WBEZ | Robert Falls http://www.wbez.org/tags/robert-falls Latest from WBEZ Chicago Public Radio en Artist Encounter: Robert Falls http://www.wbez.org/series/chicago-amplified/artist-encounter-robert-falls-106793 <p><p>Goodman Theatre Artist Encounters bring together audiences and the artists who create the work on our stages in an intimate environment, for a behind-the-scenes look at the plays and the playmaking process. This month, listen to an in-depth conversation between&nbsp;<em>Measure for Measure</em> Director <strong>Robert Falls </strong>and<strong>&nbsp;</strong>the<em>&nbsp;Chicago Sun-Times&#39;&nbsp;</em><strong>Neil Steinberg.</strong></p><div>Robert Falls&rsquo; daring new production of <em>Measure for Measure</em> takes us into the heart of Shakespeare&rsquo;s dark comedy, in which virtue and vice collide&mdash;and lust and the law are inextricably entwined. His city caught in a moral free-fall, the Duke of Vienna hands over power to Lord Angelo, who enforces long-dormant codes of chastity with zealous fervor. When a pious young nun pleads for the life of her condemned brother, Angelo&rsquo;s response is surprisingly sensual&mdash;revealing a web of desire, deception and hypocrisy that infects every corner of society. (Intended for mature audiences.)</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div class="image-insert-image "><img alt="" class="image-original_image" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/styles/original_image/llo/insert-images/GT-webstory_2.jpg" title="" /></div><p>Recorded live Sunday, March 17, 2013 at the Goodman Theatre.&nbsp;</p></p> Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:45:00 -0500 http://www.wbez.org/series/chicago-amplified/artist-encounter-robert-falls-106793 The best Chicago theater directors of 2011 http://www.wbez.org/blog/onstagebackstage/2011-12-20/best-chicago-theater-directors-2011-95051 <img typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/blog/photo/2011-December/2011-12-20/_78.jpg" alt="" /><p><p>Some theater folk hold that 90% of the work of a really good director is casting the show. Certainly, there are times when the quality of the talent on stage is such that a gifted director simply gets out of the way and makes him/herself invisible. But not always. Sometimes concept or interpretation make all the difference and then the director becomes the star of the show in the best sense, or at least a co-star. There were several strong examples in 2011.</p><p><img alt="" class="caption" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/blog/insert-image/2011-December/2011-12-20/Kimberly-Senior-Headshot-300.jpg" style="margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; float: left; width: 300px; height: 200px; " title="Director Kimberly Senior">At Next Theatre Company last winter, the time-tested director <strong>Kimberly Senior</strong> again demonstrated her skill with J. T. Rodgers’s <em>Madagascar</em>, a three-person monologue play about a missing person that offers audiences a conundrum inside a puzzle. Senior guided her actors knowingly through every inch of this poetic, rich and layered work of direct address to the audience, resulting in a spell-binding piece where one might have had mere drone.</p><p><strong>Dexter Bullard</strong>, highly regarded as a director of physical theater, was at the top of his game with the February world premiere of <em>The Big Meal</em> at American Theater Company; a fast-paced and multi-scene comedy by Dan LeFranc that was both verbally and physically complex. All actors played multiple roles and ages in portraying four generations of a family (or was it five?) meeting across the holiday dinner table. Vastly entertaining and meaty as well, the play and the performances gained critical mass as the show progressed.</p><p>Director <strong>Jonathan Wilson</strong> long has been one of Chicago’s under-appreciated treasures, who combines nuanced understanding of text with a firm hand and—always—clear vision. Wilson’s merits were fully on display in <em>Yellowman</em>, produced in September by Greentree Productions. Dael Orlandersmith’s prize-winning drama has been seen in Chicago before, but never in such a funny, tender and terrifying production. A tale of love, discovery, racism and class conflict, the play is too long, but it didn’t matter this time.