Friday, September 24, 2010
Mini-reviews and a few words about the future...
Wow! Over 10,150 hits in six months and still counting. It’s gone viral! Ok, maybe not viral. It’s a mild rash! More likely, it’s nothing more than a pimple on the butt of Chicagoland theatre. I’m guessing that the majority of the hits are readers checking in to see if there is a new post. And who can blame them - I’m so gosh-darn entertaining. Oh yeah, there is the fact that I said I would post some new ones, but never said when. And even if I do commit to a date, I ultimately miss it. Despite my lovable cantankerous nature, I am the eternal optimist when gauging what I think I can do. I take aim, thinking the target is easy to hit and ofttimes forget about gravity and other forces working against successful completion. It happens, and it’s self-defeating in some ways, since you disappoint yourself and those who have vested some interest in you, or, at the very least, you feel they have.
September/October is usually the start of a new season for many theatres, and it’s a busy time for a reviewer who does it as a vocation. It’s absolutely harried if you’re doing it as an avocation. Working a full-time job, and then trying to see all the shows and finding time to get the reviews written and posted is tiring. Other things in life get in the way and keep sneaking to the top of the priority list. Try as I may, I have not learned the secret to adding hours to the day. I think it requires an hour-glass necklace that you twist, or something like that. I know; it’s not your problem, so I should just shut up about it. I enjoy doing this blog. I just wish I could do this as I envisioned. Reality stinks sometimes, and time is not always your friend.
I’ve received flack (and, to be honest, rightfully so) about the lateness of my posts. I have learned to avoid 2-week runs. Now, given how little time I have for writing, it seems that shows with 3-week runs are almost impossible to review in a timely fashion. If I see a show on opening weekend, I really should have a review posted before the start of the next weekend. But that is getting harder and harder to do, given some of the pressures from work and my addiction to Iron Chef America and Dancing With The Stars. I have come to realize it is a disservice to those who actually use the reviews for information (what the hell are you thinking?) rather than just entertainment. Despite what the conspiracy theorists think, there is no hidden agenda or ulterior motives to when I post. You have given me too much credit, assuming I know what I’m doing and can actually think. How silly.
As you can guess, I will not be writing full reviews for the last three shows I saw. By the time I get around to writing a full review for any, the show will have closed. I screwed that up once before, and felt a tiny smidgeon of remorse about it. I’m mean, I didn’t lose sleep over it or anything, but I think a shout-out act of contrition is appropriate: To DL...I thought your approach sucked, but I admit that the timing of my review was bad form.
Here are capsule reviews of the shows that close this weekend:
The Desk Set - Albright Theatre, Batavia, IL (click for show times, tickets, etc.)
This is a romantic comedy (called rom-com in the biz) that I thought lacked two important elements: rom and com. For more info on the story, try Google. While the individual performances were OK, the chemistry between the romantic leads was missing. The comedy is dated, and the attempts to spruce it up failed, especially the holiday office party scenes. Finally, this is the second show I’ve seen at this theatre, and both times, I found the lighting distracting. Normally I won’t say much about tech, unless it’s bothersome. They need to find a way to back-light the action to give it some visual depth. When the lights came up, everyone looked two-dimensional, which didn’t help with some one-dimensional acting. Trust me: in this case, two plus one do not make three, dimensionally speaking.
Into The Woods - Theatre Nebula at Cutting Hall, Palatine, IL (click for show times, tickets, etc.)
I’m not a lover of all things Sondheim. But I do appreciate this show (for story info, try Bing) and I ended up liking this production because I decided I would not let a pair of nimrods (a word now officially recognized in the New Oxford American Dictionary) ruin it. There are very strong voices throughout. Great harmonies, a wonderful wall of sound and good storytelling. Wonderful orchestra. Everything is first rate...except for the Baker and the Witch. Julie Bayer is great as Cinderella, Walter Bezt and Deric Gochen held my attention as the two princes and Linda Andrew’s Little Red Riding Hood was very good. The others did a nice job. The direction by Frank Roberts was not heavy-handed and moved things along at a good pace, especially for a long show (2 hours, 53 minutes with intermission). But the husband and wife team of Ken and Morra Priess, playing the Baker and the Witch ruined what could have been a superb show. Her style of singing is screeching, his is weak and they both have very limited acting skills. They do, however, own LZP Productions, a theatre company, and Frank is a director in residence. You do the math as to why they were cast. The show ends tomorrow night. Just edit them out and enjoy the rest.
The Curate Shakespeare As You Like It - Geneva Underground Playhouse, Geneva, IL (click for show times, tickets, etc.)
Basically, the story is a group of bad actors trying to do a stripped-down version of As You Like It, with a cast of six plus the Curate, all playing the 30 characters in Shakespeare’s show. There’s a running gag about never being able to get through the famous “All the world’s a stage...” speech and when it is finally given correctly, it’s done by the “actor” you would least suspect. And done really, really well. As for the show, it’s not the greatest thing ever written, and treads familiar ground about a band of actors gathering to do the impossible in front of an invisible audience and the growth of both the characters and actors in the process. In that sense, the curate is more a keeper of spirits on some ethereal plane. It reminded me of A Company Of Wayward Saints in some measure. And, it’s a formulaic show within a show, with people dropping in and out of the characters, as wel as having to maintain the persona of the actor. Yes, you have to concentrate with this show since there is no scorecard. But it’s worth the effort. There is solid acting by people I’ve never seen before but will keep on my radar, because I want to see more. Specifically, all the women were brilliant. Susan O’Byrne does a nice turn with her various characters, Christina Ferrari is delightful to watch as the Rosalind that never plays Rosalind due to a mental block, so she plays the stage directions and songs. The one who knocked my socks off was Cheryl Newman. I wasn’t sure about her in the beginning, but once she took off, she was great. As for the guys, Ed McDow put in a nice performance, George McArdle was adequate, but Ryan Ruffatti never hit his stride and slowed down the scenes he was in. Mike Manolakes was the least successful in connecting with us invisible audience members. Everything he did seemed tentative, from the Curate to his various characters. And, he struggled with lines. All in all, though, I liked it. If you get the chance to see it, please do so.
Those are the shows. And there are more out there. Like The Drowsy Chaperone at Wheaton Drama. I saw it opening night. I will not post a review. Two of the many Spelling Bee productions we have being foisted upon us are opening this weekend at Big Noise Theater in Des Plaines and Metropolis Centre in Arlington Heights. Hey, there’s a production of Drood that starts in November in Woodstock and Redtwist is in previews of A Delicate Balance, which opens tomorrow night. I actually bought a ticket for last night’s preview and was so exhausted from work that I didn’t go. It gets that way sometimes.
