|
I now have a producer for Apocrypha in NYC. She's going to be looking for a director and a space (having run start-up shows in Boston previously). Any tips on how to guarantee a good show while I'm out of town? We've already agreed that I get a tape of the first read-through so I can make any changes, that we split any profit (HA!) 50/50, and that I get a look at the budget every two weeks.
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
Are you in town for casting? That script is awesome but very character-driven and if at all possible I would sit with the director for auditions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to trust her, since I'm moving to LA by midmonth. I could stream them. That'd be cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2011 03:27
|
|
|
Yeah, that's all I can think of. Obviously there's nothing that will guarantee a good production, unfortunately. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
First I read everything I could about Merrily We Roll Along. Then I scrubbed the internet for videos and found an audio of the Kennedy Center production, then a video of a different performance of the same run. Then I found a .pdf of the revised script, and then I an audio recording of the original run (the second preview, with "The Blob", "Darling!", "Honey", and the "historical" transitions). Now I'm wrangling with 7Zip to open an archived .vob video of the original production and even after I get that open I won't be finished because there are two different videos of the original broadway production and this is only one of them and help I think I'm obsessed. Also, what do y'all think of August: Osage County? I appreciate its soapy side but I'm undecided on whether or not the outright melodrama is a negative or a positive. I haven't seen it yet, though (might at the Oregon Shakespeare), only read it (which was a pain in the rear end).
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2011 10:56
|
|
|
It's Sondheim. A feeling of obsession is perfectly natural and, in fact, indicates that you are quite sane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2011 13:52
|
|
|
Osage? I'm waiting for the movie.  .
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Also, what do y'all think of August: Osage County? I appreciate its soapy side but I'm undecided on whether or not the outright melodrama is a negative or a positive. I haven't seen it yet, though (might at the Oregon Shakespeare), only read it (which was a pain in the rear end). Saw it at Steppenwolf and was blown away. I think it's an absolute epic and solid proof that Tracy Letts is the best American playwright in the business today. I'm also looking forward to the Killer Joe movie, which should be very interesting to say the least (assuming Matthew McConaughey can pull it off)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2011 16:23
|
|
|
It was a tough read due to the massive cast (the sequences in which they all talk at once doubly so) but it's such an absorbing story. It could run for five hours and still be fascinating. I don't have a lot of faith in the eventual film version (for one thing I doubt they'll let it play its full Lord Of The Rings length) but I'll probably see it anyways if just because the characters are so good and the strange device with the taped-up windows would be really creepy in a film.Alaemon posted:It's Sondheim. A feeling of obsession is perfectly natural and, in fact, indicates that you are quite sane. Oh, ok, good. The recording of the second preview is interesting because it's the show in its most raw, original state. I can see why the changes were made because it's sort of bad and clunky but there's this weird energy. Lapine later reconfigured the play but I think that right from the start they were working in the wrong direction. The concept of high-school kids putting on a show of their disillusioned former graduate's life is a strong one (even "Rich And Happy" and "Darling!" work in this concept, warping the "high life" through their eyes and making it seem banal and unpleasant), and it seems like, instead of clarifying this conceit, Prince, Furth, Sondheim, and eventually James Lapine tried to bury it entirely, turning an audacious, if flawed, idea into a bland, cold, and awkward one. The new book, in fact, is so cold that just about every production I've seen photos of is lit or designed blue; the Kennedy Center production looked like an igloo. It also reads amazingly badly, and even in the best hands comes across only as pleasantly functional, which is extra surprising, considering Furth's book for Company is one of the best in musical theater*. The book for Merrily has never satisfyingly worked. The issue in 1981 was that it was cluttered and unfocused and the issue now is that it's mechanical and basic. There's a total lack of organic dialogue, almost every scene is written to get from point A to point B, from song to song. The lack of cohesive concept is terribly damaging. Watching three characters move backwards, seeing how they become disillusioned, is not a strong enough conceit because the characters don't learn. The