Lessons from Act One

I was in New York for three days last week and could only see one Broadway show. For me, there was only one choice: James Lapine's stage adaptation of Moss Hart's memoir Act One. Moss Hart wrote Act One at the end of his career, from the perspective of a successful, worldly man of the theatre looking back at his early life. The book is funny, poignant, and infused with a love of theatre that struck a chord with me, a stagestruck young boy in Brooklyn some sixty years after the events described in the book. James Lapine and the producers at Lincoln Center must share my love for Act One, because they adapted the book faithfully and spent a lot of money on a revolving set and large cast of actors Lapine faced many challenges adapting the piece. Act One covers over 20 years in Hart's early life, with many characters and locations. He also faced the tough challenge of recreating some of the stage shows as a play within his play to demonstrate Moss' love of theatre. The second act, which largely tells the story of how Moss worked with the great playwright George S. Kaufman on their first play, "Once in a Lifetime," suffers from this difficulty. It's tough to dramatize the writing process on stage. Lapine and the designers met the challenge of multiple locations by staging scenes on a multi-level revolve that stood in for many locations, and playing other scenes on the thrust stage at the Beaumont theater. Even though they had a large cast, every actor played multiple parts. Tony Shaloub played three parts: older Moss Hart, Hart's father, and George S. Kaufman. Andrea Martin played three parts, too. That device works much better in theatre than on film or television. In this case, too, having actors playing multiple roles fit the material, which was a play about a boy who grew up loving theatre and finally found his place in it. As the young Moss says at the end of the play, in a line taken verbatim from the book, "not a bad curtain for a first act." Everyone involved with Act One did a credible, professional job of bringing the book to life. Since I loved the book I enjoyed the stage production. Even with the elaborate sets and costumes, charismatic performances from the actors, and great source material, it was no more than what we call a gentle, pleasant, evening in the theatre. I hope Tony Shaloub wins a Tony, but suspect that he won't since it was a strong year for actors on Broadway. If you're thinking of adapting a famous work to create your content, make sure you've chosen the right format for it. Does it enhance the piece if it's a play or a television series? Let your imagination soar. I heard of one young composer who created a very successful 15 minute accapella musical based on Sophocles' Oedipus. Before you start writing, think about what the material demands. Act One was made into a movie in the 1960s, in what is still considered one of the worst movies made by a Hollywood Studio. Clearly, it made more sense to tell this story in the theatre. Make sure you have the proper resources to realize your vision. Although Act One is technically a Broadway show and eligible for Tony Awards, only a non-profit like Lincoln Center Theatre Company could afford to mount a play with such a large cast and set. A commercial producer would probably not have done it. If you don't have large resources make your adaptation fit the resources you have. If you love the theatre and/or loved the book Act One I would recommend you go before its current run is over. I can't imagine smaller theater companies around the country staging such an ambitious, expensive adaptation.

The Enduring Popularity of "Road House."

I love films that challenge,confound expectations, and make you think. I hope you do, too. But every now and then I also enjoy watching a film that does none of those things. I am referring to the Patrick Swayze film "Road House," which celebrates its 25th anniversary this year. I don't know about you, but I always watch at least part of the film whenever I catch it on cable. If I was still running a cable network, I would schedule it every chance I got. Even a quarter century after its release, the film remains a potent ratings performer. Entertainment Weekly's Dalton Ross, who shares a name with Patrick Swayze's character in the film, created a chart for Road House fans to track its violence. He counted 55 punches to the face, 24 stomach punches, 26 kicks to the chest, and esoteric violence such as 7 pool cue strikes and 1 man crushed by a stuffed polar bear. You can find the details at: http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/04/29/road-house-patrick-swayze-fight-chart/. Road House is structured like a classic Western. The owner of the local bar in this unnamed small town hires Dalton, America's greatest bouncer, played by Patrick Swayze, to ride into town in his sports car and clean up his bar, the Double Deuce. Dalton is not only a martial arts master but also a zen philosopher who says things like "pain don't hurt," and "be nice, until it's time not to be nice." The movie signals early on that we're not supposed to take any of this very seriously, so we just enjoy watching Swayze, beat up bad guys, woo Kelly Lynch, the world's most glamorous emergency room doctor, and avenge the death of his mentor played by Sam Elliott. We also get to see a lot of Swayze's magnificently sculpted body, since he spends a lot of the film shirtless. The small town is run by an evil, rich man, Brad Wesly, played in scenery-chewing glory by Ben Gazzara. Gazzara was a very promising actor when he was younger, but you wouldn't know that from this film. In fact, very little about the plot makes sense, which is why I think the film spends so much time on various fistfights and destruction of property. Road House is the very definition of a film that's usually called a "guilty pleasure." We know it's not a great film, but we enjoy watching it anyway. But why does it work? How does this combination of fist fights, zen philosophy, and shirtless Swayze continue to draw an audience when so many other films from 1989 have faded away? I believe the key to Road House's success is the performances. Yes, the situation strains credulity, but doesn't break it. All the actors act as if the situation is real, and their total commitment to their performances allows the audience to suspend their disbelief. Dalton is a particularly compelling character. There's also something admirable about a man known for keeping the peace who prefers not to fight; that's a trope that content creators have used successfully throughout history. We all want to root for a man who always does the right thing, no matter what the cost. Finally, there's the rough and tumble of the actual fist fights; what man hasn't at some point, fantasized about being able to enforce order just by beating people up? The lesson I take from Road House is to make the world you create as believable as possible. Once you set up the rules of that world, stick to them and make sure that characters behave according to those rules. It helps if the characters are attractive and the heroes and villians clear. But let's not analyze the film in too much depth. Let's just enjoy it for what it is, the next time we see it on cable. And remember, be nice until it's time not to be nice.