My plate is clear for now. But I think it’s time to put this baby up on blocks in the garage and give it a tune up, oil change and tire rotation. Maybe hammer out a few dings and dents, and a fresh coat of paint. I think my mind/soul could use the same thing this winter. Oh, I may take it out for a spin every once in a while if I feel there’s something to say, or miss the sensation of being behind the wheel. But I won’t commit to a date. So, if you want to receive an e-mail alert (instead of inflating the hit counter) to a new posting, send your e-mail address to wjbarryjr@gmail.com
Regular reviews (whatever that means) will resume in March, 2011.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Review: "Where's My Money?" Riverfront Playhouse, Aurora, IL ends 9/18/10
A two items of business
OK, time for the review...
OK, maybe not, but he actually did say it, but in jest, I think. And do you actually think I would follow his instructions? Really? The truth is I didn't have anything to say except that the show is awful. I mean bad awful. However, this past weekend I saw three new productions, and found one among them that I think would be a great alternative to Riverfront's painful presentation. More on that later in this posting.
Let’s start with the story of Where's My Money? It was written by John Patrick Shanley. He gave us the award winning movie Moonstruck and the award-winning play, Doubt. He’s no hack. But this play is all over the map trying to be perceptive, ingenious and witty about marriage specifically, and relationships in general. What we actually get is a passel of what seems like his own personal vitriol that makes the characters unsympathetic, bitter, predictable and downright unlikable. No new ground is explored, except for the occasional appearance of ghosts (representing emotional baggage that keeps returning no matter how much you want the airlines to lose it). Shanley tries so hard to be acrid and clever with his dialog that his hollow characters become nothing more than mannequins upon which he can hang his weak comic couture. The characters have no arc, and there's nothing compelling to watch. The best line in the show is the one that is often quoted: “Monogamy is like a 40 Watt bulb. It works, but it’s not enough.” Not bad, but now that you've read it, you've experienced the highlight of the play. Save your money.
I know that a weak script is hard to direct. It’s an arduous task trying to find ways of making crap seem interesting. So I asked myself why they chose it in the first place. I didn't see or feel any directorial effort put forth. And the show had two directors. Maybe they negated each other to a zero effect, like off-setting penalties in sports.
The show is made up of five two-person scenes, with a character from one scene going onto the next, except for the last scene, where the show becomes a big tangled mess of stupid. It has the feel of a poor man's La Ronde, except for the ghostly apparitions bringing scenes to a close. If there was movement, it was circular and repetitive and not motivated by what was being said. If the directors were going for the visual effect of individuals circling their prey before verbally abusing them with humiliation and hatred...they failed. Although that would have made for some interesting stage tableaus and given it some depth.
As for the actors, it was obvious they had no confidence in their lines or the script, and were given little direction. For example, one of the directors should have told the young lady in the first scene that the limp she chose was so big, she could have been a member of the Ministry of Silly Walks. Honestly, she circled the stage like a giraffe with hip dysplasia. It went beyond funny or meaningful in the situation and edged into the land of buffoonery. Her partner in the scene kept crossing and uncrossing her legs...and I don’t think it was conscious. Deliver a line, cross your legs. Deliver a line, uncross your legs. Deliver a line, then cross, then line, then uncross, ad infinitum. She forced the bitter sarcasm, acoustically putting it in finger quote marks so that we, the audience, “got it”. It made me shudder. Oh, then the zombie/ghost/emotional baggage apparition arrived and the scene ended. He nailed his titular line.
The next scene was Sharon Stone from scene one and her husband. He was the closest to being a real character and showng some acting chops. But it was a long scene headed to nowhere. They circled each other physically and verbally and heaped incendiary insults upon each other and acted generally morose. Then they made up, or stopped shouting, and then zombie boy showed up again to close out the scene. There is a spooky sound effect when he appears. Oooooo!
Then there's an unneeded intermission (the show itself runs 87 minutes...it’s a one act stretched out because...what, we have small bladders?) Then scene three is hubby from scene two and his boss and both are divorce lawyers. Boss has a disturbingly bleak outlook on life and marriage and relationships and rambles on and on about it to the point where you want to shoot him or yourself to put you out of his misery. Now that I reread my last sentence, the end of that scene takes on a better meaning.
That’s enough. Really. Why go on. The acting was bad to average, the script stinks and there’s nothing likable to even care about the show. But that’s just my opinion.
If you're interested in seeing it (it ends tomorrow), go here and get the information. But what you really should do is get a ticket to see The Curate Shakespeare - As You Like It at Geneva Underground Playhouse. I saw it last weekend and I liked it. The review is on it’s way, but I thought I’d give you a heads up. I also saw Into The Woods by Theatre Nebula at Cutting Hall in Palatine (see...north of Irving) and The Desk Set at Albright Theatre in Batavia. The former is pretty good if you’re willing to suffer through a husband and wife team who were inexplicably given the lead roles. The supporting cast is wonderful. The Albright production was a tad weak, but is certainly a better offering than Where’s My Money?. How's this for symmetry: you could go to Jen Piory's Green Room Online web site and find the links to those theatres for more information. My suggestion: spend your cash on the Geneva production. Better show, better comedy, better acting and nice direction.
So, was the Riverfront Playhouse production worth the price of admission? Not at all.
Paid: $15
Run time: 1 hour, 49 minutes with an unnecessary 15-minute intermission...unless you have a small bladder or a small attention...look, a squirrel!!!
- I want to thank everyone who commented about my reviewing The Drowsy Chaperone. Not that it was a contest, but the best and most accurate response was from Harmony, my daughter. She nailed it. I review everything I see. Don't you? I assume you make value judgments all day long about what you're seeing, reading, tasting, touching, listening to or experiencing in life. If you're not, next time you go to a theatre, ask for the "zombie" discount. The question really should have been, "Dare I post a review of a show that has family members in the cast?" No need to send your thoughts. I have answered that for myself.
- During my research for this blog site, I discovered a valuable source of information: greenroomonline.org. The site divides Chicagoland into regions (North, Northwest, West, and I'm sure that South will be in there eventually if you ask nicely), and provides a list of theatres in those areas in an easy-to-navigate matrix. You get the name, address, phone number, URL and various contact information for each theatre. I've been involved in suburban theatre for a long time, and there are companies listed that I've never heard of, and I discovered there actually is theatre north of Irving Park Road!!! Some of the listings include the theatres' current season or current show, with dates and times. Some of the performance information has expired, but I think that's just a matter of the web mistress having the time to update, as well as having the information to work with and the interest from the public to drive the need. The publicity people of theatre groups should keep this site on their radar and forward the most up-to-date information available. The site is run by Jen Piory (you may know her on the NICOTH site as JenLCB (yes, her name is green, so she's either an administrator of NICOTH or eco-friendly...or both). What I find most admirable is that she's financing this endeavor on her own from the proceeds she's made from selling Mary Kay cosmetics. In an e-mail exchange she and I had after I told her how I was using the web site, she responded, "It's always gratifying to know that all the work I do is actually being used!! Kind of no point in doing it, otherwise. :) THANK YOU THANK YOU for letting me know!!! I am a Mary Kay consultant who loves theatre. I never used to love wearing makeup onstage because it made my face break out, and now that I've found something that doesn't do that, I want to share it with the world!" Bookmark her site. I think you'll find it a great resource. Let her know if you find it useful. And if you're having similar issues with make up, I'm sure she'd love to take the time to tell you of her discovery.
