Entire MFA Class Quits At USC, Protesting Curriculum Changes

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The entire graduate class of 2016 at the University of Southern California’s art and design school has dropped out, protesting faculty and curriculum changes.

The seven fine arts students on Friday posted a letter online, saying they’re withdrawing from USC’s Roski School of Art and Design because of changes to the visual arts graduate program and the loss of several prominent professors.

“It’s a different program from what I enrolled in,” George Egerton-Warburton told the Los Angeles Times (http://lat.ms/1KV7yK4 ) in Saturday’s editions. “I had a dreamy first semester – it had a tone of rigor. But we’ve lost that this semester.”

Students said they were upset that studio visits were replaced by classes focusing on teaching and criticism. They also lamented about the loss of guaranteed teaching assistant positions.

The school said “minor changes” were made to the curriculum before the students arrived in 2014 and that studio tours remain part of the curriculum.

“I regret that several of our MFA students have stated they will leave the program over issues that were presented to us and that we considered to have been resolved, specifically having to do with financial aid and curriculum,” Dean Erica Muhl said in a statement.

When Muhl took over in 2013, she oversaw a name change from the Roski School of Fine Arts to the Roski School of Art and Design.

USC’s graduate visual arts program is intimate but highly respected. It has produced many well-known contemporary artists including international art star Paul McCarthy, installationist Amanda Ross-Ho and multimedia artist Elad Lassry.

Experts said universities in recent years push for an interdisciplinary arts program that boosts students’ chances of employment.

At schools that offer both art and design, “design gets more attention and often more funding,” said DeWitt Godfrey, president of the College Art Association and professor of art and art history at Colgate University.

Information from: Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Wiz Khalifa And Charlie Puth Perform 'See You Again' At Billboard Music Awards

Things got emotional at the Billboard Music Awards Sunday night.

Wiz Khalifa performed his No. 1 song “See You Again” alongside Charlie Puth and violinist Lindsey Stirling at the award show. The song, which has dominated the Hot 100 Billboard chart for the past five weeks, was featured on the “Furious 7″ soundtrack.

Khalifa’s song plays in the final moments of the film as a moving tribute to Paul Walker and his character Brian O’Connor. Director James Wan has said that he’s cried every time he watched the ending with the song.

Clad in a maroon suit, Puth took to the piano and crooned out the hook to the moving ballad. A passionate Khalifa bounced energetically around the stage in between rapping his verses, while Stirling played the violin in a glittering gold gown.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

'Empire' Cast Reunites For Performance At Billboard Music Awards

“Empire” Season 1 may have ended months ago, but its stars, Jussie Smollett (Jamal) and Bryshere “Yazz” Gray (Hakeem), reunited at the 2015 Billboard Music Awards on Sunday to perform “Conqueror,” featuring Estelle, and “You’re So Beautiful.” Taraji P. Henson, who plays Cookie, introduced her co-stars with, “Prepare to celebrate the music of ‘Empire!'”

There’s no way I could possibly love music more than I already do,” Smollett told Billboard before the show. “The Billboard Music Awards has been the epitome of celebrating some of the best of the best in music. To be included as a performer on this year’s celebration is a huge honor.”

“I’m still living in a dream — the success of Empire and now getting the honor to perform at the Billboard Music Awards. It’s truly a blessing,” Yazz told Billboard.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

The Humble King

I never saw B.B. King perform live or ever met him in person, yet I carry with me a lesson that he taught me many years ago.

Fifteen years back, I was both freaked out and flattered, stepping out of my car onto the red carpet and into the press gauntlet for that year’s Grammys. As strange, wonderful and rare such experiences are for we “less grand” artists, it was a moment that crept into my confidence and left me saying: “Yes, I have and can accomplish great things.” From that moment on I would be forever tagged as “Grammy-nominated” and that’s a pretty cool thing.

For a moment in time, I got to be in, around and have my name in the mix of some the most widely recognizable names in the history of music. That year, U2 delivered “Beautiful Day”, Eminem and Elton John shared the stage together, and Madonna schooled us all about what it means to be a modern day pop star. It was overwhelming to witness, to be able to pretend I was a peer in some weird way, but I couldn’t help but recognize that I was obviously not whatever they were.