</p><p>September also brought us one of America’s top directors in top form as <strong>Robert Falls</strong> staged John Logan’s <em>Red</em> at the Goodman Theatre (of which Falls is the long-time artistic director). This witty two-man work about artist Mark Rothko and a fictional young assistant is surprisingly physical, and Falls made the physical business dazzling (although not unnecessarily so). However, his real contribution was an interpretation radically different from the New York/London original production; one which brought more meaning out of the text and, therefore, out of the characters.</p><p>Also in September, Seanachai Theatre tackled the great Sean O’Casey’s first important play, <em>The Shadow of a Gunman</em>. It’s a play of character and “crack” (Irish slang for talk and banter) rather than plot—which O’Casey telegraphs miles away—and Seanachai was fortunate to have <strong>John Mossman</strong> as director. Himself an actor and teacher (he and his wife run The Artistic Home), Mossman took the often-purple and poetic prose of O’Casey and turned it into intimate speech deeply rooted in the personality of each character, without ever losing the Irish charm or O’Casey’s passion.</p><p><img alt="" class="caption" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/blog/insert-image/2011-December/2011-12-20/_78.jpg" style="margin-left: 10px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; float: right; width: 300px; height: 200px; " title="Director Ron OJ Parson">Finally, I can’t let the year wind down without citing the astute comedic glory of what <strong>Ron OJ Parson</strong> and three superb actors are doing with Harold Pinter’s <em>The Caretaker</em> at Writers’ Theatre in Glencoe (running through next March 25). Parson’s high concept puts the audience—all 40 or so of them—<em>inside</em> the set, which is a complete four-walled room built within the already-tiny theater space. Within the confines of this space, the audience becomes one with the three distinct personalities of the characters, whom Parson and company bring to crystal-clear life.</p></p> Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:08:00 -0600 http://www.wbez.org/blog/onstagebackstage/2011-12-20/best-chicago-theater-directors-2011-95051 Smoke and mirrors: 'Red' and Mark Rothko http://www.wbez.org/blog/onstagebackstage/2011-10-11/smoke-and-mirrors-red-and-mark-rothko-92789 <img typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/blog/photo/2011-October/2011-10-11/Production_07.jpg" alt="" /><p><p><em>Jonathan Abarbanel brings us Part One of a two-part series on the first play of the Goodman Theatre's 2011-12 season, </em>Red<em>. Abarbanel delves into a fundamental question in John Logan's acclaimed play&nbsp;</em><em>that's essential not just to visual art but to understanding the theater as well.</em></p><p>"What do you see?" painter Mark Rothko asks his new, young assistant. They are the first words in John Logan's wonderful play, <em>Red</em>, at&nbsp; the Goodman Theatre, and they also are the final words but one spoken in the play as Rothko and his assistant part ways after two years together.</p><p style="text-align: center; "><img alt="" class="caption" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/blog/insert-image/2011-October/2011-10-11/Production_07.jpg" style="width: 500px; height: 333px; " title="Edward Gero as Mark Rothko and Patrick Andrews as his assistant Ken in the Goodman Theatre's production of 'Red' (Photo courtesy of Goodman Theatre)"></p><p>Combined with "what do you feel?" it is the fundamental inquiry--the ONLY fundamental inquiry--one can make about the experience of visual art. To ask "What does it mean?"--which we critic types do a&nbsp; lot--is an intellectual overlay, and not a visceral, primordial question.</p><p>Visual art includes theater, of course, even though theater also is literary and sometimes musical, which means that other parameters of judgment and measurement may apply. But in the broadest sense, theater is about seeing. The word theater comes from the Greek meaning "seeing place." We say, "I saw a show last night." We&nbsp; don't say "I heard a show last night."</p><p>The question John Logan has Mark Rothko pose is essential to why I have devoted my life to theater, and much of my professional life to expounding upon theater, whether wisely or not. "What do you see?" is the question I need to ask myself, and answer, every time I sit in the dark and even more so every time I put my thoughts in front of the public.