An Outsider Looking In On Chicago Theatre

UPDATE: Jamie DesRocher has recently written an excellent entry on her blog about working in the Chicago theatre scene that you should check out here. It gets into a lot of what a couple people in the comments section here have touched upon.

As previously threatened, I wanted to offer my scattershot first impressions of what I noticed about the theatre scene in Chicago.

Now I need to make a few things very, very clear. First off, here's what I really know about the Chicago theatre-scene: fuck all. I spent four days there, saw a grand total of three plays, and talked to a little over a dozen people in the theatre scene there. These are simply first impressions* from a guy who was there for a very short period of time, saw a very small number of shows and spoke very briefly to a very small number of people.

So, for all the Chicago theatre-makers reading this, if I grossly - or even slightly - misrepresent the scene in this entry...

(Which I absolutely will be. When you're writing in broad generalizations, even on a subject on which you're an expert, there will be some distorting of facts and figures. When you're doing as I'm doing, which is writing on a subject on which I'm a complete novice, there will be some major botching of facts and figures.)

...feel free to correct me and/or expand on what I'm blathering about here. Just bear in mind that you're correcting someone who freely admits he doesn't know what he's talking about, so try not to be a dick about it.

My immediate impression was, like I wrote earlier, Chicago seems to be the land of milk and fucking honey for DIY indie theatre. Rent for space is significantly cheaper in Chicago than it is in New York. I won't divulge numbers, but a few were given my way by some folks there, and holy balls, producing theatre in Chicago can be done very, very cheaply.

I could be wrong, but I got the impression that it's less expensive and much faster and easier to put on plays in Chicago than New York (not that Nosedive has had any problems in this regard, but then again, we've been around for [Good Lord] nearly 10 years).

I also got a very garage-bandy vibe from the folks I talked to in the Windy City. The idea of turning this into a day job is not a priority. It's about putting on a show, not necessarily about creating a career. (This in particular is pure speculation on my part; career-minded Chicago theatre-makers are welcome to correct me on this.)

Frankly, I found this element of the scene to be the most refreshing and exciting. That feeling of wanting the show to provide a major source of income, expand or move on (to Off-Broadway for many, Broadway for some) pervades the entire New York scene, even if you don't have any of those ambitions. I didn't get that talking to folks in Chicago.

The shoptalk didn't revolve around getting an "in" with a major Equity house. It was about having ideas, and finding ways to put those ideas on the stage in front of an audience.

This may also have to do with the fact that there seems to be a clear delineation between Equity and non-Equity theatres in the Windy City.

Which isn't to say that it's all garage band, DIY-style. I saw a show in a big Off-Broadway style theatre (the Goodman) with a clearly large budget. But here's the thing: the tickets were only $18. And hell, Bob Fisher (someone entrenched in the DIY camp) clearly knew the director of the show at the Goodman quite well (okay, so much for that "clear delineation").

Also, the Chicago theatre community seems much smaller and closer-knit than the one in New York. Although it's not a case where everyone knows everyone else on the scene, it's pretty close. There seemed to be only two degrees of separation (tops) from other companies or people.

Chicago also has the same potential for getting audiences for theatre as New York (and despite some recent complaints scattered throughout the NYC scene, I think the audience for NYC theatre is doing just fine: of the nearly 50 plays I've seen so far this year, almost all of them enjoyed full to sold-out houses when I was in attendance). And hey, maybe I wasn't there long enough to hear them, but I also found it refreshing to not hear anyone complaining about not being able to get audiences, so that was pretty cool.

And yeah, this is one last thing that I could be very wrong about (and this could be due to only being there a short while, as opposed to New York, where I've lived for 10 years), but the fear and self-loathing talk among the theatre-makers I met was practically nonexistent (whereas it can get pretty pandemic in New York). Again, these conversations may be going on a lot in Chicago, and the folks I met preferred to put on their game face around me.

Anyway, those were some things I noticed off the top of my head while I was there.

In short, I dug what I saw of the scene.

And really, the above caveat aside, any Chicago theatre-makers reading this feel free to chime in with your thoughts, experiences, divergences and enhancements from my (myopic) assessment.

Buying tons of novelty junk at the O'Hare gift shop,

James "Fascinated Tourist" Comtois

*Although I did see a play when I first - and last - visited Chicago, that was nine years ago and just one play, so I think it's safe to say that my experience this weekend represents my first impressions of the Chicago theatre scene.