dramatic outcome is that the characters in the play have come to lovely conclusions despite earlier optimism, which is not particularly satisfying. The high-school scenes, besides making for interesting bookends, offer the opportunity for a conclusion for Frank. Perhaps his older self could be made an observer at the end (I think he was in the original production), made to realize the mistakes he's made. This will probably never happen but it's nice to think about. Frankly it's too bad, too. Something like that could run off-broadway, where the prices wouldn't crush the flaws of a teenager cast and a faux high-school set. It's such a fun idea, really. It doesn't fix the problem that Frank is an unlikable protagonist (only a revision of the book that puts more emphasis on Mary in the first scene could help [or the other characters at the party, à la "Putting It Together"]) but it gets more to the heart of the original, and viable, conceit. They say that the three things that drive a person are food, sex, and fixing other people's musicals. This is entirely true. I could write pages on this stupid show. *Perhaps the trouble is that Company's scenes are organic and the characters aren't written to sing, meaning that the songs were interjected in an observatory, Brechtian fashion (the only major character with a "book number" is Joanne, who is loud and outspoken, and her song is a tumultuous, drunken rant) whereas the characters in Merrily are meant to burst into song, and perhaps this is, generally, an area Furth had trouble with. Magic Hate Ball fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Aug 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The book for Merrily has never satisfyingly worked. . . . I'm obsessed with Chess in much the same fashion. It somehow doesn't equal the sum of its parts. I want it to work so badly, but it just never seems to do so. I spent months in college hellbent on "solving" Chess for a production I wanted to mount and I'm pretty sure I was no closer to fixing it at the end than when I started. Merrily has never clicked for me. Sondheim is my favorite writer in musical theater, but there a few of his shows that just... don't work for me. Merrily, Follies, and Passion are the three that spring to mind immediately. By contrast, I could talk Into the Woods forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
My play's officially published. Right here. Now for riches. Actually, I'd settle for the satisfactory ending to my latest draft of the spiritual sequel. I got the characters with great motivations, but while one plot is resolved really well, the end is just...sputtery. It's at 51 and would be much more fulfilling at 55 or so. If anyone wants a look, I'd be more than happy to send you a link.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The book for Merrily has never satisfyingly worked. The issue in 1981 was that it was cluttered and unfocused and the issue now is that it's mechanical and basic. There's a total lack of organic dialogue, almost every scene is written to get from point A to point B, from song to song. The lack of cohesive concept is terribly damaging. Watching three characters move backwards, seeing how they become disillusioned, is not a strong enough conceit because the characters don't learn. The dramatic outcome is that the characters in the play have come to lovely conclusions despite earlier optimism, which is not particularly satisfying. The high-school scenes, besides making for interesting bookends, offer the opportunity for a conclusion for Frank. Perhaps his older self could be made an observer at the end (I think he was in the original production), made to realize the mistakes he's made. This is, I think, the main problem with Merrily. As it stands, there is no climax. The dramatic question of the show is "How did you get here from there, Mister Shepard?" Unfortunately, this question is answered literally, and we are treated to two-and-a-half hours of watching a guy's life fall apart in reverse--but to what end? Why not just tell it chronologically? Ideally, the dramatic question should be "How did you get here from there--and where do you go from here?" The bookends are what justify the non-linear structure; done right, "Our Time" would become the climax it should be, serving as the push for Older Frank to change his ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 05:48