Nominated, as I was, for a Christian record, my portion of the ceremonies were off-camera, during the light of day, and celebrated with much less enthusiasm than that of the televised broadcast. There are the much less sexy categories like Christian contemporary, spoken word and jazz that are recognized before the real party begins. After getting all gussied up, walking the red carpet, then sitting in the rafters of the Staples Center both fearing and praying of what might happen if my name was called I experienced a bit of a let down coming to understanding my place in the world. Compared to all that I saw around me, I was simple, far from grand, and was left feeling decidedly not special. Even if I had picked up a golden gramophone, I still think I would have been just as humbled.

While I was sitting in one of the most expensive dresses I had ever worn and starting to wonder why I bothered… B.B. King’s name was called (pre-telecast) to receive one of the 15 Grammys he would amass over the course of his storied career. One could argue that it would have been acceptable for an old man to send someone in his stead, but he came, sat through all the drooling madness of aspirational stardom and accepted his distinction. His seats were better than mine, but still he had a long way to walk up to the stage and give his speech. Here was a man, who none could debate, was and forever will be among the historical figures of modern American music and yet, there was little more than the momentary applause and another a small statue. There was little grandeur, just a token of appreciation, leaving me to wonder if he spent any time grumbling about having to brave the circus event or if he held any enthusiasm for gaining the recognition yet again.

He’d done this more times than any Madonna or Eminem will most likely ever do. I thought, in comparing his achievements to those in the coming broadcast, if any of those artists even held a candle to this man in terms of talent, or whatever measure of judgment I could think up. To my reckoning, it was B.B. King who deserved the prime time lights and celebration. Yet, he was there, in the pre-broadcast, stuck with the likes of aspiring artists and hundreds of also-rans like myself who wrestled with conflicting feelings of admiration and disappointment. Despite any indignity or slight I might have imagined he could have rightly experienced, he seemed secure in his own skin. He accepted his award with dignity and honor, behaving very much as the man one hopes he would be — soulful, humble and the embodiment of an extraordinary artist who has revealed life through music.

He accepted his award with a quiet pride Kanye West could hardly dream of. He was applauded and deeply appreciated by all, but his reception would be nothing like the coming spectacle. He was unhurried, humble and yet grateful. His speech, though unremarkable in terms of being quotable, gave me a glimpse into a talented man who was more servant than an entrepreneur. His presence and his contributions, though world-changing, are astonishing not merely because of his talent, but because of the humility and earnestness at which he embraced the journey he was called to. For whatever achievements he might be credited, his life seemed to be the act of living the experience rather than accomplishing some sort of musical world domination.

Throughout all of my Grammy experience, I was left feeling shaken. If the award couldn’t be the measure of talent or if recognition isn’t the mark of success, what then was I after? What was the point of my playing, creating or any career ambition knowing that even B.B. King, in all his greatness, is still just a man, who, at best, on occasion was thanked for his work?

I find myself, many years later, reminded, thanks to B.B., that it’s not the awards that I should aspire to, but rather prepare myself for a life of gratitude. The pursuit of any of our callings and the willingness to share our unique gifts with the world will never be fully satisfied by a trophy or a spotlight, but, perhaps upon occasion make for legendary moments all the same. If we are ever lucky enough to find our passions and be safely surrendered to them, may we all be so blessed by recognizing what a gift it is to know that we have received it. What B.B. taught me is that it is not so much talent that lifts us up, but rather it is the story of our “inner man” and character that ultimately defines us.

Thank you B.B. It’s not a Grammy, but sincerely, thank you for showing up that weird day and encouraging me from so far away. Thank you for having lived an example of what I hope at the end of my days will be: having pursued my own calling with abandon, honor and excellence.

R.I.P. Mr. King

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Qatar backtracks on engagement with critics

By James M. Dorsey

After four years of engagement with its critics in a so far failed bid to turn its hosting of the World Cup into a successful soft power tool, Qatar appears to have decided that the region’s tendency to intimidate those who don’t fall into line may be a more effective strategy.

In doing so, Qatar appears to be backtracking on its record of being the one Gulf state that instead of barring critics entry or incarcerating them – standard practice in most countries in the region – worked with human rights and trade union activists to address concerns about the working and living conditions of migrant workers who constitute a majority of the population.

The cooperation resulted in key Qatari institutions adopting forward looking standards that would improve conditions and modernize but not abolish Qatar’s controversial kafala or sponsorship system that puts workers at the mercy of their employers.

Qatar’s engagement sparked understanding among major segments of the international human rights community, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, of the existential issues involved in labour reform in a country in which the citizenry accounts for only 12 percent of the population. Many Qatar’s fear that tinkering with the labour system would be opening a Pandora’s Box that could lead to them losing control of their society and culture.