</p><p>When I first saw<em> Red</em> in New York in late March, 2010, I knew who Mark Rothko was, but I'd never seen any of his paintings in person. Since then, I've seen Rothko paintings up close and personal in museums in Paris, London and the United States, and I've formulated my own answer to Logan-cum-Rothko's question: "I see smoke."</p><p>The shapes of Rothko's paintings are square or rectangular as are the vast majority of paintings (why is that?), and within those similar and familiar frames he created a further series of, basically, oblong and rectangular shapes. Some even may call them color bars, although I believe that's a serious and flawed diminishment of his work. I prefer to call them smoke.</p><p>The textures of his black, brownish and red/reddish shapes are opaque like smoke, not solid. His colors are mottled, here deeper and there more pale or, seemingly, translucent like smoke. The textures and shapes-within-his-shapes change and shift as you move in front of his paintings, with light and shadow playing across them. Even the borders of his shapes are soft and smoky, ill-defined and fading into one another.</p><p>We think of smoke chiefly as white or sometimes black, depending on what is burning, but smoke can take on the colors of the light bouncing off of it or shining through it, green or yellow or orange or red. And so, if Rothko asked me what I saw in his works, I would say "I see smoke."</p><p>I have no doubt that the Rothko of Logan's play would have been as argumentative, dismissive and dissatisfied with my reply as he is with the answer his assistant gives him, and as challenging, too; for Logan uses the opening gambit to begin a profound dialogue and character examination, not to make a definitive argument about art.</p><p>Logan shows us, perhaps, the smoke and mirrors of art and of artists, and of abstract artists in particular. Representational art--a still life or a portrait or a seascape--may be well executed or not, but there's no question about what it is, about what you see. Abstract art, however, is entirely a matter of taste or even of faith, once you move beyond a certain standard of technical execution.</p><p>That taste and faith apply to the artist as well.</p><p>Rothko was, by all accounts, a thorny, self-absorbed and competitive individual, perhaps insecure in his own talent or in pursuit of his own ideas and images.</p><p>In Logan's play, he gives grudging but passionate respect to Picasso, who may be a good contrasting figure among Rothko's contemporaries. Similarly competitive and ego-centric, Picasso also was congenial and supremely confident in his own gifts and vision. No smoke in Picasso or his work, but, then, he wasn't an abstract artist, either.</p><p>As directed by Robert Falls at the Goodman Theatre, <em>Red</em> revels in Logan's gifts for crisp, smart language and sharp intellect, and yet it's far more than a play of talk; there's a lot of action and important (albeit secondary) musical elements.</p><p>With the exceptional talents of Edward Gero as Rothko and Patrick Andrews as his assistant (who's name is Ken, although neither character ever once uses the other's name), the Goodman production is remarkably different from the Broadway production (which played in London first) featuring British actors Alfred Molina as Rothko and Eddie Redmayne as Ken.</p><p>Molina's Rothko was downright ferocious while Gero is more introspective and frequently avuncular or even sentimental (especially in the closing moments). Andrews is far more definitively American than Redmayne, down to his period-perfect (1958) dungarees.</p><p>To say this Chicago production is a kinder, gentler <em>Red</em> is not meant to diminish it in the least from the Broadway version but only to differentiate it. It’s every bit as good in different ways, and some may think it’s better.</p><p>One of the wonders of theater is how the same words on a page, the same actions described, the same characters portrayed, can be so different in the hands of different artists. It is, after all, what you see, and this <em>Red</em> makes palpable the ache of the artist and the diaphanous smoke of art.</p><p><em>Red</em> continues at the <a href="http://www.goodmantheatre.org">Goodman Theatre</a>&nbsp;through Oct. 30.