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:By contrast, I could talk Into the Woods forever. Well, do! I'm not a huge fan of Into The Woods, none of the music grabs me and I get impatient with the cluttered plot, but I've only ever seen the original production, which I think is kind of clunky and ugly. What gets you about it? CoolZidane posted:This is, I think, the main problem with Merrily. As it stands, there is no climax. The dramatic question of the show is "How did you get here from there, Mister Shepard?" Unfortunately, this question is answered literally, and we are treated to two-and-a-half hours of watching a guy's life fall apart in reverse--but to what end? Why not just tell it chronologically? Ideally, the dramatic question should be "How did you get here from there--and where do you go from here?" The bookends are what justify the non-linear structure; done right, "Our Time" would become the climax it should be, serving as the push for Older Frank to change his ways. The general idea I've always had is that, at the end, 1981 Frank appears to watch his 1955 self deliver his valedictorian speech to his peers, and as the final notes play he turns downstage and looks out at the audience, bearing an expression of regret and realization. Perhaps he is joined by the (previously unseen) 1981 Frank and Mary (they'd cross their pinkies, natch), but they'd really, really have to look like the student Frank and Mary or it wouldn't work at all. Essentially there has to be a sense of closure. Even a wisp would be satisfactory. The evening would still be hounded by a bitter start (Merrily, as it stands now, is one of the blacker musical comedies around if just because of its dire ending) but the audience would be granted a proper conclusion. Merrily also really couldn't play forward, because frankly the story, as it is now, wouldn't carry through an evening (too little would happen in the first act). Playing backwards isn't a terrible concept, just a tricky one; the high school bookends help the narrative, but so does the conceit of having young people play the parts. It begins kind of silly but gradually grows more and more true as it progresses, which is the point. Played by adults, even seasoned ones, lends the first act an attractively well-rounded, if somber, tone, but as the characters grow older the age of the actors starts to conflict with the youthfulness of the characters. Even Raul Esparza couldn't pull it off. Even addressing the issue of closure and central concept, the show still has a variety of issues. One is that after the nightclub-wedding scene, essentially every dramatic question has been answered, which wouldn't be such a problem if it was immediately followed by the rooftop scene and Our Time. Instead it moves into Opening Doors, which isn't a bad song (not really my favorite, I think it's kind of plinky and annoying), but one that breaks both the show's temporal concept by showing a long length of time in forward motion and the show's rhythm of traditional dialogue-music-dialogue scenes (it's essentially a really long transition), and it doesn't help that the song reaches its climax around the middle, with the appearance of Joe Josephson. The solution probably lies in inventive staging (and, though this is a personal preference, I wish the orchestrations were beefier). Merrily also has a major problem with its dialogue. As the show was trimmed and trimmed the dialogue became more and more arch and sometimes downright ridiculous. Though it's mostly Frank who gets the lame dialogue, mostly early on, probably in an attempt to make him seem alienated and "lost", the mistake is made of substituting total blankness for rotten charisma; Frank, even though he "wishes the whole goddamn thing were over", is still a human being. Furth and Lapine tried their damnedest to make Frank more appealing but simply succeeded in making him frustratingly bland. He's an outright rear end in a top hat in the first act in the preview recording, but there's a character there, rather than a cipher. In fact, what continually surprises me about the preview recording, is how eclectic and full the characters are. What they say doesn't sound like reality, but it sounds. This is particularly important in establishing their friendship, when Furth's ear for dialogue between people who are familiar with one another is readily apparent. I've been doing this for two years. I think I have a lobe in my brain devoted to Merrily We Roll Along. edit:  i'm so happy right now Magic Hate Ball fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Aug 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2011 09:51
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Well, do! I'm not a huge fan of Into The Woods, none of the music grabs me and I get impatient with the cluttered plot, but I've only ever seen the original production, which I think is kind of clunky and ugly. What gets you about it? I sort of dig the ugliness of the woods in the original production. On some level, I think it's almost necessary. A lot of productions tend to design the show around the first act which is the merry romp through the forest and Disney princesses falling on their butts and stuff. Then, when the second act rolls around, the inevitable response is "wow, I wasn't expecting things to turn so dark -- they've should've ended with act 1!" You have to design for act 2. The woods need to be this big spooky menacing place because it's where you go to face your demons and overcome (or not) your obstacles. It's where the normal rules of civilization get suspended and where things don't stay safe. But what the characters don't get (in the first act) is that the rules still apply. You're away from the oversight of society, but everything you do still has consequences. Cheating on your spouse, stealing from the giant, straying from the path, all