OK, time for the review...
I apologize to you, my faithful readers, and 12 devoted followers. I saw this show 9/3. Fourteen days ago. And I have remained silent about it. I have done you a disservice and ask for your forgiveness, because I should have warned you earlier. However, the guy who does the "live" pre-show announcement said, “If you like the show, tell others. And if you don’t like it, keep your mouth shut.” I believe he looked at me specifically when he said the latter part, giving me the stink eye, and I have said nothing since, paralyzed by the fear of a cursed life and the uneasy feeling of emasculation.
OK, maybe not, but he actually did say it, but in jest, I think. And do you actually think I would follow his instructions? Really? The truth is I didn't have anything to say except that the show is awful. I mean bad awful. However, this past weekend I saw three new productions, and found one among them that I think would be a great alternative to Riverfront's painful presentation. More on that later in this posting.
Let’s start with the story of Where's My Money? It was written by John Patrick Shanley. He gave us the award winning movie Moonstruck and the award-winning play, Doubt. He’s no hack. But this play is all over the map trying to be perceptive, ingenious and witty about marriage specifically, and relationships in general. What we actually get is a passel of what seems like his own personal vitriol that makes the characters unsympathetic, bitter, predictable and downright unlikable. No new ground is explored, except for the occasional appearance of ghosts (representing emotional baggage that keeps returning no matter how much you want the airlines to lose it). Shanley tries so hard to be acrid and clever with his dialog that his hollow characters become nothing more than mannequins upon which he can hang his weak comic couture. The characters have no arc, and there's nothing compelling to watch. The best line in the show is the one that is often quoted: “Monogamy is like a 40 Watt bulb. It works, but it’s not enough.” Not bad, but now that you've read it, you've experienced the highlight of the play. Save your money.
I know that a weak script is hard to direct. It’s an arduous task trying to find ways of making crap seem interesting. So I asked myself why they chose it in the first place. I didn't see or feel any directorial effort put forth. And the show had two directors. Maybe they negated each other to a zero effect, like off-setting penalties in sports.
The show is made up of five two-person scenes, with a character from one scene going onto the next, except for the last scene, where the show becomes a big tangled mess of stupid. It has the feel of a poor man's La Ronde, except for the ghostly apparitions bringing scenes to a close. If there was movement, it was circular and repetitive and not motivated by what was being said. If the directors were going for the visual effect of individuals circling their prey before verbally abusing them with humiliation and hatred...they failed. Although that would have made for some interesting stage tableaus and given it some depth.
As for the actors, it was obvious they had no confidence in their lines or the script, and were given little direction. For example, one of the directors should have told the young lady in the first scene that the limp she chose was so big, she could have been a member of the Ministry of Silly Walks. Honestly, she circled the stage like a giraffe with hip dysplasia. It went beyond funny or meaningful in the situation and edged into the land of buffoonery. Her partner in the scene kept crossing and uncrossing her legs...and I don’t think it was conscious. Deliver a line, cross your legs. Deliver a line, uncross your legs. Deliver a line, then cross, then line, then uncross, ad infinitum. She forced the bitter sarcasm, acoustically putting it in finger quote marks so that we, the audience, “got it”. It made me shudder. Oh, then the zombie/ghost/emotional baggage apparition arrived and the scene ended. He nailed his titular line.
The next scene was Sharon Stone from scene one and her husband. He was the closest to being a real character and showng some acting chops. But it was a long scene headed to nowhere. They circled each other physically and verbally and heaped incendiary insults upon each other and acted generally morose. Then they made up, or stopped shouting, and then zombie boy showed up again to close out the scene. There is a spooky sound effect when he appears. Oooooo!
Then there's an unneeded intermission (the show itself runs 87 minutes...it’s a one act stretched out because...what, we have small bladders?) Then scene three is hubby from scene two and his boss and both are divorce lawyers. Boss has a disturbingly bleak outlook on life and marriage and relationships and rambles on and on about it to the point where you want to shoot him or yourself to put you out of his misery. Now that I reread my last sentence, the end of that scene takes on a better meaning.
That’s enough. Really. Why go on. The acting was bad to average, the script stinks and there’s nothing likable to even care about the show. But that’s just my opinion.
If you're interested in seeing it (it ends tomorrow), go here and get the information. But what you really should do is get a ticket to see The Curate Shakespeare - As You Like It at Geneva Underground Playhouse. I saw it last weekend and I liked it. The review is on it’s way, but I thought I’d give you a heads up. I also saw Into The Woods by Theatre Nebula at Cutting Hall in Palatine (see...north of Irving) and The Desk Set at Albright Theatre in Batavia. The former is pretty good if you’re willing to suffer through a husband and wife team who were inexplicably given the lead roles. The supporting cast is wonderful. The Albright production was a tad weak, but is certainly a better offering than Where’s My Money?. How's this for symmetry: you could go to Jen Piory's Green Room Online web site and find the links to those theatres for more information. My suggestion: spend your cash on the Geneva production. Better show, better comedy, better acting and nice direction.
So, was the Riverfront Playhouse production worth the price of admission? Not at all.
Paid: $15
Run time: 1 hour, 49 minutes with an unnecessary 15-minute intermission...unless you have a small bladder or a small attention...look, a squirrel!!!
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Review: "Drood" Joliet Drama Guild, Joliet, IL, Ends 8/29/10
Before the review, a few items of business...
1) Dare I or dare I not?
The question is: Should I review a show that contains my family members? I have two members of my immediate family who are in Wheaton Drama's upcoming production of The Drowsy Chaperone. It seems tricky, and I sense a trap from which I may never escape. I'd like to hear what the public thinks.
2) Letters...we get letters...and comments...
In the comments section of the previous posting in which I announced with good intentions that I would post the review this past Saturday, I found the following questions/statements that I would like to acknowledge:
A) Your seem to have some geographic boundaries to where you will go to to view a show. Possibly you be more specific about your travel limitations.