First Half of Infectious Down

Well, our first two performances for Infectious Opportunity are over and done with and we're off for three weeks before we reopen on July 1. We’ve had an absolutely amazing response from people to this show, and I’m so glad to be showing this to folks. The cast is doing a stellar job, and I’m definitely hoping we can restage this again in the not-too-distant future.

I've been pleasantly surprised that many audience members seem to really identify with the main character of Wes. For a while, although I wanted and hoped people would relate to Wes and the show to some degree, I was expecting that audience members would find Wes's actions far too batshit crazy to be seen as universal. Although I think we can all relate to lying to gain things from other people, or doing stupid and self-destructive things, or breaking someone’s heart, or wanting to be loved and revered, I originally thought that the means and context in which Wes does these things would make him one step removed from being Joe Everyman.

Apparently that's not necessarily the case.

I think it helps that Pete directed and David is playing the role in a very realistic and down-to-earth way. But it’s definitely interesting to hear a number of people saying afterwards that they could see themselves getting caught up in Wes's situation in the same way.

I think that’s pretty cool. And I'm excited to see how other people respond to the show in the latter half of the run.

Until that happens, I think I’ll be checking out as many shows by my Antidepressant Festival brothers and sisters as I can, and you should, too.

So, thanks to everyone who's come out so far to see Infectious, and I hope to see the rest of you in the beginning of July!

Antidepressed,

James "Brick Shithouse" Comtois

Talkin' to Theatermakers About Theatergoing

I recently talked to four IT Award winners (playwrights Saviana Stanescu and Bekah Brunstetter, and stage directors Daniel Talbott and Edward Elefterion) about how making plays shapes their play-going habits and vice versa for an article for the NYIT Awards, which can be read here.

Trying to see more shows,

James "Trend-Setter" Comtois

From The Vault: Schlock

I'm working on a new entry on violent horror films as an addendum to "Mike White, Violence in the Media and Personal Responsibility," but I may not finish it before the end of the day. Hell, I may just scrap it. Who knows?

In the meantime, I invite everyone to read (or reread) my entry entitled "Schlock," which was posted on October 31, 2005.

Loving trash,

James "Oscar" Comtois

Mike White, Violence in the Media and Personal Responsibility

Isaac Butler pointed out an interesting op-ed piece by screenwriter/actor Mike White (who wrote and acted in the films Chuck & Buck, Orange County, The Good Girl and School of Rock) about considering violent films in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. I'm actually in agreement with Mac that it's a terrible piece, mainly because it's simultaneously self-righteous and evasive (full disclosure: I am a fan of Mr. White's work), simply arguing "We Have A Problem" without coming even close to addressing what the problem is or what steps should be taken to fix it.

Now, I don't want to seem flippant about this "violence in the media" debate, as much as it annoys me (since it is so much in the Far Too Little, Far Too Late Department). I have pretty strong thoughts and feelings about the subject, being both a writer and as a fan of movies/television shows/books that feature violence (sometimes very graphic violence - I am a dyed-in-the-wool fan of horror films and Stephen King novels). I've also been very reluctant to comment on the Virginia Tech shootings, since even I find having a playwright from New York (read: some schmuck) offer his two cents to this tragedy to be in poor taste. Still, it's something that is going to be discussed no matter what and it is something worth discussing.

(I'm also not much of a, "Blame The Culture" kind of guy. I'm much more of a, "Blame The Mass Murderer" person.)

Should artists be responsible for their work? Absolutely. But just writing that doesn't really mean anything, so I'll use my own work and myself as examples.

My play The Adventures of Nervous-Boy features an act of horrific violence in its climax. Pete and I tried to make it as clear as possible that this act of violence is not a good thing (in other words, the character making the violent actions has Made A Bad Choice). I very much hope - and we tried to make this as clear as possible - that I am not condoning this behavior.

However!

What if (say) someone in the city was recently arrested for murdering a streetwalker and, upon being cuffed and put into the police car, yelled out to passersby or reporters, "I AM NERVOUS-BOY!" (and later admitted in a statement that he was referencing my play and that the outburst wasn't some sort of unnerving coincidence), how would I feel about this? Would I feel responsible?

Yes and no.