have ramifications and can come back to devour you whole. Another thing I love about the show is that it has these four monologues of "what I learned." "I Know Things Now," "Giants in the Sky," "On the Steps of the Palace" and "Moments in the Woods." Each one is about the character having to make a choice, and that choice is ultimately reflective of the sort of... Erik Erikson-style identity crisis at each stage. They go right in age by character, too -- Hood is dealing with doing what she's told or getting in trouble. Jack is a teenager trapped between the smallness of his home and the big scary (slightly sexy) world abroad. Cinderella is a purely identity-driven examination of what she wants her place in the world to be -- is she going to be the scullion or the princess? And finally the Baker's Wife who sings about marital fidelity, or honoring the promises you've made even when you know you won't get caught. I think there's even an argument to be made that the Witch is the fifth reflection like that. Even though she's physically young and beautiful, she's dealing with looking back at her life's work, seeing it ruined and meaningless and feeling she's wasted her life. She lost Rapunzel, the giants are on the loose again, and all these idiots can do is argue and blame her. So she takes refuge in bitterness and nihilism. I think it's a show with a lot to say about parents and children and community and morals and consequences and... I absolutely love it. If I were handed infinite resources and told to pick ONE SHOW that I could do, Woods would be my top pick. It was also the first Sondheim show I encountered, so it's the standard by which I measure all the others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
I understand what you mean about the woods, but frankly I just don't care for Tony Straiges's design, at least not as it's represented by the video. The whole production rubs me the wrong way. How would you do it? I'd love to see it taken in an entirely original direction. An environmental design would be interesting, or at least some take on theater-in-the-round. I'd also love to hear a musical analysis of the score, which has always left me cold (a "music-box" orchestration, like the one given to the recent revival of A Little Night Music, might fit the show). I don't disagree with your character analysis and in general I think Into The Woods has one of the best books of all Sondheim's shows. also rich and happy dance break polo lounge (pt. 1) Magic Hate Ball fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Aug 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
I'm really tired of Sondheim
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Would Fringe, Improv as well as Sketch Comedy be acceptable here if so I'm a manager of a small fringe theater in New Orleans that does Improv Sketch Comedy and Produces plays. I'm working on something right now that would be my first full length play although I've been doing live sketch every week for a year now. To add I have absolutely no background in theater at all I'm actually a paramedic. I started performing improv and theaterical stuff 2 years ago, acted in my first play a few weeks ago. Anyway I'd love to send it to someone and see what someone thought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 02:23
|
|
|
So when you're writing a play and you have a power outtage do not think it will be a good idea to dig up your trusty college anthology and read Death of a Salesman again by flashlight. I imagine it is something like a songwriter listening to The Clash or something while composing. You just get depressed. But I did finish my first act today! 62 pages kind of long but I'm thinking act two will only clock in around 40ish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
I didn't even know Into The Woods had a 2nd act. I saw it once in summer camp and it was passable enough, seemed complete. I might've even saw it twice, because one year they were cheap and wanted to reuse the sets for The Jungle Book, but it was beyond forgettable. And there's nothing wrong with being an artist/paramedic: the organizer of this year's National Poetry Slam is a paramedic/slammaster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
If you didn't see the second act, you didn't see it. It's like ending The Fantasticks on act 1, or ending Richard III or Macbeth right after they take the throne.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 09:43
|
|
|
It might've been Into The Woods Jr, which cuts the second act and trims the first (and simplifies the music). Also, I've never seen The Fantasticks and I still have no idea what it's about. The cover art makes me think it's some sort of "Jetsons: The Musical".OSheaman posted:I'm really tired of Sondheim You're tired? I'm exhausted. T-Bone posted:But I did finish my first act today! 62 pages kind of long but I'm thinking act two will only clock in around 40ish. Finishing something is usually cause for celebration anyhow. What's the play about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The cover art makes me think it's some sort of "Jetsons: The Musical".