I don't have travel restrictions, except for that annoying "do not fly" list that holds me up on border crossings. Perhaps I should drop ShoeBomber from my name. Anyway, I do take into account travel time when I choose a show to see. Don't you? I don't work for a paper or a media organization, so all the expenses of this venture fall on me. The shows I choose to review are usually ones I'm interested in seeing as a theatre patron. I know about them because their attempts at public relations were successful in reaching me. Or I have been invited to come and review the show. I live in Carol Stream, so that is the hub from which I radiate. This would explain seeing many shows in St. Charles, Wheaton, Glen Ellyn, Batavia, Geneva, Aurora, and Itasca. But I have also reviewed shows in Highland Park, Bolingbrook, and 3 different neighborhoods in Chicago. And now a show in Joliet. That was a long trip. But they invited me, and having never seen Drood before, my curiosity was piqued. I just received an invitation to review The Desk Set at Albright Theatre in Batavia. I said yes because I'm a fan of the Tracy/Hepburn movie of the same name, and I've never seen it as a stage production. If you have a specific show you'd like me to review, just let me know and if it's something I want to see, and if it fits in my schedule, I'll try to be there. I have learned that shows of only 2-weekend runs must stay off my radar for reviewing. By their nature there is pressure inherent to the process to meet a practical deadline. It gives me the willies.
B) What Saturday are you going to be posting your DROOD review? I would like to read it before I spend $13 on a ticket...
I laughed when I read this because as I realized I was going to miss my self-imposed deadline, I thought, "Well, I never did say which Saturday." This also gave my ego a boost, knowing that my opinion could actually hold sway over the fate of $13. Thank you for that power. The review is below. (hint...save your cash)
C) Kind of hard to take you seriously as a reviewer if you don't even post a review when you say you will.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I had the best intentions of getting the review posted Saturday. There are days when I don't feel like writing, or thinking about theatre or seeing a show. And that's OK. I'm entitled. We're all entitled. When it stops being fun, it's time to step back. When it starts to feel that way all the time, then it's time to close down the blog. If I start writing a review, or go see a show feeling pressured to do so, I won't be happy with the review or being at that show. Such was the case this weekend. My reviews don't go public until I'm happy with them and I think I'm giving you something worthy of your time. They are my creations...like children, and not many births take place on the projected due date. Too many damn variables. If because of that you think less of my critical skills, I'm sorry. Sadly, I will always disappoint you. As for you taking me seriously, I don't believe I ever entered into that accord with anyone, or you in particular. I just post. It's up to you to decide how it fits into your world and into your life.
D) Geez, give the guy a break! Things happen
Thanks Mom. Love you!
E) I saw Drood and I liked it. It was the first time I was able to yell at the actors and not worry abouut being asked to leave the theater! Heck, they encourage people to interact with the actors. Bill's review may or may not agree, but I thought it was a lot of fun.
As good a time as any to get into the review.
******************************************
The concept of the show is fascinating. A musical based on Charles Dickens' last (and unfinished) novel, The Mystery of Edwin Drood. I knew the name but had never seen it, nor had I heard the score. Written by Rupert Holmes (yes, the guy who sang The Pina Colada song from the late 70s), it is a show within a show. It is presented as a British music hall pantomime, using the conventions of asking the the audience to participate in helping to choose an ending for the unfinished novel, and having a young female in male drag playing the lead boy (in this case, Edwin Drood). For more information, follow this link. I was excited to see this. Now, after having seen the production presented by Joliet Drama Guild, I'd like even more to see it again, but done much better.
This production had all the minimalist trappings for this style of show and was in a wonderful venue. And if you buy the concept, you buy the show. But it is also a musical, and I expected people to be on key and display some panache for dance. If you are asked to believe it takes place in an English music hall, you should expect a certain quality to the "musical" aspect of the show. Unfortunately, this was not the case.
Eric Sipe played the "villain," John Jasper, the choirmaster (who had a hard time finding his notes). He played everything with rage. He sang with rage. He shouted with rage. He walked with rage. Everything was loud rage, with no nuance or levels. He had nowhere to go with the character, and he really tried too hard. It was a conscious character choice, and it was off-putting. Vocally, he wandered all over the map, and I didn't enjoy his performance. I endured it.
He is smitten with one of his students who is engaged to his nephew Drood. Her name is Rosa Bud, and she is presented by Annie Roach. Her performance was lackluster and dull, and made it difficult for me to feel anything for her character. She also had trouble finding or staying on key, and as the soprano, she fought valiantly to reach the higher notes. And, as an audience member, we could hear every punch landed as she fought her way to the top. She had a body microphone that amplified everything with distortion, making it harsh and hard to listen to. When she spoke, she was also amplified and seemed other-worldly. She and Jasper had a couple of duets. I endured them. As for the rest of the cast, except for two others, there was nothing memorable. The show music is a bit like Sondheim, so I wasn't sure if the dissonance was as written or due to poorly executed harmonies. I have since listened to a few of the songs off the original cast recording. Unfortunately, it was the execution.
The two actors who stood-out for me were Damon Sloan as The Chairman and Natalie Gustafson as Edwin Drood. Sloan captured the essence of an emcee. He developed great rapport with the audience. He was spontaneous, charming, amusing, and delightfully silly when he was forced into playing auxiliary characters. He has a wonderful stage presence and I hope to see him in other productions.
Natalie Gustafson found the marrow of the lead boy concept. Her attitude and manner were perfect for Edwin Drood. He/she was fun to watch, seemed invested in her character, and had a nice singing voice. Of particular note is the song, "A Private Investigation." Her voice was clear and filled the room without amplification. It was a highlight. She had a few moments struggling with harmonies in other songs, but that appeared to be a problem with her partners. She is also someone I look forward to seeing in other works. My only suggestion is that she work on hugging more like a man. Her embraces with Rosa seemed dainty...a little too kiss-kiss, hug-hug.
As a music hall/musical, this production failed on the dance front. There was nothing exciting. All the moves were simple, and simple was not done well. The band was OK, but very loud in that venue. Music cues were sloppy, and someone should teach the actors and the band how to talk-up a song over a long intro. I find it disturbing to watch an actor wait for his/her entrance into a song.
I will say that I enjoyed the "gimmick" of booing and hissing at the villain and cheering on the heroes. The voting for the ending was fun. I just wish the whole show had been better.
In the interest in full disclosure, I did receive a complimentary ticket to see the show. I didn't realize that's what it was until I arrived at the theatre. I have felt uneasy about it, since I won't take comps for shows I'm planning on reviewing, and I should have paid right then. It violates one of the core concepts of the blog, and I really feel I did myself a disservice. All last week, I could hear the heart beating beneath the floorboards. An invite to see a show with a comp ticket so I can have a second look after the review is published is OK, as I did when I saw Tommy again. It gave me an opportunity to talk with the director and discuss some of what he went through. I'm doing it this weekend for the closing of Equus. The director has invited me back to see the show and have an opportunity to speak with him Hey, why not? The upshot is this: I have mailed $11 to Joliet Drama League (they have a 55+ senior rate) earlier today before I posted this review. Then I can answer my signature question with honesty: Is it worth the price of admission? No, I don't think so.