Labour has emerged as the major distraction from Qatar’s success in winning the right to host the 2022 World Cup against the backdrop of a relatively high workers death rate and criticism of the conditions in which primarily Asian workers live and work. Qatar has conceded that it needs to reform its labour system in a bid to fend off calls that it be deprived of its World Cup hosting rights but has been slow in implementing reform.

Theo Zwanziger, the outgoing member of the executive committee of world soccer governing body FIFA in charge of monitoring Qatari progress on labour reform and a long standing Qatar critic, has warned that the Gulf state’s snail pace approach could result in a resolution being tabled at the group’s congress later this month demanding that the World Cup be moved away from Qatar.

Mr. Zwanziger’s warning rings hollow against the backdrop of guarantees given to FIFA by Russia, the host of the 2018 World Cup, that it would suspend labour laws with regard to World Cup-related projects. FIFA has said the German television report had taken the agreement with Russia out of context.

Qatar’s backtracking in the form of the detention of foreign journalists, including ones invited by the government, who investigate worker’s living and working conditions, and warnings to those in Qatar who have worked with Qatari institutions, human rights groups and trade unions comes as Gulf states adopt more assertive regional and foreign policies. In doing so, Qatar joins the conservative Gulf mainstream.

The United Arab Emirates has in recent weeks barred entry to a New York University professor who was scheduled to attend a conference at the university’s Abu Dhabi campus and two prominent artists, including one associated with the Guggenheim Museum, that is building a satellite in the emirate, because of their criticism of the UAE’s labour regime.

Gulf states distrust US policy in the Middle East, particularly the Obama administration’s handling of nuclear negotiations with Iran that could return the Islamic republic to the international fold. They also feel that Iran is projecting its power in the region through proxies that are encircling the Gulf. In response, Gulf states led by Saudi Arabia have become militarily and politically more assertive as in Yemen where they have waged a destructive bombing campaign and in Syria with stepped-up support for rebels fighting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

Gulf assertiveness began with Saudi troops helping in brutally suppressing a popular revolt in Bahrain in 2011 and the kingdom together with the UAE and Kuwait backing a military coup in Egypt in 2013. Qatar, with its close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, appeared at the time of the coup to be the one Gulf state charting an independent course.

With Qatar’s falling more in line with the more hard line mainstream Gulf approach, Oman is replacing Qatar as the odd man out in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the regional group that brings together Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, the UAE and Kuwait. Oman has refused to join the bombing campaign in Yemen, mediated US contacts with Iran that put the nuclear negotiations into high gear, and has rejected militarization of the GCC.

In the latest evidence of a reversal in Qatar’s approach, security forces detained a BBC television team that had been invited by the government to report on the labour issue. “We were invited to Qatar by the prime minister’s office to see new flagship accommodation for low-paid migrant workers – but while gathering additional material for our report, we ended up being thrown into prison for doing our jobs,” wrote Mark Lobel on the BBC’s website.

The 13-hour detention of the BBC journalists followed the arrest earlier this year of a German television team. Both teams had their equipment confiscated, which in the case of the Germans was returned only after all data had been wiped out. In a meek defense, the Qatar Supreme Committee for Delivery & Legacy that is responsible for the 2022 World Cup said the German crew had failed to obtain proper permissions to film. It is an argument that doesn’t hold in the case of the BBC.

FIFA’s rejection of the findings of the German documentary and particularly the fact that it expressed surprise that one of its media partners would report independently and critically about the group raises questions about the sincerity of its pledge to investigate the detention of the BBC journalists. “Any instance relating to an apparent restriction of press freedom is of concern to FIFA and will be looked into with the seriousness it deserves,” the group said in a statement on the BBC case. It did not issue a similar statement when the German team was detained.

It is unclear whether the hardening attitude of Qatar that is also reflected in sources in Qatar being hesitant to speak out after having been reportedly advised to lie low is simply security forces taking a tougher position as they forge closer security and intelligence ties to other Gulf states or whether it reflects an overall change in Qatar’s approach.

Qatar’s changed approach could well signal a partial shift away from seeing soft power as the main pillar of its security and defense architecture in the absence of the manpower or strategic depth to project hard power to adherence to a Saudi-led projection of military force. Qatar last year stepped up its arms purchases with an $11 billion deal to acquire US Patriot missiles.