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Welp, my Fringe show's reviews are split between 5 stars and 0 stars. Avant garde theatre will polarize the hell out of people, and I don't necessarily blame them. It's a hard show. But hey, if anyone's in Minneapolis between now and August 14th, you should give us a try. I don't care if you end up hating it, but I think the show really does succeed in what it set out to do. My friend almost cried during it, but my sister almost fell asleep. Forget Forgive fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Aug 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Finishing something is usually cause for celebration anyhow. What's the play about? It's about the night before and the day of an audition for a bunch of actors. I guess if I could compare it to something (in my dreams) it would be Glengarry Glen Ross. It's plot driven, the pacing is past, the scenes are mostly a series of one on one confrontations, and the characters are utterly success driven at the expense of anything else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It might've been Into The Woods Jr, which cuts the second act and trims the first (and simplifies the music). That is an absolutely appalling concept. Cutting out the second act aggressively misses the point of the play. It would be like ending Little Shop such that he's killed the dentist but now he's rich and famous and nothing bad ever happens to him again. Or, to borrow from The Producers "Oedipus won't bomb / If he ends up with Mom!" It's just... nonsensical. quote:Also, I've never seen The Fantasticks and I still have no idea what it's about. The cover art makes me think it's some sort of "Jetsons: The Musical". It's a lovely musical. It's about a boy and girl who are in love, and their fathers who build a wall between them. It's simple and sweet and charming. It's also one of those Jerzy Grotowski poor theater types of shows, in that I think it is at its best when it calls upon the audience imagination. There's a movie that was made of it, and the movie is okay, but... like I say, the show thrives in the imagination, and the movie SHOWS YOU things. Almost wholly by virtue of being a movie it's too literal. The big sticking point of the show is that act 1 culminates with an abduction, which the script refers to as "a rape." In the classical sense, as in "of the Sabine Women." The taking and carrying away. One of my favorite songs in the show sings about all the different kinds of rape you can order -- again, meaning abduction. Unfortunately, we've lost that meaning, so the song very frequently gets altered. (If you see the show, they spell out exactly what they mean by the term, and it's a very lighthearted scene staged for the benefit of the lovers. Context is everything.) You could do a lot worse than listening to one of the many fine cast albums (the original has Jerry Orbach in the lead role of El Gallo!). The script is equally worth it, but it's also a show that thrives on being seen. So if you find yourself near a production of it, give it a look. It's another show on my short list of "we need you to direct a musical STAT." (No one has ever made that request of me, but hope springs eternal. Eventually, like the MGM musicals of old, I will boldly proclaim "Let's put on a show" and in doing so save the day.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2011 10:34
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:That is an absolutely appalling concept. Welcome to the magical world of school edits. At least they're getting exposure to Sondheim and his style. poo poo, at least they're doing a musical at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2011 15:37
|
|
|
To be fair, when you have an audience that fills the gamut from 8 to 14, and one month to put on two or three plays, brevity/content cuts can be extremely reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2011 15:44
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:That is an absolutely appalling concept. Cutting out the second act aggressively misses the point of the play. It would be like ending Little Shop such that he's killed the dentist but now he's rich and famous and nothing bad ever happens to him again. Or, to borrow from The Producers "Oedipus won't bomb / If he ends up with Mom!" Explaining to people that Seymour getting eaten IS the happy ending is maddening to me, but I've had the conversation more than once. I'm going to have to stage a production of Faust to spell it out for them. "The devil is bad mm'kay" doesn't really seem like that tough a concept to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2011 16:46
|
|
|
Geekboy posted:Explaining to people that Seymour getting eaten IS the happy ending is maddening to me, but I've had the conversation more than once. I'm going to have to stage a production of Faust to spell it out for them. "The devil is bad mm'kay" doesn't really seem like that tough a concept to me. I love the movie. It was my first exposure to the show and I taped it when it aired on ABC in... 198whatever and I watched it CONSTANTLY growing up. The Hollywood Ending is where it falls flat, though. "Don't Feed the Plants" is a fun song, and from what I've seen of the ending they filmed originally (Godzilla-sized Audrey IIs destroying the city), it would've been great. Stupid focus groups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:It's about the night before and the day of an audition for a bunch of actors. I guess if I could compare it to something (in my dreams) it would be Glengarry Glen Ross. It's plot driven, the pacing is past, the scenes are mostly a series of one on one confrontations, and the characters are utterly success driven at the expense of anything else. That sounds interesting, will you be sharing it here? Golden Bee posted:To be fair, when you have an audience that fills the gamut from 8 to 14, and one month to put on two or three plays, brevity/content cuts can be extremely reasonable. Yeah, it's ideal for middle school. Sweeney Todd has a similar version (the Beggar Woman's thrusty lyrics are changed to something like "Don't 'cha want to be my boyfriend 'n buy me dresses").