I mean, on a very personal level, I obviously would. Honestly, I'd probably lock myself in my room for days and consider never writing another sentence ever again. I'm not joking or being hyperbolic. The guilt I'd feel would be damn near crippling.

Having confessed that, if I were to retain or regain any of my rational objective faculties, I would realize I have no legal responsibility (any more than John Woo has for making The Killer or Stephen King for writing The Shining after someone killed a person and wrote "REDRUM" in the room). Wondering if a violent psychopath I don't know will get a hold of my work and that he'll be inspired to behave violently and that he'll actually act on that inspiration is no way to live and no way to work. (In other words, I won't be wondering every minute of my life if I'll spontaneously combust.)

The fact remains that it was the act of a violent psychopath.

What is my responsibility for giving a violent psychopath inspirational fodder for his means of his violent psychosis? How responsible is an artist for the actions of violent psychopaths?

What irritates me with Mr. White's column and the attitude he expresses is that he admits that he grew up watching trashy horror movies for cheap thrills, but doesn't cite any specific examples as to how this corrupted...

(And corrupted is the operative word. We're not talking about being influenced. We're talking about being corrupted. We need to acknowledge that it's not a "fine line" or a "slippery slope" or anything like that. There's a huge - HUGE - difference between talking and dressing like Han Solo or roughhousing in a friend's backyard and murdering people.)

...him or his peers.

I'll put it another way. What if a statistic came out revealing that 99% of all NAMBLA members owned a copy of Star Wars? (I just made that up; I have no idea if that's true or not.) What would this say about our culture? What would this say about the correlation to child molesters and popular culture? What would this tell us about George Lucas and his responsibility? Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

Should artists take responsibility for their work? Absolutely. Most worth their weight in salt already do. And again, I think this is a subject worth discussing. But self-righteous posturing gets us nowhere and talking about the influence of media doesn't really get to the root of things. It's not about influence. It's about corruption.

Perhaps in a bit I'll go into my thoughts and feelings on horror films, but that, as the kids say, is another topic for another time.

Still feeling uneasy about commenting on even
super-peripheral subjects near the VT tragedy,

James "Let's Keep To The Subject of Art As Close As Possible Here" Comtois

On Theatre and Politics - Matthew Freeman: Journalism and Blogging

Matthew Freeman has written an excellent entry summing up the crucial differences between journalism and blogging with regard to the incident with Mike Daisey's play.

Ultimately, he explains, that the good and bad thing about blogging is that it's "fast to the trigger." The bloggers are the first to respond and possibly force the journalists to take note, but are not the ones to actually offer up the cold hard facts about the situation (i.e., apparently this incident was not based on the pre-meditated actions of a protesting Christian Right group with the intention of sabotage).

Give it a read.

Blogging first,

James "Asking Questions Later" Comtois

Some Crazy Shit

"Free speech is like a Ferrari: What good is it if you don't use it or if you barely use it, only driving it in town, in stop-and-go traffic? It's useless until you can head out to the Arizona desert and push it past 150 mph. Short of libel, slander and impersonation, anything goes--that is, if you believe in the First Amendment."

-Ted Rall

---

UPDATE: Apparently it wasn't a Christian group. The school offers its side of the story here.

---

UPDATE #2: Mr. Daisey writes about speaking with the man who poured water on his outliine here.

---

Thursday night's performance of Mike Daisey's Invincible Summer at the A.R.T. in Cambridge, Mass. was disrupted when eighty seven members of a Christian group walked out of the show en masse, with one protester coming on stage pouring water on his original of the show outline.

Here's what Mr. Daisey writes:

"I am performing the show to a packed house, when suddenly the lights start coming up in the house as a flood of people start walking down the aisles - they looked like a flock of birds who'd been startled, the way they all moved so quickly, and at the same moment...it was shocking, to see them surging down the aisles. The show halted as they fled, and at this moment a member of their group strode up to the table, stood looking down on me and poured water all over the outline, drenching everything in a kind of anti-baptism."

All things considered, Mr. Daisey handles himself - and the protesters - quite well, moving on with the show for those that remained.

The Right always likes to complain about the secular humanists' and atheists' harassment and persecution of Christians. This would make a little more sense if said secular humanists and atheists were entering churches and staging disruptive walkouts en masse. (Although hey, maybe it's happened once or twice. Can anyone find an occurrence of this really happening? By all means let me know.)