</p></p> Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:00:00 -0500 http://www.wbez.org/blog/onstagebackstage/2011-10-11/smoke-and-mirrors-red-and-mark-rothko-92789 Daily Rehearsal: Katharine Hepburn, immortalized on stage http://www.wbez.org/blog/onstagebackstage/2011-09-21/daily-rehearsal-katharine-hepburn-immortalized-on-stage-92292 <p><p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;"><strong>1. Next Theatre announced their new production</strong></span></span> of <a href="http://www.nexttheatre.org/maple-and-vine-shows-16.php"><em>Maple and Vine</em></a>,&nbsp;about "Kathy and Ryu, a successful NYC couple" who "have become allergic to their 21st century lives. After meeting a charismatic man from a community of 1950's re-enactors, they forgo cell phones and sushi for cigarettes and Tupperware parties." Who doesn't want to go back to the days of <em>Mad Men</em>?</p><p><img alt="" class="caption" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/blog/insert-image/2011-September/2011-09-21/Katharine Hepburn_flickr_Laura Loveday.jpg" style="margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; float: left; width: 256px; height: 300px; " title="Katharine Hepburn (Flickr/Laura Loveday)"><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;"><strong>2. The Katharine Hepburn tribute <em>Tea at Five</em></strong></span></span> is adding extra performances. The production, by <a href="http://www.firstfolio.org/">First Folio Theatre</a>, is based off of Hepburn's autobiography <em>Me: Stories of My Life</em>, is a one-woman show starring Melissa Carlson, who was also seen in <em>A Midsummer's Night's Dream</em> at the Theatre as well.</p><p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;"><strong>3. <a href="http://www.drurylaneoakbrook.com/">Drury Lane Theatre</a> has replaced <em>Promises, Promises</em></strong></span></span> with <em>Xanadu</em>. No Olivia Newton John promised, though, so hold your tears.</p><p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;"><strong>4. The hate on <em>Love, Loss, and What I Wore</em> rolls on</strong></span></span>. Well, sort of: Bob Bullen trashes it on his personal blog, referring to the play as <a href="http://chitheatreaddict.com/2011/09/21/love-loss-and-what-i-snore/"><em>Love, Loss, and What I Snore</em></a>, but then is pretty fine about it on the other <a href="http://chicagolikealocal.com/2011/09/20/love-loss-and-what-i-wore-at-broadway-playhouse/">blog he writes for</a>. What gives? Well, the "ladies" might like it, so take the "lady" in your life.</p><p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;"><strong>5. Howard Sherman <a href="http://www.2amtheatre.com/2011/09/21/it%E2%80%99s-you/">tells us</a> about how theater companies</strong></span></span> are annoying him on Twitter. "You retweet this stray person who liked your show and that nameless egg-head who liked your performance; every night between 10 and 11 pm, or first thing in the morning when you rise, it’s the same thing," writes Sherman. "You’re cool, you’re mind-blowing, I’ve got to run and see what you’re doing. It’s boring. And let me let you in on a little secret: I know you’re being selective and if I feel like it, I can find all of those negative tweets you never seem to mention." More interestingly, Sherman calls out Robert Falls as someone who he enjoys on Twitter, because he's "dropped the curtain that often separates us." What do you think of <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/RobertFalls201">Bob's tweets</a>?</p><p>Questions? Tips? Email <a href="mailto:kdries@wbez.org">kdries@wbez.org</a>.</p></p> Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:19:00 -0500 http://www.wbez.org/blog/onstagebackstage/2011-09-21/daily-rehearsal-katharine-hepburn-immortalized-on-stage-92292 What the Mayor might have said at the Goodman http://www.wbez.org/blog/onstagebackstage/2011-09-16/what-mayor-might-have-said-goodman-92109 <img typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/blog/photo/2011-September/2011-09-19/goodman theatre_flickr_mikewarot.jpg" alt="" /><p><p>The Dueling Critics and a whole crowd of those who are otherwise night folks assembled at the Goodman at dawn (well, 8 a.m.) last Thursday for what was billed as a major important announcement, complete with mayor. (These days no announcement is major-important unless the mayor is there. Conversely, if the mayor is there we're all primed to think that the announcement is major-important. Presumably this Pavlovian response among the press will wear off soon.)