Run time: 2 hours, 52 minutes, with intermission.
For tickets and times and more information, go here.
1) Dare I or dare I not?
The question is: Should I review a show that contains my family members? I have two members of my immediate family who are in Wheaton Drama's upcoming production of The Drowsy Chaperone. It seems tricky, and I sense a trap from which I may never escape. I'd like to hear what the public thinks.
2) Letters...we get letters...and comments...
In the comments section of the previous posting in which I announced with good intentions that I would post the review this past Saturday, I found the following questions/statements that I would like to acknowledge:
A) Your seem to have some geographic boundaries to where you will go to to view a show. Possibly you be more specific about your travel limitations.
I don't have travel restrictions, except for that annoying "do not fly" list that holds me up on border crossings. Perhaps I should drop ShoeBomber from my name. Anyway, I do take into account travel time when I choose a show to see. Don't you? I don't work for a paper or a media organization, so all the expenses of this venture fall on me. The shows I choose to review are usually ones I'm interested in seeing as a theatre patron. I know about them because their attempts at public relations were successful in reaching me. Or I have been invited to come and review the show. I live in Carol Stream, so that is the hub from which I radiate. This would explain seeing many shows in St. Charles, Wheaton, Glen Ellyn, Batavia, Geneva, Aurora, and Itasca. But I have also reviewed shows in Highland Park, Bolingbrook, and 3 different neighborhoods in Chicago. And now a show in Joliet. That was a long trip. But they invited me, and having never seen Drood before, my curiosity was piqued. I just received an invitation to review The Desk Set at Albright Theatre in Batavia. I said yes because I'm a fan of the Tracy/Hepburn movie of the same name, and I've never seen it as a stage production. If you have a specific show you'd like me to review, just let me know and if it's something I want to see, and if it fits in my schedule, I'll try to be there. I have learned that shows of only 2-weekend runs must stay off my radar for reviewing. By their nature there is pressure inherent to the process to meet a practical deadline. It gives me the willies.
B) What Saturday are you going to be posting your DROOD review? I would like to read it before I spend $13 on a ticket...
I laughed when I read this because as I realized I was going to miss my self-imposed deadline, I thought, "Well, I never did say which Saturday." This also gave my ego a boost, knowing that my opinion could actually hold sway over the fate of $13. Thank you for that power. The review is below. (hint...save your cash)
C) Kind of hard to take you seriously as a reviewer if you don't even post a review when you say you will.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I had the best intentions of getting the review posted Saturday. There are days when I don't feel like writing, or thinking about theatre or seeing a show. And that's OK. I'm entitled. We're all entitled. When it stops being fun, it's time to step back. When it starts to feel that way all the time, then it's time to close down the blog. If I start writing a review, or go see a show feeling pressured to do so, I won't be happy with the review or being at that show. Such was the case this weekend. My reviews don't go public until I'm happy with them and I think I'm giving you something worthy of your time. They are my creations...like children, and not many births take place on the projected due date. Too many damn variables. If because of that you think less of my critical skills, I'm sorry. Sadly, I will always disappoint you. As for you taking me seriously, I don't believe I ever entered into that accord with anyone, or you in particular. I just post. It's up to you to decide how it fits into your world and into your life.
D) Geez, give the guy a break! Things happen
Thanks Mom. Love you!
E) I saw Drood and I liked it. It was the first time I was able to yell at the actors and not worry abouut being asked to leave the theater! Heck, they encourage people to interact with the actors. Bill's review may or may not agree, but I thought it was a lot of fun.
As good a time as any to get into the review.
******************************************
 |
| The Chairman (Damon Sloan) and Edwin Drood (Natalie Gustafson) |
This production had all the minimalist trappings for this style of show and was in a wonderful venue. And if you buy the concept, you buy the show. But it is also a musical, and I expected people to be on key and display some panache for dance. If you are asked to believe it takes place in an English music hall, you should expect a certain quality to the "musical" aspect of the show. Unfortunately, this was not the case.
Eric Sipe played the "villain," John Jasper, the choirmaster (who had a hard time finding his notes). He played everything with rage. He sang with rage. He shouted with rage. He walked with rage. Everything was loud rage, with no nuance or levels. He had nowhere to go with the character, and he really tried too hard. It was a conscious character choice, and it was off-putting. Vocally, he wandered all over the map, and I didn't enjoy his performance. I endured it.
He is smitten with one of his students who is engaged to his nephew Drood. Her name is Rosa Bud, and she is presented by Annie Roach. Her performance was lackluster and dull, and made it difficult for me to feel anything for her character. She also had trouble finding or staying on key, and as the soprano, she fought valiantly to reach the higher notes. And, as an audience member, we could hear every punch landed as she fought her way to the top. She had a body microphone that amplified everything with distortion, making it harsh and hard to listen to. When she spoke, she was also amplified and seemed other-worldly. She and Jasper had a couple of duets. I endured them. As for the rest of the cast, except for two others, there was nothing memorable. The show music is a bit like Sondheim, so I wasn't sure if the dissonance was as written or due to poorly executed harmonies. I have since listened to a few of the songs off the original cast recording. Unfortunately, it was the execution.
The two actors who stood-out for me were Damon Sloan as The Chairman and Natalie Gustafson as Edwin Drood. Sloan captured the essence of an emcee. He developed great rapport with the audience. He was spontaneous, charming, amusing, and delightfully silly when he was forced into playing auxiliary characters. He has a wonderful stage presence and I hope to see him in other productions.
Natalie Gustafson found the marrow of the lead boy concept. Her attitude and manner were perfect for Edwin Drood. He/she was fun to watch, seemed invested in her character, and had a nice singing voice. Of particular note is the song, "A Private Investigation." Her voice was clear and filled the room without amplification. It was a highlight. She had a few moments struggling with harmonies in other songs, but that appeared to be a problem with her partners. She is also someone I look forward to seeing in other works. My only suggestion is that she work on hugging more like a man. Her embraces with Rosa seemed dainty...a little too kiss-kiss, hug-hug.
As a music hall/musical, this production failed on the dance front. There was nothing exciting. All the moves were simple, and simple was not done well. The band was OK, but very loud in that venue. Music cues were sloppy, and someone should teach the actors and the band how to talk-up a song over a long intro. I find it disturbing to watch an actor wait for his/her entrance into a song.
I will say that I enjoyed the "gimmick" of booing and hissing at the villain and cheering on the heroes. The voting for the ending was fun. I just wish the whole show had been better.