Yet, Qatar, given that it is sandwiched between Iran across the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, sees the kingdom as both an ally and a threat, Qatar is likely to walk a fine line even if it adopts some of its big brother’s more repressive tactics.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter in an autocratic state in which decision making is highly centralized. At risk is Qatar’s potential of become a rare example of a mega-sporting event leaving a legacy of social if not political change rather than white elephants and financial loss. The World Cup offers Qatar an opportunity to put its best foot forward and emerge as a forward-looking 21st century regional model. The question is whether Qatari backtracking will squander the Gulf state’s unique opportunity.

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies as Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, co-director of the Institute of Fan Culture of the University of Würzburg and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer, and a forthcoming book with the same title.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Dean Potter Dead: Extreme Sports Legend Among 2 Killed In Yosemite BASE Jumping Accident

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif. (AP) — A Yosemite National Park spokesman says extreme athlete Dean Potter and another man have died in a BASE jumping accident.

The spokesman says Potter and Graham Hunt died late Saturday after attempting a wingsuit flight from a 7,500-foot promontory called Taft Point.

The Huffington Post has covered Potter’s awesome stunts before. Watch how he changed the wingsuit game and walked across the Enshi Grand Canyon in China on a one-inch tightrope.

A search-and-rescue mission began overnight when the jumpers’ spotter lost contact with them. Crews found their bodies Sunday in the Yosemite Valley. No parachutes had been deployed.

Potter is renowned for his bold and sometimes rogue climbs and BASE jumps, in which he would parachute from a fixed structure or cliff. BASE jumping is illegal in Yosemite.

Potter was 43. He completed solo ascents and tightrope walks across some of the world’s most famous rocks, and recently appeared in a film BASE jumping with his dog.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Little Big Town Performs 'Girl Crush' With Faith Hill At The Billboard Music Awards

Ultimate girl crush Faith Hill took to the stage with Little Big Town to perform their hit song “Girl Crush” at the 2015 Billboard Music Awards on Sunday.

The group belted out the tune together before Hill joined them on stage to bring it home. (Taylor Swift was clearly a fan of the performance.)

Initially, “Girl Crush” wasn’t getting a lot of support from country radio because of its presumed “lesbian theme,” but since that controversy was thrown out the window, the track is currently No. 1 on both the Hot Country Songs and the Country Digital Songs charts, and landed at No. 25 on the Hot 100.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Ideological Cleansing

The party that loses the White House next year will face an existential crisis.

Suppose Republicans lose again. They will have lost three presidential elections in a row. After Democrats lost three in a row in 1988, the party was forced to acknowledge, “We can’t go on like this.” Eventually Bill Clinton showed Democrats a new way — the “third way” — back to power.

Suppose Democrats lose. If Republicans retain control of both houses of Congress, Democrats will be shut out of power in Washington and in the states more completely than at any time since the 1920s. The GOP will act quickly to eradicate all traces of the Barack Obama and Bill Clinton legacies. Once again, Democrats will have to face a bitter truth: “We can’t go on like this.”
2015-05-18-1431915130-1013634-5reasonswhytravelingmakesyoualoser1.jpg
The losing party will see a showdown between the establishment wing and the populist wing. If an establishment candidate loses, the populist base of the party will say “We told you so. The party lost because it failed to nominate a `real’ Republican (or a `real’ Democrat).” If a populist candidate loses, the establishment will say, “We told you so. The party veered too far from the center”

Republicans have a smorgasbord of choices for 2016. There are likely to be at least two establishment contenders (Jeb Bush, Chris Christie). Plus several varieties of conservative populists: libertarian (Rand Paul), religious (Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum), tea party (Ted Cruz, Scott Walker) and neo-conservative (Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio).

The 2016 Democratic battle is for the soul of one candidate. Will the nominee be Hillary Clinton the “New Democrat” (like her husband) or Hillary Clinton the progressive populist? The answer is not yet clear. Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley stand little chance of winning the Democratic nomination, but they will be pulling Clinton to the left. So will influential non-candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio.

Clinton is already moving cautiously away from her husband’s get-tough policies on crime. “We need to restore balance in our criminal justice system,” she declared in New York. Free trade was another of Bill Clinton’s signature policies. His wife has not yet taken a position on the free trade bill now drawing fierce opposition from the left.

There are two populist impulses in the United States — one on the left and one on the right. Left-wing populism is economic. It pits the interests of the poor and the middle class against those of the moneyed elite. Right-wing populism is social. It pits traditional values against the values of the educated upper middle class.