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
I don't know. I tend to be of the mindset that if you have to hack-and-slash a show to make it "doable" (for whatever reason), it's probably not a show you should be doing. I've seen some witty updated lyrics for Gilbert & Sullivan shows, but... if you have to change the show to make it relevant to your audience, why not just do a different show? There's some middle ground, obviously, because otherwise we'd never have English language productions of Chekhov or Moliere, but I really think you have to draw the line when you're flat-out changing the POINT of the show. Come see "Death of A Salesman Jr," where Biff becomes a high-powered corporate executive and Willy gets a national day of mourning in his honor!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:That sounds interesting, will you be sharing it here? Ah, I'm not sure yet - maybe! It's supposed to be produced by a group at my college so I need to see what's going on with that first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:I really think you have to draw the line when you're flat-out changing the POINT of the show. Not enough good children's theater to license and re-license, especially back then in the early 2000s. It might be different now. quote:Come see "Death of A Salesman Jr," where Biff becomes a high-powered corporate executive and Willy gets a national day of mourning in his honor!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:. It is a very good play, but it was a MAGNIFICENT production. The second act in particular was basically perfect. It doesn't feel particularly melodramatic in the theater, at least until the third act, and by then it's earned it. It was 3 and a half hours. I saw it three times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 07:04
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:I don't know. I tend to be of the mindset that if you have to hack-and-slash a show to make it "doable" (for whatever reason), it's probably not a show you should be doing. Yeah, I'm right there with you. What pulled me back in to doing amateur theater was helping my old high school out with their production of Grease (which is a terrible show that I despise) and it was an edited version. The production was pretty terrible over all, but the revised script was just awful. The only thing the show has going for it is the sexual content, which was of course completely removed. The various videos of high school and middle school productions of Les Mis are baffling go me, too. Especially since that's the only license that is really offered currently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 16:32
|
|
|
A local high school here did Bye, Bye, Birdie and that is ten times more painful to watch than Grease. I'm not really a fan of musicals in general but even if I loved them Bye,Bye, Birdie would make me want to cut my ears off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
God, I hate Bye Bye Birdie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
Does anyone else have it happen where tech week sort of comes up out of nowhere? I mean, I always no when tech week is because it's on the schedule but every time that Monday hits, it's kind of a surprise. That said, this week is going to be awesome provided my arm doesn't fall off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2011 13:51
|
|
|
Saw Catch Me If You Can on Broadway. It was fun show with a really stylish set. The music was pretty but forgettable aside from the show-stopper "Don't Break the Rules." Right now I'm in acting conservatory working towards my BFA, so if anyone is an aspiring actor or is curious about going to college for acting I'm all ears 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
Sup BFA buddy, I actually did a thread in ask/tell sort of about that last year that's in archives somewhere (OSheaman was in there too being awesome) that seemed to go pretty well. Maybe we should do another one this year before school gets crazy edit: here it is http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3367475 T-Bone fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Aug 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 06:05
|
|