend Mary and I loved Attack Theatre's "Passion Reflected," especially the playfulness of the third piece, "At a Later Date." Then Saturday afternoon we enjoyed Pitt's roundball conquest of Cincinnati, and Monday we gloried in the epic victory over Uconn. My dream is that Pitt will play Uconn three more times -- and the only victory that really counts is the final one.

MORE STEELERS: Someone who identifies himself as "an expat actor who watched [the Super Bowl] from his Northern Manhattan apartment" wrote to say he enjoyed my dramaturgical analysis of "both its Aristotelian and Freudian aspects. Truly, a great day to be a Pittsburgher." But he says he's going to have to "keep my hometown pride at least slightly more under wraps, as I will leave next week to spend most of the rest of the year doing a season with the Great Lakes Theater Festival in Cleveland. A certain amount of reserve may be in order." I'll say!

Broadway composer Stephen Flaherty had no such need on a recent trip to Washington to perform in a concert at the Kennedy Center: he and Trevor Hardwick unfurled their Terrible Towel (I'm sure they only had one) in front of the White House.

(That's Dormont's finest, Stephen, with his head cut off in the top picture, and Trevor below.) 

BROADWAY SHOWPLANE: In Sunday's paper we announce the PG's spring ShowPlane to Broadway, May 6-10, with a slate of four musicals -- the new "9 to 5," established hit "Billy Elliot," and revivals of "West Side Story" and "Guys and Dolls." The package includes air, airport transfers, the Marriott Marquis in Times Square, welcoming dinner, my opinions about the shows (well, that's free), optional extras, etc., etc. For those who want more drama and grit in their theater, I especially recommend Lincoln Center's revival of August Wilson's "Joe Turner's Come and Gone" as a matinee extra.

"JOE TURNER": This is the Broadway revival that occasioned some controversy last fall when it was announced the director would be Bartlett Sher, the first non-black to direct Wilson in New York. They've just announced the cast: Marsha Stephanie Blake (Mattie), Chad L. Coleman (Herald Loomis), Michael Cummings (Reuben), Aunjanue Ellis (Molly), Danai Gurira (Martha), Andre Holland (Jeremy), Arliss Howard (Selig), Ernie Hudson (Seth), LaTanya Richardson Jackson (Bertha), Amari Rose Leigh (Zonia) and Roger Robinson (Bynum). Of these, the most veteran member of the (unofficial) August Wilson Rep Company is Robinson, whom we know in Pittsburgh from his appearances at the Public Theater in "Things of Dry Hours" (2004) and "Driving Miss Daisy" (2003). (You might enjoy an interview I did with him in 2002 touching on Wilson in several ways.)

"Joe Turner" rehearsals started this week. Previews begin March 19, with the opening night April 16. Although produced by Lincoln Center, it will be at the Belasco Theatre (44th St. east of Broadway).  I should declare a personal interest: I was commissioned to write an essay about the Hill District background for the quarterly Lincoln Center Theater Review. I'm also hoping to find some money to take my August Wilson class at Pitt to see the show.

NEW WORKS FEST: Yes, it's time again. Pittsburgh News Works Festival is  accepting unproduced one-act plays for its upcoming 19^th season. Twelve will be staged Sept. 10-Oct. 4, with six more given readings Aug. 23 and 30. Submissions (40 minutes max) must be postmarked by April 4. For all the rules and regulations, visit www.pittsburghnewworks.org or call 412-881-6888. Winners will be staged by local theater groups

SECOND HELPINGS:

'The Seafarer' (gone) and 'A Moon to Dance By' (going)

Reveling in my semi-retirement, I went back a second time to see both "The Seafarer" (at City) and "A Moon to Dance By" (Playhouse Rep), and in both cases expanded my appreciation.

This is often what happens, partly because it's a stacked deck: you go back for a second viewing of plays you liked to start with, which are usually (with me, anyway) those most likely to reveal further depths and complexities. Beyond that, there's the likelihood the performances will have deepened over time. But mainly, you're a different observer, already knowing the play on one level and thus freer to see other levels a second time.

For all these reasons, in whatever combination, I was more moved by both productions on second viewing. I think it's mainly because in both cases I focused sooner on what I knew would be the central issue -- Sharkey's vulnerability to Lockhart (the devil) in one case, Monty's aching need of contact with his mother in the other.

At first you're put off by Monty, of course, with his English rectitude, not to say his class and ethnic bigotry. But already knowing he would soften toward his estranged mother, I could see it start to happen sooner, and I found myself identifying with his need more fully. In my own case, it's my father I regret not having known, but I felt many of Monty's emotions as my own. What a good play this is, full of smart dialogue that engages you intellectually and emotionally.

With "Seafarer," my connection is less personal, but the existential dread of its loneliness and despair (so powerfully captured in the Anglo-Saxon poem that provides its title) is even sharper on second viewing, probably for the same reason: you more quickly see past the comedy that the first viewing has taught you is really just camouflage of deeper needs and fears.

I have a question about the final poker hand. Given the Devil's ability to read minds, he certainly knows what cards Ivan has. Or is his knowledge limited to what Ivan (thinks he) knows? This is important, because in one case God must intervene directly (miraculously) to turn Ivan's four 4s into aces on Sharky's behalf, but in the other, the miracle simply resides in Ivan's finding his glasses. When the electric votive light comes on it suggests the former, but the enigma (and God's direct participation) is unresolved. What do you think?

[Sunday addendum: A message from a reader has helped me rethink this. The odds against there being three players with four of a kind in one hand of 3-card draw (with no wild cards) are so astronomical, and Lockhart is so sure of himself, that I think he must have stacked the deck and knows exactly what each player has. So it has to be a greater force that changes Ivan's four 4s at the last minute, using the rediscovered glasses as a gimmick. Yes, it's a miracle.]