&nbsp;</p><p><img alt="" class="caption" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/blog/insert-image/2011-September/2011-09-19/goodman theatre_flickr_mikewarot.jpg" style="margin-left: 10px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; float: right; width: 304px; height: 400px;" title="(Flickr/Mike Warot)">Jonathan and I spent a considerable amount of time speculating about the nature of the announcement: was the mayor going to give the Goodman a supplementary site--maybe the McDonald's across the street? Close off Dearborn to turn the downtown theater district into a pedestrian mall? Announce a plan for the Goodman to co-fund the CityArts program so smaller theaters could thrive with city help as the Goodman has?</p><p>But the announcement was nothing more than that the theater is two-thirds of the way toward its goal of raising $15 million and is therefore confident enough of being able to do so that they're ready to "announce" an endowment campaign. An endowment will make sure there's perpetual support for the theater's work in developing new plays, encouraging non-white artists, doing outreach and education, keeping the building up to date and so forth. Professional practice in these matters is not to mention that you're trying to raise money until you've already raised most of it, at which point you can do what Rahm did at the Goodman: point a finger at the audience and say, "Finish the job!" As far as major-important announcements go, I coulda stood in bed.</p><p>But imagine a different scenario. (Spooky alternative-reality music here.) Say the Goodman calls us all down there to hear Rahm announce the city's latest generous gift to the theater: the land on which its building sits. Rahm the Liberator frees the theater from its onerous $1-a-year rent payment to the city, and simply hands over the land. What generosity! What public-private partnership! What a deal!</p><p>But then imagine that Rahm goes to the Illinois Department of Revenue and asks it to decide that the now-property-owning Goodman should be the now-property-taxpaying Goodman. No matter that the theater is a nonprofit: if it's not a "charity" under the Illinois Constitution, the Goodman's trustees will need to turn their attention from raising endowment to raising money to pay taxes on one of the most valuable chunks of land in the city. Imagine Bob Falls in a gorgeous velvet dress made out of theater curtains, pleading with Rhett, uh, Rahm: <em>"I need $300,000 to pay the taxes on Tara!"</em>&nbsp;Yet the mayor would appear amazingly generous, giving this poor little theater its home.&nbsp;<em>"I can't pay the rent!" "But you must pay the rent!" "I'll give you the deed and you won't have to pay the rent</em>," says Dudley Do-Rahm.</p><p>Most likely no such scheme was ever contemplated. But perhaps the press event's emphasis on outreach ("Look at how many tickets we give away!"="Look how charitable we are!") was designed to protect against something like it. Falls and Roche Schulfer didn't get where they are by being fools; they'd know enough to look this particular gift horse in the mouth if she ever came trotting over from City Hall.&nbsp; On the other hand, declining a donation is a complicated thing, and crossing a Mayor who's used to having his own way is no joke.&nbsp;</p><p>Stay tuned for future developments--which will almost certainly (spooky alternative-reality music here) look nothing like any of us can imagine. &nbsp;</p></p> Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:19:00 -0500 http://www.wbez.org/blog/onstagebackstage/2011-09-16/what-mayor-might-have-said-goodman-92109 Director vs. text, round 2; Robert Falls and Chris Jones, Stephen Sondheim and the New York Times http://www.wbez.org/blog/onstagebackstage/2011-08-15/director-vs-text-round-2-robert-falls-and-chris-jones-stephen-sondh <img typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/blog/photo/2011-August/2011-08-15/Screen shot 2011-08-15 at 9.41.53 AM.png" alt="" /><p><p><img alt="" class="caption" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/blog/insert-image/2011-August/2011-08-11/stephensondheim_ap_hennyrayabrams.jpg" style="margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; float: left; width: 212px; height: 300px; " title="Stephen Sondheim recently called out the NYT over 'Porgy and Bess' (AP/Henny Ray Abrams)">When last Sunday's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/theater/porgy-and-bess-with-audra-mcdonald.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all"><em>New York Times</em> described with sympathy director Diane Paulus's radical approach to <em>Porgy &amp; Bess</em></a>. the story provoked <a href="http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/stephen-sondheim-takes-issue-with-plan-for-revamped-porgy-and-bess/">an episode of high dudgeon from Stephen Sondheim</a>, who argued that the changes proposed would create not the Gershwins' <em>Porgy &amp; Bess</em> but Ms. Paulus's. Mr. Sondheim's objection, he emphasized, was not to the as-yet-unseen production but to the director's attitude (as he understood it) toward both text and audience.