You can read about the incident, as well as view YouTube footage, here.

Mildly appalled,

James "Crazy Christian" Comtois

From the Lil' Sistois…

So in case you didn't notice the update on the "Nosedive Central" blogline, the Blonde Comtois, Becky, has started her own blog. Her recent post made me laugh and sigh. I didn’t see the play in question, but she fumed about it to me last night.

She writes:

“Aside from being a dismally bad show, what I found the hardest to swallow was information I found in the program. The number of people who are financially backing this company is astonishing. Several people had given them donations of or higher than $20,000. Hundreds of people have given them hundreds of dollars. To make this show?! And more shows like it?! How can this be? In the last year I have seen brilliant companies struggling with little resources, and trying desperately to grab some attention away from Broadway and Off-Broadway productions like this. I can’t imagine that this is what people want to see.”

I do understand her frustration, as I'm sure many of you theatre-makers out there do.

Don't you ever wonder when you see a big professionally-made piece of horse manure how on earth it got made and, more to the point, how on earth it got so many large donations? I mean, several people had to sign off on the idea at multiple levels and tiers (a smaller version of the Hollywood system, where you need several "green lights" from several departments before going ahead with the project). Also, when you look at the donors list, you can't help but think, "Whaaaaat?! Many people donated upwards of $20,000 for this?" (Again, I haven't seen the play she saw, but I've seen others that have given me the same reaction.)

Anyway, I do understand her frustration.

Wanting a grant,

James “Or Just a Sandwich” Comtois

Very Late To The Game

A lot has been happening in the theatre world, with discussions about Rabbit Hole winning the Pulitzer, discussions about writing violence and the emergence of Theatre Forte, a super-neat concept/site. I've unfortunately been too swamped to chime in, which is a shame (because it's always so fun to muddy the waters with my incoherent two cents on any matters).

Even though I'm late in the game, there may be some overlap in my readership (i.e., some of you out there who read Jamespeak but don't read the other theatre blogs), so I will direct you to Mark "Mr. Excitement" Armstrong's blog for some required reading.

Mr. Nelson sums up (I think) several huge problems with the mentality of the theatre world/theatre industry. He explains one of the main reasons why I self-produce with my own company: staging my own work enables me to say exactly what I want to say, exactly the way I want to say it, while keeping those little developer/workshopper/"helper" demons at bay.

(And before you accuse me of selling out the folks at Nosedive Central, read Mr. Nelson's speech first. You'll know exactly what I'm talking about.)

I may go back to this subject in greater detail (read: rant for several thousand words on the subject). But for now, I just want you to go to the link. Read it. Then read it again.

Then tell everyone you know even remotely involved in theatre to read it. And read it again.

Tilting at windmills,

James "Fuck Workshops" Comtois

Peter Griffin, Sir Lancelot

We are now underway with our second weekend of our four-weekend run of Suburban Peepshow and "Trailers." Last night's show was a lot of fun and I'm very much looking forward to tonight. Seriously, folks, it's a small theatre, so don't wait until the last minute to come see it. Get your tickets here.

Last night, Subjective Theatre Company founder/artistic director Zachary Mannheimer came to the show and had a drink with us afterwards, saying to me: "So it looks as though you've finally written your Family Guy play for the stage."

Well yes, exactly so.

I've been having a tough time trying to accurately describe the show to people and have been falling flat: a straight plot summary won't help, as will mentioning the "style" or ideas. But that's a pretty accurate one-sentence description: Family Guy for the stage. (Sorry, Isaac, but you're still coming to see it.)

(Oddly enough, as soon as I wrote that last sentence, Zack Calhoon, who's in the show, posted a comment on my previous blog entry saying that his friend described the show as "Monty Python on anti-depressants." If you're really Family Guy-phobic, that description may suit you better.)

Well, I guess you're going to have to see it for yourself.

And in closing, happy birthday to both Marc and Kid Sister Becky!

Bringing the party favors,

James "Punch n' Pie" Comtois

"It is time the 'serious' theatre learns this lesson..."

Matthew Freeman has pointed out some amazing required reading for playwrights and theatre-makers at the Guardian Unlimited. Anthony Neilson writes about the biggest sin in theatre, which is boring the audience.

