Musical revues back at Athenaeum

February 23, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Indianapolis theater watches will recall the names Bob Harbin and John Austin Butsch from their work at the former American Cabaret Theatre, which up until about a year ago had a long history of staging revues and musicals at the Atheneaum. (Not to be confused with the Cabaret at the Columbia Club, the latest permutation of ACT that is now housed on Monument Circle, where it focuses on presenting cabaret acts).

Harbin and Butsch just announced that they are joining with producer Joyce Licorish to bring musical revues and other entertainment back to the Athenaeum. Their first show, "Classic Soul," featuring the music of Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson and more is slated to run April 2-11. The cast includes ACT favorite Karlton D. Turner.

Under the company name Bobdirex, Harbin, a former casting V.P. for the Fox Network in Los Angeles, will also be presenting a summer run of the musical comedy "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum," beginning July 16. More info here.

With little being heard from some of the small, local companies that have been birthed in Indy over the last few years (HART? Sapphire?), it's good to see some initiative being taken even in these tough economic times.

Here's hoping for engaging productions, satisfied audiences, and a healthy run for the fledgling company.

Your thoughts?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Joyce at Fringe Friday
    JustinFebruary 23, 2010 11:17 AM
    Great news! Joyce Licorish will be performing this Friday night at the FringeFriday. Accompanied by John Austin Butsch, the selections include music from Dreamgirls, the Color Purple, Aretha and more. The event is free and also features previews of the Theatre Within and IRT's upcoming shows. Feb 26 5:30 - 7:30 @ IndyFringe Theatre.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Good news!
    sally in indyFebruary 23, 2010 1:11 PM
    Delighted to hear Bob Harbin and crew will be bringing shows back to the Athenaeum! We always enjoyed their ACT musical performances, and the theatre at the Athenaeum is the perfect venue. Hope they decide to do a holiday show, too.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Clarification Please
    Barbara Weaver SmithFebruary 23, 2010 1:17 PM
    Lou, just a clarification for your readers. I am chair of the board of ACT. We are not "the former American Cabaret Theatre." We remain as we have been for more than 15 years, the American Cabaret Theatre, now branded as "The Cabaret at the Columbia Club" where as you noted we present American and European cabaret performers and performances. Thanks for mentioning us again! Best wishes, Barbara Weaver Smith
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • correction
      LouFebruary 23, 2010 1:23 PM
      Ms. Smith,
      Thanks for the clarification. I've edited the original post to reflect it.
      Lou
      P.S. Next up at the Cabaret at the Columbia Club is Amanda McBroom, offering an evening of Jacques Brel music March 5-6.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Location
      William StrackFebruary 23, 2010 3:54 PM
      Is this in the newly renovated theater that is next to the Rathskellar where there have been several types of show lately?
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • ACT- Weaver Smith
      David JacobsonFebruary 24, 2010 9:39 AM
      Barbara - what you do doesn't fall consistent with what American cabaret did in the 90s and early 2000s. Your organization is nothing like the old ACT - Even reviewers have pointed it out. Your tying what is done now to the old ACT that did many original shows is an insult to the artists, staff and creative people involved when it was a thriving organization.

      Jumping in saying "We are the same" is a bit ridiculous at this point.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
      • Congrats
        David JacobsonFebruary 24, 2010 9:48 AM
        Looking forward to the new show, and wish Weaver Smith the best - It just seems hard to see Weaver Smith discuss consistency when things have changed so much.
        Reply to CommentFlag Comment
      • Not the old ACT
        Nicolette McFeeFebruary 25, 2010 9:50 AM
        As someone who has attended shows at both venues, I would have to agree that trying to compare the two organizations is like comparing apples and oranges. Shows at new The Cabaret are not consistent with the old cabaret because they are actually cabaret. While the shows at the old ACT were fine, they were not true cabaret---they were musical revues and book shows. I myself, am glad there is someone doing true cabaret.
        Reply to CommentFlag Comment
      • Thriving Company?
        NicoletteMFebruary 25, 2010 9:56 AM
        It is interesting to hear a reader say that the old ACT was "thriving." How could it have been thriving if the company had to shut its doors and start over? Everything I have seen says that the previous company was losing tons of money...I wish the company well, but it seems that they are just doing the same shows that didn't work before. (Motown, Soul)
        Reply to CommentFlag Comment
        • Thriving Company???
          James E.February 25, 2010 10:20 PM
          NicoletteM... I'm just reading the comments at face value and from a buisness point of view. You mentioned the "old" ACT could not have been a thriving organization because they had to close their doors. Due to losing tons of money, and the shows not working... But since the board of the "new" ACT is the same as Mrs Smith stated, it doesn't matter the kind of show, if they are following the same failed business practices. Just an observation...
          Reply to CommentFlag Comment

        Post a comment to this blog

        COMMENTS POLICY
        We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
         
        You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
         
        Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
         
        No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
         
        We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
         

        Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

        ADVANCED SEARCH
        Sponsored by
        ADVERTISEMENT

        1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

        2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

        3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

        4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

        5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

        ADVERTISEMENT