</p><p>So when this Sunday's <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/theater/theaterloop/ct-ae-0814-goodman-20110812,0,5995809.column"><em>Chicago Tribune</em> described with admiration Robert Falls's radical approaches to <em>King Lear</em> and <em>Desire Under the Elms</em></a>, I felt <a href="http://www.wbez.org/kkleiman/2009/02/falls-calls-out-wbez-critic/1593">bolstered</a> in my own <a href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2009/02/26/when-bob-falls-calls">episodes of high dudgeon concerning those productions</a>. The issue is less the productions themselves than the attitude ascribed to Mr. Falls toward audience and text alike.</p><p>Chris Jones begins his article with an approving citation of Mr. Falls's comment on a snowy opening night that he was glad the weather would keep "the riff-raff" out of the theater. I suspect Mr. Falls was joking but Mr. Jones chose to take him at his word, and to ground the rest of his hagiographic portrait in precisely the notion that Mr. Falls's work is so radical and original that it outstrips the capacity of the audience to understand it. Again, I seriously doubt this is Mr. Falls's actual belief, but the idea that it would be admirable if it were reveals an attitude toward the audience that casts an unattractive light on Mr. Jones, Mr. Falls or both.</p><p>And then there's the issue of the text. Mr. Jones praises the Falls <em>King Lear</em> for its "robust physical and intellectual idea for every last breathing beat of that magnum opus," while I'm less interested in wildly original beats than in interpretations of entire plays. At the risk of sounding hopelessly pre-postmodern, I believe the director's job is to figure out what the play means — and yes, that incorporates what the author intended, even if his/her intentions are as far from the results as "What you say/what your dog hears."*&nbsp;</p><p><img alt="" src="http://llnw.wbez.org/blog/insert-image/2011-August/2011-08-15/Screen shot 2011-08-15 at 9.41.53 AM.png" style="margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; float: right; width: 300px; height: 287px; " title="">Mr. Falls clearly approaches most texts from the perspective of, "What's never been done to this text before?" Sometimes this results in phenomenal perspective-altering work, a multi-level <em>Seagull </em>emphasizing the parallels between Chekhov's play and <em>Hamlet</em>, or a brilliant <em>Long Day's Journey Into Night</em> demonstrating that the play belongs to Mary and not to the three men who surround and attempt to dominate her, or a production of <em>Dollhouse</em>, Rebecca Gilman's adaptation of Ibsen's <em>A Doll's House</em>, that manages to be as radical in our time as Ibsen was in his. These productions (and many others over the years of his tenure at the Goodman and Wisdom Bridge) represent approaches to text that are fresh but also respectful of what the play is actually about.</p><p>But sometimes the search for what's never been done results in the mugging of a defenseless text by a pitiless concept. Mr. Falls's <em>King Lear</em> was about sex while Shakespeare's is about death. Mr. Falls's <em>Desire Under the Elms</em>, conversely, was about death while O'Neill's is about sex. Play texts are not infinitely malleable: if the playwright calls for elms on stage, even naming the play after them, there damn well ought to be elms on stage. If a play's text is unsatisfactory to the director--if s/he wants to communicate something else--then s/he should direct a different play.&nbsp;</p><p>But was Mr. Sondheim really reacting to Ms. Paulus's behavior, or just to its description in the <em>Times</em>? Likewise, am I reacting to Mr. Falls, or just to Mr. Jones?</p><p>I guess it's a matter of interpretation.</p><p>-------</p><p>*What you say: "You're a bad girl, Daisy! Never do that again, Daisy! I'm telling you for the last time, Daisy! Are you listening to me, Daisy?"</p><p>What your dog hears: "Flooble-flooble, Daisy! Inka-dinka, Daisy! Klatu barata nikto, Daisy! Scooby-dooby-do, Daisy?"</p></p> Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:00:00 -0500 http://www.wbez.org/blog/onstagebackstage/2011-08-15/director-vs-text-round-2-robert-falls-and-chris-jones-stephen-sondh