The two populist impulses are ideologically distinct, but sometimes they go together. William Jennings Bryan, the great populist hero of the early 20th century, packaged economic radicalism together with religious traditionalism when he declared, “You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”

2015-05-18-1431914670-6310837-220pxWilliamJBryan19021.png

Traditional values used to be a winning issue for Republican candidates like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bush father and son. No more. The country has moved to the left on issues like same-sex marriage and legalization of marijuana. Recently, we saw conservatives thrown back on their heels by the ferocious liberal backlash to the Indiana law that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against same sex couples.

Economic populism is nothing new for Democrats. Since the New Deal, Democrats have been the party that promises to protect the economically vulnerable against adversity. The rise of Reagan in the 1980s threw Democrats back on their heels. When Reagan led a revolt against “big government,” Democrats found themselves in the awkward position of defending it.

Bill Clinton pulled Democrats to the center in order to keep the party competitive. He proclaimed in 1996, “The era of big government is over.” Now, with inequality at the top of the agenda for Democrats, the Clinton legacy is under fire. But Democrats have to be cautious. Americans may be dissatisfied with the country’s distribution of wealth, but they are not sure how the government should address it.

In a recent Pew survey, the public was split over whether the government should implement policies to shrink the income gap (44 percent) or let the market operate freely even if the gap gets bigger (47 percent).

Moderates have been disappearing in both parties. A lot of “blue dog” Democrats lost their seats in Congress to Republicans in 2010 and 2014. That’s why President Obama is having so much trouble getting a trade bill passed. The kinds of Democrats who supported Bill Clinton on NAFTA aren’t there any more.

When moderation fails, fundamentalism takes over. Reagan emerged out of the ashes of the failed Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford presidencies. The tea party emerged out of the ashes of George W. Bush’s failed presidency.

Call it ideological cleansing. It’s been going on for some time now. And it’s going to continue. The losing party can look forward to 2017: the Year of Recriminations.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Museum Day Around the World

May 18th is International Museum Day so visit one if you can and don’t be put off by pedants who say you need to do “homework” beforehand.

That’s what The Washington Post advised in a long article that was supposed to take the anxiety out of art:

Our response to art is directly proportional to our knowledge of it. In this sense, art is the opposite of popular entertainment, which becomes more insipid with greater familiarity. So study up. Even 10 minutes on Wikipedia can help orient you and fundamentally transform the experience…When visiting special exhibitions, always read the catalog, or at least the main catalog essay. If you can’t afford the catalogue, read it in the gift shop.

That’s lousy, expensive advice. I’ve bought some exhibition catalogs over the years, but always after a show, and never for the information. I bought them as exhibit souvenirs, as a way of reliving the experience. Read the text? What for? (My apologies to the writers).

I was recently at the Art Institute of Chicago’s superb Magritte exhibition and while I knew some of his paintings, I basically went in cold. I didn’t rent the audio tour because I didn’t want anyone telling me specifically what to look at or look for. I’m not a robot. Instead, I did what I usually do: I let my curiosity take me wherever it led, reading the information on the walls, which was lively and informative, only when I felt like it. I had a blast, and so did my friends from Milwaukee (Hey guys!), who didn’t do any research either.

2014-11-25-2014092014.17.03.jpg

I felt the same way in London last summer at the Tate Modern special exhibitions of Matisse, who I knew a little, and of Russian artist Malevich, whose work was a total blank to me. Both shows were well-curated and left me high for days. There was more than enough information right there at both exhibitions to augment what I was seeing — if I wanted to read it. But sometimes I didn’t. I just let the art speak for itself.

2014-11-25-malevichbanner.jpg

In a world drenched with 24/7 information, what’s wrong with just experiencing art? Who says you have to “study up?” Going to a museum shouldn’t feel like work or an assignment. Unless, of course it is for a class. But if that’s the case, you’ll still have plenty of help when you get there because exhibitions are designed with more than enough information on the walls.

So let go and enjoy. Don’t feel obligated to do research. You’ll be much more relaxed, and you’ll see more than if you felt there was a quiz waiting for you at the end instead of that gift shop.