In the interest in full disclosure, I did receive a complimentary ticket to see the show. I didn't realize that's what it was until I arrived at the theatre. I have felt uneasy about it, since I won't take comps for shows I'm planning on reviewing, and I should have paid right then. It violates one of the core concepts of the blog, and I really feel I did myself a disservice. All last week, I could hear the heart beating beneath the floorboards. An invite to see a show with a comp ticket so I can have a second look after the review is published is OK, as I did when I saw Tommy again. It gave me an opportunity to talk with the director and discuss some of what he went through. I'm doing it this weekend for the closing of Equus. The director has invited me back to see the show and have an opportunity to speak with him Hey, why not? The upshot is this: I have mailed $11 to Joliet Drama League (they have a 55+ senior rate) earlier today before I posted this review. Then I can answer my signature question with honesty: Is it worth the price of admission? No, I don't think so.
Run time: 2 hours, 52 minutes, with intermission.
For tickets and times and more information, go here.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Review: "My Fair Lady" Overshadowed Productions, Itasca, IL Ends 8/7/10
I grew up listening to the music from this show. I lived in Oak Park and I listened to the album every day. I could talk/sing all the Rex Harrison stuff while strutting around the living room acting the arrogant peacock that is Higgins. I was around 8-years old. This was a time when albums were vinyl and played on Stereo High Fidelity entertainment systems that looked like credenzas or breakfronts. When I was done with this, I'd put on Sing-A-Long with Mitch Miller, who died this week at the age of 99. So, this show holds a special little place in my heart. I will look upon it fondly...unless it's done poorly.Last week, I had the opportunity to see a production of My Fair Lady at Overshadowed Productions in Itasca. They are a faith-based theatre group that is all-inclusive (they let me in, didn't they?) and genuinely concerned about catering to their audience. Not a big name in community theatre, but one that left a favorable impression on me (and I qualified for their 55+ senior discount - I'm officially elderly...woo-hoo!!) If you'd like more information about this theatre, including show times, etc., click here. If you need more information about the story of My Fair Lady - uh...really? Try Goggle or Bing. You may find a reference or two.
Worth the price of admission? Yes. Great production? No, not great. But a great effort. No one gave up, and everybody worked the moments. They made choices and stuck with them and enjoyed what they were doing, which is very contagious to an audience. As I watched the large ensemble during "Get Me To The Church On Time" crowded onto a small stage going through a regimen of clapping, out of place square dancing, pot clanging, mug slamming and Stomp-like movements with anachronistic garbage can lids, I just smiled. It wan't great, but it was fun. It was overkill having that many people on the stage and overwrought being so loud, but somehow it became part of the charm. It looked crowded, but that never detracted from getting the job done. The production was unpretentious, which I find a blessing. All too often, productions take themselves much too seriously (We're doing art, dammit!)
Matt Hallstein does a masterful job as Henry Higgins. He brings his own style to the character while maintaining just the right amount of Rex Harrison mannerisms that we come to expect of a Higgins. He commands the stage and your attention. I was less enthused with Becky Weise as Eliza Doolittle. She did OK, nothing disturbing. However, I found her vocally weak as she struggled through sections of songs in her upper register. She has the tools, but they suffer from a lack of honing. More breath control and training should rectify it. She also tried so hard with her guttersnipe (love that word) accent that she disconnected from the meaning of the text a few times and it felt forced.
Jerry Berger as Pickering started slow and weak, but got stronger. His "dash" readings at the beginning of Act II were delightful. Brad Holloman put a lot of effort and energy into his performance of Alfred Doolittle. Unfortunately, it wasn't focused and was all over the place (as well as over the top). It lacked the restraint needed to keep it human, and much of what he did became artifice.
The rest of the cast fell somewhere between acceptable and great, and the overall presentation was delightful. The harmonies in the smaller ensemble numbers were some of the best I've heard. The quartet of pub enthusiasts and the group of servants were particularly good. I thought the direction was focused, and was impressed with the use of walking sticks/velvet ropes during the Ascot scene. It was clever.
The biggest disappointment for me was the band. They started off-key and off-tempo and didn't recover very often. It was always a surprise what you were going to get when they started up. Generally, I like surprises. Not so much this time.
So, get a ticket if you can. It's not great, but it's fun. Everyone is trying hard and you feel the genuine love of performance.
Paid: $12 (because I'm old)
Run time: 2hrs 20 minutes, with intermission.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Review: "The Musical Of Musicals (the Musical)" Highland Park Players and "Lend Me A Tenor" Summer Place, and a final word on "Tommy"
A couple of shows are closing this weekend and I wanted to get this out there before they do. I give a YES to both, one more than the other.
The Musical Of Musicals (The Musical) - Highland Park Players, Highland Park, IL Closes 7/24/2010
You have tonight and tomorrow to see this show. Do so, if you can. This was the best "muscial" experience I've had this year. Go here for more info about tickets, location, time, synopsis, etc. Basically, it's the same story told 5 different ways, as if they were written by 5 different icons of musical theatre. If you know musical theatre, you have to see this show. You'll get it at its deepest level. The puns are hysterical. If you're not an expert, you'll love this anyway, because what is parodied is so well known, you'll have a blast watching these talented singers send up these musical writers. And, hey, they found people that could do Fosse-like dancing. Imagine that! In community theatre! I was told it's impossible to find that level of talent. See it, then, just to see the impossible! Scott Bussert, Tony Calzaretta, Hannah Rose and Denise Tamburrino give fantastic performances, and are a true ensemble.
It's been said that to parody something, you have to have a deep love and respect for it first, to make it work. The authors hit it on the head, and director Kevin Wiczer and the cast, including, Robin Giebelhausen as the pianist/narrator, showed just how deeply they love and respect musical theatre. It's a treat. Cost me $16.
***************************************
I also want to remind you that Bailiwick Chicago has two productions which I give a YES to that are part of in their inaugural season under their new incarnation, one of which is Aida @ American Theatre Company's space which closes 8/1/2010. Aida is the Elton John/Tim Rice/Disney overblown epic based on Verdi's opera, presented in a space that allows you to focus more on the story than the spectacle. Strong voices, invested acting and interesting afro-centric choreography makes the experience exciting. For more info, go here. I really enjoyed this production. There were a couple of weak moments, especially the museum scenes that open and close the show. Just didn't seem to gel. You can see what they were going for, but it missed the mark. The song at the end of Act 1 is rousing, and the story is well played. See it before it leaves.
