Solo Show <em>At the Flash</em> Looks at a Single Gay Bar Through the Decades

In March 2012, Ian MacKinnon presented a gay history one-man show at Moving Arts in Silver Lake, named Gay Hist-Orgy! Parts 1 & 2. It was a salacious performance that chronicled people since the ancient Greek era who have changed the world for the better and who happened to be gay, whether they knew it or not.

It's been more than a year since that show but the image still lingers of MacKinnon reading an excerpt from Moby Dick — an exegesis on whale sperm, how it was stirred and slipped through sailors' fingers — that MacKinnon used as evidence for Herman Melville being gay.

MacKinnon was strident and mocking of his own stridency. He gave lectures and indulged in sexual double entendres as though he were a horny teenager.

David Leeper in At the Flash
PHOTO BY SEAN LAMBERT
David Leeper in At the Flash

Location Info

Map

Celebration Theatre

7051-B Santa Monica Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90038

Category: Theaters

Region: Hollywood

0 user reviews
Write A Review
Save to foursquare  
Powered by Voice Places

Related Stories

More About

As for the other parts of the play, let's just say there were graphic snippets from porn videos and an obsession with lust that worked in conjunction with MacKinnon's academic treatise that legacy comes not from sperm or spawn but from what one accomplishes. There was also the suggestion that having kids and raising families actually serves as a distraction from doing things that change the world, hence MacKinnon's conclusion that the majority of people who accomplished things that changed history were gay.

Now comes a piece co-written by Sean Chandler and David Leeper, performed by Leeper and directed by David Zak. It goes by the title At the Flash and is similarly a one-man show about the history of the gay movement. The show is a Chicago import, booked into the Celebration Theatre for only two weeks. It closes this weekend.

Aside from its concern with gay history, At the Flash is largely the antithesis of Gay Hist-Orgy. The performer does not lecture, or quip, or bare his chest, or parade in a buttocks-revealing leather thong — as did MacKinnon. There are no phalluses on display, even digital ones, nor is there a single ribald joke.

Rather, as co-writer and performer, attired in black, Leeper disappears inside the skins of five characters, all gay, who occupy space at the Flash, a former gay dive bar that's being converted into a nouvelle cuisine restaurant and gay community center. Furthermore, each of the characters exists a decade apart. This allows us to witness the evolution of the bar as well as evolving American attitudes toward gay life. These are portraits that add up to a gallery, scenes from a bar that accrue into a world view.

On the spartan stage consisting of a chair and a set piece representing a bar, there are two especially marvelous aspects on display. One is the play's schematics — scenes that slide back and forth in time in order to juxtapose the plights of the quintet across 50 years.

Richard, a married man with children, frequents the Flash in 1965, when the place is tawdry. He speaks slowly and clearly, in rich tones, to the other barflies with whom he's seeking clandestine friendships. Richard brims with a blend of self-loathing and desire, a blend that lands him in the arms of another man, dancing slow. A police raid will change his life.

A decade or so later, we meet Sparkles, a tranny makeup artist serving as a guide and mentor to a newcomer. Then, in the 1980s, the Flash has turned disco and Leeper morphs into Derrick, a young clubber unable to rebound from being dumped. Derrick's life is one of noisy desperation.

Mona shows up in the 1990s. She's a lesbian civil-rights activist and college professor, trying to get signatures to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. The reasons for her activism are deeply personal, as she was denied visitation rights to a mortally ill long-term lover.

The current era is represented by Rod, the guy who's revitalizing the club. He opens and closes the performance, pleading with his capricious chef on the night of a star-studded gala, and trying to cope with the liquor delivery service that gets the ratio of scotch and vodka cases backward. Rod still chafes that his parents won't come to the gala, where he could prove to them that his being gay is not necessarily a verdict of loneliness and failure. Rod's dad can't face the truth of his misdiagnosis, and his mom can't face down her husband.

The second marvel is Leeper's sly, subtle transitions between characters through idiosyncratic voices. Mona and Derrick are nasal, while Richard's utterances come from the chest, as his body language is both muted and macho — contrasted against, say, Sparkles, whose wrists spend much of the time airborne. Mainly, though, each has a different voice.

There's one scene near the end of the 80-minute performance in which Leeper stands in place and slides from character to character, giving each a second or two of stage time. This is where his vocal dexterity becomes so apparent.

Yet, in the writing, At the Flash doesn't do much to push beyond stereotypes. The characters are tenderly and compassionately drawn, yet you'll find yourself saying, yes, I know him or her. That burst of recognition would be a coup if the show were a satire, but it's not. The intent is to portray scenes from life through these victims of bigotry. Still, because of the clever timespan of half a century, the sum is more than its parts.

Actor Michael Kearns used to do these kinds of solo shows that presented a gallery of characters, and though Kearns inevitably would drift toward flamboyance in his portrayals, the crises the characters were enduring more often than not took you by surprise. Most of Leeper's characters have trodden a well-worn road. If that road veered in unexpected directions, At the Flash would be great. Because of Leeper's individuated characters, his restraint and his intelligence, his show is nonetheless very good.

AT THE FLASH | By Sean Chandler and David Leeper | Presented by Celebration Theatre, 7051-B Santa Monica Blvd., Hlywd. | Wed.-Thurs. & Sat., 8 p.m.; Sun., 2 p.m.; through May 26 | (323) 957-1884 | celebrationtheatre.com

Show Pages
 
My Voice Nation Help
11 comments
scottzwartz
scottzwartz topcommenter

Morris does seem squeamish about Gay Hist-orgy, but this is a review -- not a news article.