2014-11-25-Collectie2_kijk07.jpg

______________
Lev Raphael is the author of Assault With a Deadly Lie, a novel of suspense about stalking, gun violence and militarized police, and 24 other books in many genres.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Aisle View: Lake Erie Idyll, with Laughs

2015-05-17-1431876950-1334179-3627.jpg
Noah Galvin in A.R. Gurney’s What I Did Last Summer. Photo: Joan Marcus
If you have written upwards of fifty plays over fifty years, it’s likely that the bigger hits are balanced by some titles which have in one way or another gone astray. The Signature Theatre–which has appointed A.R. Gurney as playwright-in-residence this season–has seen fit to dust off a thirty-year-old piece of what might well have been assumed to be lesser Gurney. What I Did Last Summer, surprisingly, turns out to be a delectably flavorful all-round treat.

An aimless fourteen-year-old (Noah Galvin) from Buffalo–not unlike Gurney himself–spends the summer of ’45 in an upper class resort on the Canadian side of Lake Erie. There he encounters local eccentric Anna Trumbull, A.K.A. “The Pig Lady” (Kristine Nielsen). Before we go on, let it be noted that even if the play wasn’t any good, the performances of Galvin (from the Playwrights Horizons musical, The Burnt Part Boys) and Nielsen (whose Maggie Smith phone monologue in Vanya and Sonya and Masha and Spike was one of the acting highlights of 2013) make a trip to Signature its own reward. But the play is good. What’s more, the Signature Ticket Initiative keeps the admission price for all seats down to $25 (except for any extension period), which makes What I Did Last Summer not only a delight but a bargain.
2015-05-17-1431877113-8168110-3635.jpg
Kristine Nielsen in A.R. Gurney’s What I Did Last Summer. Photo: Joan Marcus
The so-called Pig Lady teaches the boy to develop his potential, be it in paint, clay, woodwork or even knitting. As it turns out, the boy will eventually become a playwright and write upwards of fifty plays over fifty years. Which is to say, this is indeed a young Gurney, who has noted that some of the scenes between the two are verbatim exchanges from 1945.

Galvin–who will play a central role in Dan Savage’s upcoming ABC series, “The Real O’Neals”–exudes charm as the awkward teenager, bringing to mind Matthew Broderick in Brighton Beach Memoirs. Nielsen is rivetingly magical as the mentor, a sort of backwoods Auntie Mame. The rest of the cast–Carolyn McCormick as the mother, Kate McGonigle as the sister, Juliet Brett as the neighbor girl, Pico Alexander as the son of the local gardener–all contribute to the affair while knowing well enough to keep out of the way of Galvin and Nielsen. One of Gurney’s conceits is to give the four lesser characters monologues in which they admit the play is not about them, although they’d prefer that it was.

What I Did Last Summer was written in 1981 or thereabouts and produced in New York in 1983 at Circle Rep. The production, apparently, was a shambles; director Joan Micklin Silver (“Hester Street”) either quit or was fired, leaving the show to open with no director credited. This is always a dire sign, and the play was seen as a half-baked attempt by the playwright, just then riding high with the off-Broadway hit The Dining Room. A prior summer stock tryout, at the Westport Country Playhouse in 1982, sounds at least interesting in that it starred Barbara Feldon (of “Get Smart”) as the mother and the celebrated Eileen Heckart as Anna.

The Signature production reveals that this is indeed a viable coming-of-age comedy. Clean, spare and nostalgic, it gently pokes fun at its hero/author and at itself. Gurney devised it to be simply performed with minimal furniture and props. Director Jim Simpson (of the Flea Theater) does this, effectively so. (The practically empty stage–a bench, a platform, an upstage wall–comes from Michael Yeargan, whose sumptuous King and I is presently at Lincoln Center.)

Two directorial devices stand out: the use of a musician (Dan Weiner) at a drum kit on the far right of the stage space, providing sound effects including minor sounds for the invisible props; and frequent projections on the back wall (stage directions, occasional lines, and key words from the dialogue–or merely letters–scattered randomly). It is hard to say whether these devices help or hinder; they border on distraction at times, but they might be part of what gives the production a resonance that the play apparently has not had in the past.

Perhaps it’s the directorial contributions of Mr. Simpson; perhaps Gurney has honed his script with expert rewrites; or perhaps it’s a combination. Certainly, Galvin and Nielsen offer a grand acting holiday that it would be a shame to miss. The results are admirable: thirty years on, Gurney’s What I Did Last Summer turns out to be an enjoyably delectable charmer.
2015-05-17-1431877079-1839359-3628.jpg
Noah Galvin and Kristine Nielsen in A.R. Gurney’s What I Did Last Summer.
Photo: Joan Marcus

.
What I Did Last Summer, by A.R. Gurney, opened May 17, 2015 and continues through June 7 at the Pershing Square Signature Center

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.