Mr. Neilson writes as his thesis:

"Boring an audience is the one true sin in theatre. We've been boring audiences for decades now, and they've responded by slowly withdrawing their patronage. I don't care that the recent production of The Seagull at the Royal Court was sold out. To 95% of the population, the theatre (musicals aside for now) is an irrelevance. Of that 95%, we have managed to lure in maybe 10% at some point in their lives, and we've so swiftly and thoroughly bored them that they've never returned."

However, this is what struck me more:

"I can't tell you how often I've asked an aspiring writer what they're working on, and they reply with something like: 'I'm writing a play about racism.' ... You can be fairly sure the play, should it ever be finished, will conclude that racism is a bad thing. The writer is not interested in exploring the traces of racism that may lie dormant within their [sic] psyche, nor in making the case for selective racism (just to be 'provocative'). This is the writer using the play to project their preferred image of themselves; the ego intruding on art; the kind of literary posing that is fed by the idea of debate-led theatre. And if you think that example sounds naive, substitute the word 'racism' with 'George Bush' or 'Iraq' or 'New Labour'. Sound familiar?"

Emphasis mine.

Check out the whole thing here.

Boring my readers,

James "Senile Grampa" Comtois

Banding Together

---

UPDATE: Isaac Butler has posted his response over at Parabasis. From what it seems like, a director's experience with such a show is very different than a writer's or performer's. Check it out.

---

I just realized that my previous post was my 200th on this site. Shouldn’t there be any fanfare or something?

[insert sound of kazoo here]

Okay, there we go!

Ahem.

***

As an addendum to my previous post, in addition to keeping costs down, presenting nights of one-acts from various writers with various directors and cast members can be another way for small theatre companies to not only stay afloat but also develop audiences.

The Blue Coyote Theatre Company's recent Standards of Decency Project is a good example of this: an evening of nine one-act plays centered around a central theme. The show had at least 39 people involved in it (perhaps more).

Seriously, folks. Thirty-nine.

If each person involved in the evening of one-acts could bring in six to a dozen people (friends and well-wishers) to the run (something very doable), we're talking 234 to 468 audience members (just from friends and personal well-wishers alone).

Since the theatre showing The Standards of Decency Project, the Access, seats 64, we're talking three to seven nights of the run being completely sold out from the get-go (and from what I've heard, that certainly was the case with the show's attendance). Added to that, each writer/actor/director involved received a wider audience than they would be normally used to.

Homer Frizzell, Joe Ganem, Jason Green and Mac Rogers experienced a similar situation with their short-run of F a few years back, which had a large number of enthusiastic cast members involved that resulted in standing-room-only crowds (and the implicit cross-pollination, giving each person involved several new audience members for their work).

(I've had similar experiences with my participation in Vampire Cowboys Theatre Company's REVAMPED shows and Friday Night Fight Club's "Circo Pelear," managing to rope a few friends into seeing it, but still having the show sell out, since the large number of participants did the same.)

Now, this is different than theatre companies jointly producing a work, or multiple companies putting up multiple shows in a festival setting. From what I've seen and heard (and experienced with Nosedive's Off-Night Series we did back in May of 2005), that often brings the opposite results: drained energy, inflated budgets, diminished audiences and a large number of theatre artists ready to kill one another.

In tough times, presenting multiple acts from multiple theatre artists under one roof may be a good way to develop audience bases and give the region a sense that there is indeed a theatre "scene."

You could do worse, in my view.

Far, far worse.

Throwing tired ideas to the crowd,

James "Pseudo-Innovative" Comtois

Trends, Industry and Despair

This will be a kinda/sorta response to both Mac’s recent blog post and George Hunka’s blog posts (here and here).

I think it’s basically mandatory that every playwright goes through a recurring phase where they think, “Why the FUCK are we doing this?” Mac calls it “gazing into the abyss.” I know it well.

I don’t have anything specific to say in response to these postings, any more than I have much to say about Larry Kramer lamenting that theatre is dead, simply because I am very detached from the theatre industry. Personally, I think Mr. Kramer’s anger at the industry and medium of theatre (because his play closed damn near overnight) treads a little too close to the “Whiny Little Bitch” persuasion, but I understand his frustration.

The truth is that the reasons why some plays become successful and why some plays fail are completely unknown. One year, plays with small casts are in, the next, huge ensembles are what are sought. Sometimes audiences (and I mean in large quantities) want musicals, sometimes straight dramas. We never know what it’s going to be and we never will.