There is a famous story about a pitch meeting for the movie, Outland. The story is when asked what the movie was about, the pitch was one sentence: It's High Noon in outer space. If I were to pitch F**king Men, the other Bailiwick production, now extended to 8/8/2010, I'd say: It's gay La Ronde (click to learn more). Actually, that's how it was descibed to me when I was invited to see it. La Ronde was one of the first shows I was in when I was in college, so I thought it would be interesting to see this take. The story is not the same, but the structure of the play is. Scene 1 has two characters before and after a sexual encounter, one moves on to the next scene with a new partner, the new person in the next scene moves on and so forth, until by Scene 10, you are back to the character who did not move on from Scene 1 with the new person from Scene 9. So, it's episodic. When I read the program, I saw it was written by one of my least favorite playwrights, Joe DiPietro, who also wrote I Love You, Your Perfect, Now Change and Over The River And Through The Woods, also episodic, but those are more like sitcoms. This is not sitcom, but each scene had the same rhythm to it, there was nothing new after the first scene. Kind of like the TV show House - each episode seems to be structured the same, just a different disease.
Even though the material was somewhat lacking, it's worth seeing this production. The cast is incredible, and each character is nicely drawn without a hint of dishonesty. Fully committed and not a false note. These actors were very strong, and formed a wonderful and true ensemble. The direction was spot on, and the scene transitions appeared to have been choreographed. See this for the brilliance of the acting that overcomes a mediocre script, and the fluid flow of the 90 minute show. You'll find info at the same Bailiwick link.
*************************
Finally, I went back to Theatre On The Hill at the invitation of the director Mike Fudala and co-president Craig Engel, so I could see Tommy the way the show should have been on opening night.
It was better, as one would expect in its fourth and final weekend. It still started 19 minutes later than advertised, but Mike explained they like to start a little later so that the projected graphics are easier to see, since it would be darker. I get what he was saying (like when they start a movie at the drive-in and the screen is washed out by the ambient light). Have they thought of putting the curtain time a 1/2-hour later? Then you'd start on time. Just a thought.
There were singers I could hear for the first time, and that was nice. Cap't Walker has a great voice that I wish I had heard on opening night. The choreography was still pedestrian, some of the singing was still weak, and I still prefer the original story as conceived in the late 60s, early 70s. I think this new "Broadway" version was a bit of a sell-out by The Who. But, that's my take on it.
The show is over and all is quiet on the Hill. And, if you didn't see Craig Engel's last comment on the Tommy review, here is a portion that speaks to how he cares about the audience.
The Musical Of Musicals (The Musical) - Highland Park Players, Highland Park, IL Closes 7/24/2010
You have tonight and tomorrow to see this show. Do so, if you can. This was the best "muscial" experience I've had this year. Go here for more info about tickets, location, time, synopsis, etc. Basically, it's the same story told 5 different ways, as if they were written by 5 different icons of musical theatre. If you know musical theatre, you have to see this show. You'll get it at its deepest level. The puns are hysterical. If you're not an expert, you'll love this anyway, because what is parodied is so well known, you'll have a blast watching these talented singers send up these musical writers. And, hey, they found people that could do Fosse-like dancing. Imagine that! In community theatre! I was told it's impossible to find that level of talent. See it, then, just to see the impossible! Scott Bussert, Tony Calzaretta, Hannah Rose and Denise Tamburrino give fantastic performances, and are a true ensemble.
It's been said that to parody something, you have to have a deep love and respect for it first, to make it work. The authors hit it on the head, and director Kevin Wiczer and the cast, including, Robin Giebelhausen as the pianist/narrator, showed just how deeply they love and respect musical theatre. It's a treat. Cost me $16.
Lend Me A Tenor - Summer Place Theatre, Naperville, IL Closes 7/25/2010
I'm giving this a borderline YES. It started off slow, and really didn't find it's stride until Act I Scene 2. Actors were stepping on laughs and I'm not sure they anticipated getting any. My initial notes were, "Where's the energy? Needs a faster pace." In general, the acting covered a wide range of experience, and most did a decent job when all was done, but it sure took a long time to get there. Some never got there, and dragged down the scenes they were in. Act II was much better. Dialog started to snap, and the action built to a frenzied finish, as a farce should. Go here for more info.
Staging at that venue was odd. Most of the show played on the Stage Right side of the thrust, forcing scenes to be played upstage/downstage. I sat on the side, so I could see, but it appeared as if views from the center audience section of the thrust were blocked. They did, however, do a creative job with the limitations of the stage. Not bad, but not great. It's a nice distraction for a hot evening.
***************************************
I also want to remind you that Bailiwick Chicago has two productions which I give a YES to that are part of in their inaugural season under their new incarnation, one of which is Aida @ American Theatre Company's space which closes 8/1/2010. Aida is the Elton John/Tim Rice/Disney overblown epic based on Verdi's opera, presented in a space that allows you to focus more on the story than the spectacle. Strong voices, invested acting and interesting afro-centric choreography makes the experience exciting. For more info, go here. I really enjoyed this production. There were a couple of weak moments, especially the museum scenes that open and close the show. Just didn't seem to gel. You can see what they were going for, but it missed the mark. The song at the end of Act 1 is rousing, and the story is well played. See it before it leaves.
There is a famous story about a pitch meeting for the movie, Outland. The story is when asked what the movie was about, the pitch was one sentence: It's High Noon in outer space. If I were to pitch F**king Men, the other Bailiwick production, now extended to 8/8/2010, I'd say: It's gay La Ronde (click to learn more). Actually, that's how it was descibed to me when I was invited to see it. La Ronde was one of the first shows I was in when I was in college, so I thought it would be interesting to see this take. The story is not the same, but the structure of the play is. Scene 1 has two characters before and after a sexual encounter, one moves on to the next scene with a new partner, the new person in the next scene moves on and so forth, until by Scene 10, you are back to the character who did not move on from Scene 1 with the new person from Scene 9. So, it's episodic. When I read the program, I saw it was written by one of my least favorite playwrights, Joe DiPietro, who also wrote I Love You, Your Perfect, Now Change and Over The River And Through The Woods, also episodic, but those are more like sitcoms. This is not sitcom, but each scene had the same rhythm to it, there was nothing new after the first scene. Kind of like the TV show House - each episode seems to be structured the same, just a different disease.
Even though the material was somewhat lacking, it's worth seeing this production. The cast is incredible, and each character is nicely drawn without a hint of dishonesty. Fully committed and not a false note. These actors were very strong, and formed a wonderful and true ensemble. The direction was spot on, and the scene transitions appeared to have been choreographed. See this for the brilliance of the acting that overcomes a mediocre script, and the fluid flow of the 90 minute show. You'll find info at the same Bailiwick link.
*************************
Finally, I went back to Theatre On The Hill at the invitation of the director Mike Fudala and co-president Craig Engel, so I could see Tommy the way the show should have been on opening night.
It was better, as one would expect in its fourth and final weekend. It still started 19 minutes later than advertised, but Mike explained they like to start a little later so that the projected graphics are easier to see, since it would be darker. I get what he was saying (like when they start a movie at the drive-in and the screen is washed out by the ambient light). Have they thought of putting the curtain time a 1/2-hour later? Then you'd start on time. Just a thought.