The long debate over Gay Marriage has had the tendency to alter our perception of Gay Life.  One cannot argue that "we are just like you" to Heteros, while explaining the great benefit to society for Gays' having tons and tons of temporary sexual partners.  Tricks is a better word.  Although we can never go back to prove or disprove it, 9/11 might have been averted if even one or two of the field operatives, who were trying to alert the bigwigs to the Arabs learning to take off but not land, had been Gay.  Chances are reasonably good that the field operatives would have tricked with a few of some FBI bigwigs and they could have called on the private cell phones and made certain this vital information was not ignored.

Organizations with lots of Gays develop alternative routes of communication.  Gay life is less stratified and a Gay doctor is very likely to be friendly with a Gay plumber, etc.  Sexual attraction cuts across all other lines separating men, especially when it is only for a brief trick.  (Yes, it is often about "new.").   Gays have relationships across a great age range.  Although Gays tend to be aggressive, they seldom allow that to turn into violent aggression.  That's why there are so few fights at Gay bars.   

So for now, it is sooo Politically Correct to deny that Gays are any different from Straights, but statistically we do have different socialization patterns, and those patterns are good for us and for society in general.

siggy
siggy

Sorry, Steven, that you were so seriously misunderstood.  But if you re-read what you wrote, there's an undercurrent of disapproval and criticism about MacKinnon's show that you don't conjure up in the current review.  It would have helped you and your readers to have included the info in your comment - and that's all it would have taken....

slmorris
slmorris like.author.displayName 1 Like

Wow. I enjoyed MacKinnon's show very much and gave it a GO. Since when is describing a show as having ribald humor "laying into" it? I enjoyed both shows and was comparing them, not contrasting them.--SLM

slmorris
slmorris like.author.displayName 1 Like

Wow. I enjoyed MacKinnon's show very much and gave it a GO. Since when is describing a show as having ribald humor "laying into" it? I enjoyed both shows and was comparing them, not contrasting them.--SLM

glitterballz
glitterballz like.author.displayName 1 Like

I can't wait for the Gay Hist-orgy Part 3 next weekend! Ian MacKinnon has been ahead of the curve with his frenzied romp through time to uncover not just decades, but centuries of gay history. Rumi, Karl Ulrichs, Alexander the Great, and Bayard Rustin are just a few of the pioneers that McKinnon schools us about as they paved the way for the gay community to stand tall today. I look forward to seeing both pieces mentioned here!

benj.fritz
benj.fritz like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Glad to hear Steven liked Leeper's show, but it sounds like he only likes gay material if it's toned down.  Which is fine.  But the way he lays into MacKinnon leads one to believe that he's just here to heap more shame and guilt onto the sex-negativism that dominates our culutre as a whole.  Steven basically chastises MacKinnon for not being afraid to be himself and raise his freak flag.  It seems that Steven would prefer his gays in his world to assimilate into society without making any waves - essentially, keep it in the closet.

Oh, and let's remember people, this is entertainment!!

FierceFriend
FierceFriend like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

Antithesis or not, this reviewer does an injustice to both shows by pairing them together in such a way, which merely serves to immediately slap the reader with the authors vitriol and uptight mind. The obviously flawed viewpoint alone makes me cherish both these shows, for the reaction seems to stem from yet another one of those stereotypically snarky reviewers who doesn’t have the vision required for his role, so instead seeks to rip down true visionary artistic voices. 

This is 2013, and you would think modern reviewers would have moved beyond that feeble paradigm, but that battle still wages. I am a biased fan and admirer of Ian MacKinnon’s remarkable show, having seen it in various incarnations — because it is that much of entertaining show and world-view antidote to the messed up ills of a still violently oppressive heterosexual modern life. It is a bold and important work, one that does indeed strike a strident chord as suggested, but a brave one in clear and striking opposition to an abusive society that has marred the development and freedom of sexuality throughout time. 

However, I do feel that in as much of an epic fail this review is, that it does stir up conversation and hopefully encourage the artists of both shows to keep fighting a worthy cause --- and for readers (if they still exist out there in any important amount) to realize they need to see both of these works while they can, so they can all get in on the debate and determine for themselves what true art is.

siggy
siggy like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

ragequeen has it completely nailed. The comparison does nothing to enlighten readers/viewers, and is irrelevant to the current review.  MacKinnon's performance is in your face, no doubt, and it sounds like it made the reviewer very uncomfortable.  That's what great art wants to do - challenge, inform, take risks, even get a little raunchy in doing so, especially when dealing with a subject that so often tries to steer clear of raunch in order not to offend and ends up being impotent by doing so.  The reviewer probably doesn't much like drag queens, either - and we'd be infinitely less advanced in our understanding and acceptance of homosexuality than we are if it weren't for them.

rebutrebut
rebutrebut like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

For a theater critic to fault a show called Gay Hist-Orgy for having ribald jokes shows a lack of more than just a sense of humor!

ragequeen
ragequeen like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

I second that... have you no better technique to form an opinion than to compare a completely different show by a completely different artist, whose goals and messages are likely very different.  I have not seen the current show that you speak of, but I have seen Mr MacKinnon's.  His show is a brave attempt to embody and own his gay spirit, and share a gay-centered and psychological view of the world and Self development.  This aim and view is sorely missing in our current assimilationist gay culture.  Self development as a gay man, which mind you cannot be fully explored without the all important Eros and Sexuality of same-sex love, which MacKinnon evoked beautifully and erotically with the images you so ignorantly dismiss- caught up in what I can only assume is your own internalized homophobia.  I am looking forward to his next installment in Part 3!  If you ask me, we need more shows that share gay spirit with the world, and gay history without apology, and less half-assed reviews such as this.

p5494271
p5494271 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

Is the first part of this a review of Ian MacKinnon's new show or a show from last year?? What is the point of reviewing something that closed last year OR judging a new play by another play from last year ?
I thought the LA Weekly had better standards than this !


 
Loading...