Obviously, institutional theatres have to second-guess and follow these trends, simply because their motives aren’t creating art, but making money (I’m not saying this is bad, this is just the driving force of companies and corporations). Since producers and businessmen can’t create, they can only follow trends and join the bandwagon (hence the onslaught of ironic and “edgy” musicals: “Urinetown:” “Menopause: The Musical;” “Musical: The Musical;” “Jonestown: The Musical”). A few years ago staged adaptations of films were the trend on Broadway (“The Full Monty,” “The Producers,” “The Graduate”). In a year or two, something else will take that place (and we won’t know what that something is ‘til we get there).

Basically, if I think too much on this and believe that this is what the medium is capable of I’d be in that nihilistic despair.

My only advice to all of us is: “Chill, baby. Just go with the flow.” ‘Cause really, if we don’t, we’ll get aneurisms.

When Nosedive produces one of my plays, I’m always praying that it won’t coincide with an up-and-coming trend and therefore bury us within the flotsam-and-jetsam (which would have happened if “Never Stop Rocking,” our aborted rock opera with puppets, got made, since it would have theoretically been scheduled to open just months before the premiere of the show “Crank Yankers” and the musical “Avenue Q”). But then again, I just can’t worry about that shit (one of the shows mentioned above, “Jonestown,” was actually written by a friend & colleague of mine YEARS before “Urinetown” opened—I absolutely wish the play the best but I do fear it’s shown up on the scene just in time to catch the death-rattle of this ironic musical trend).

People are interested in going to the theatre, just maybe not in mass droves. So what? Mr. Kramer’s play did not succeed this time around because there isn’t enough large-volume interest right now in tragic AIDS plays. Again: so what? Why do we have to adopt Hollywood’s blockbuster mentality to a much smaller, more intimate and (frankly) weirder medium?

If I sound like I’m harping on Larry Kramer, I don’t mean to be. What bothers me (and I mean it both pisses me off and breaks my heart) is reading him say that he never wants to write another play again. I feel bad that a seasoned and talented playwright, in the twilight of his career, is going to be wrapping things up on such a sour note, but I also think, “Well, boo-hoo, bitch. This shit happens. You of all people should know this by now.”

The nice thing about theatre is that it is relatively cheap to make. Sure, we always lament about budgets and not getting enough money for our productions, but when you compare the cost of making the lowest budget of low-budget plays versus the cost of making the lowest budget of low-budget films, you see the huge chasm in between the two (even the lowest budgeted indie films I’ve seen cost twice as much as our most expensive play). Retrenching, regrouping and reassessing is not the worst thing in the world if you stage a play and it fails.

Another nice thing about theatre is that you can stage plays relatively fast. A play can be written, rehearsed and staged in well under a year.

(Also another nice thing is that, if that play sucks or bombs, it can be quickly and easily forgotten.)

Mac wrote in his SlowLearner blog: “Somehow we're not saying things that make people want to stick around and listen.” That’s really the problem, isn’t it? And, this may sound harsh, but if we continue to write/produce plays that aren’t speaking to people, we deserve to have dwindling audiences. Despair never solves anything. Blaming audiences isn’t going to help, either.

And I believe an almost unforgivable sin for playwrights is to try to follow the bandwagon of whatever trend is happening. It makes sense for businessmen to do that (they can’t write, so all they can do is see what worked last month and replicate it). It makes no sense for actual creators to do that (and if they do and the play fails, well, no sympathy for self-inflicted injuries).

At the same time, trying to guess what will speak to audiences won’t work either, since (as I wrote before) it is a complete and utter mystery as to what shows will speak to people and what shows won’t.

If this sounds like the most frustrating thing in the world…well, it is. That’s why most of us playwrights dip into despair more than just a few times.

Right now I do have hope for the medium of theatre, just not necessarily the industry. When I see shows like “True West” (Broadway), “Bug” (Off-Broadway) or anything by Tom X. Chao (Off-off Broadway), I have to admit: theatre’s got some game.

But then again, you’re talking to a guy who has never made money from his playwriting, never had a play of his staged at the Public and never had an attractive middle-aged British Lady of Affluence want to act as his patroness. And I’m super-broke.

Shit. Now I’m back in despair.

Fuck this theatre shit,

James “I’m Happy” Comtois

July 17, 2004