There were singers I could hear for the first time, and that was nice. Cap't Walker has a great voice that I wish I had heard on opening night. The choreography was still pedestrian, some of the singing was still weak, and I still prefer the original story as conceived in the late 60s, early 70s. I think this new "Broadway" version was a bit of a sell-out by The Who. But, that's my take on it.
The show is over and all is quiet on the Hill. And, if you didn't see Craig Engel's last comment on the Tommy review, here is a portion that speaks to how he cares about the audience.
So thanks to all who took the time to comment. We take this criticism seriously. So here's the deal. We're doing "Amadeus" in the Fall. Michael and I want every one of our guests to feel important and heard, so if Tommy wasn't the experience you expected, let us know via e-mail. Just go to our website, tothbolingbrook.com and write us a note. We'll then be happy to offer you a half-price ticket to Amadeus in an effort to make amends.Now that's community theatre.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Review: "Equus" Redtwist Theatre, Chicago, IL 6/27/10
All of us have moments in time where we were knocked slightly off our path through life and it changed us for good or bad, and became instrumental in defining who we are today. One of mine happened in the mid-1970s during a trip to Miami to visit family. I was urged by Aunt Connie and cousin Marita to see the national touring company of Equus by Peter Shaffer at the Coconut Grove Playhouse. Seeing that show is what really got me interested in theatre. It captured my imagination and would not let go. I'd never seen anything like it. And I knew then I wanted to be a part of a production someday. Those who know me know of my predilection for this show. If only I could find a suburban venue willing to take risks and do edgy material. Ah well, risky is not part of the vocabulary of most suburban theatres. Or if it is, it has a negative connotation.
Over time, I have come to realize that the story is not quite as brilliant as I originally thought, and is a little light on the psychoanalysis (as well as heavy on the psycho-babble). But that has also given me a new appreciation of the show. It is, after all, entertainment. It's what theatre is supposed to do. And, at the time it came out, it was considered ground-breaking, and still has an impact 45 years later. For more info and the story synopsis, go here.
I'll start off by saying that if you've seen Equus before, please see this production. It's a fascinating re-staging, shedding a different light on the show, and emphasizes what I have always thought this play was: not so much a mystery uncovered, but an examination of the inner conflict of Dr. Dysart, the psychiatrist. As an audience member, you sit a few feet from the action on the wider-than-deeper set. It is almost as if they took the original design of the show, kept the bleachers, condensed it, and eliminated the house altogether. That will make more sense once you've seen this production. If you have only seen the crappy movie, please see a stage version quickly, and you'll being doing yourself a great favor seeing this one. If you've never seen the show, this is a good place to start. Eventually, you should see it in all its original trappings, but this production is 2.5 hours of delight.
When I first saw the very small and intimate set, I was afraid I would feel claustrophobic, especially during the long monologues. I could see there was nowhere to go for blocking, so longer passages of exposition would be limited in movement, which can be stifling. And, it is a wordy show. But for me the words rang, because this production concentrates on text over action. There was a readers theatre feel to it that relies on the minds of the audience to fill in the blanks and forces them to participate.
This is a strong cast. Brian Parry plays Dysart. I felt his inner turmoil as he tries to make sense of what he's doing, meddling around in the mind and passions of this boy who has blinded six horses. Nothing rang false as he lead us from one level to the next in the uncovering of the events leading to the incident of the crime against the horses. He took us through those long wordy passages with ease, and he held my focus.
Alan is portrayed by Andrew Jessop. There was an intensity that undulated beneath the surface of his performance, promising the excitement of the explosive moments of the show. And it came through. Jan Ellen Graves does a nice turn as Hester, the magistrate who brings Alan to Dysart for analysis. I was at a disadvantage to fully appreciate what she did because of where I sat, since she is on stage right most of the time, turned to center, so I mostly saw the back of her head. At times, without the nuance and shadings that facial expressions add to spoken text, I felt I was experiencing her performance through a radio. Of course, this has nothing to do with Graves. It's a function of the 3/4 thrust staging. I would suggest sitting in the audience section that is directly opposite the set. It's a small theatre that holds around 45 people, so get there early.
Holly Bittinger gives a nice turn as Jill Mason, a country-girl horse trainer with an impish streak. She eases into the role of mentor to Alan, teaching him the ins and outs of both stable work and stable play, and becomes one of the catalysts for the incident with the horses.
It is an easy out to blame the parents for the behavior of a child, and in some ways, Shaffer uses that mindset as misdirection. The parents are both idiosyncratic and lay a foundation for the mental framework of Alan's passions. Debra Rodkin and Laurens Wilson played Dora and Frank Strang, Alan's parents. I felt a slight disconnect from both of them in the beginning, but they grew on me as the show progressed, especially Rodkin's heartfelt monologue in Act II. Meredith Hogeland and John Rushing do nice turns in supporting roles and added to the overall strength of the show. Of particular note is Scott Butler, who doubles as the horseman and Nugget, the horse. The start of the show is haunting, as Butler comes on stage, dons leather fetish-wear, a wonderfully-designed eerie horse head, and becomes the horse. It was a true and stellar metamorphosis.
Director Michael Colucci took risks with this staging and re-invention, and they pay off. The show runs through August 29 and as I said before, you really should see it. For times and ticket information, go to the Redtwist web site.
Run time: 2 hours, 30 minutes, including a 15-minute intermission
Paid: $13.50 (I saw the final preview. But I did just receive a HotTix e-mail showing they have discounted tickets for this weekend.)
Is it worth the price of admission: Yes. Full price, discounted price, whatever, you should make the effort to see this production. I'm going again, I liked it that much.
Over time, I have come to realize that the story is not quite as brilliant as I originally thought, and is a little light on the psychoanalysis (as well as heavy on the psycho-babble). But that has also given me a new appreciation of the show. It is, after all, entertainment. It's what theatre is supposed to do. And, at the time it came out, it was considered ground-breaking, and still has an impact 45 years later. For more info and the story synopsis, go here.
I'll start off by saying that if you've seen Equus before, please see this production. It's a fascinating re-staging, shedding a different light on the show, and emphasizes what I have always thought this play was: not so much a mystery uncovered, but an examination of the inner conflict of Dr. Dysart, the psychiatrist. As an audience member, you sit a few feet from the action on the wider-than-deeper set. It is almost as if they took the original design of the show, kept the bleachers, condensed it, and eliminated the house altogether. That will make more sense once you've seen this production. If you have only seen the crappy movie, please see a stage version quickly, and you'll being doing yourself a great favor seeing this one. If you've never seen the show, this is a good place to start. Eventually, you should see it in all its original trappings, but this production is 2.5 hours of delight.
When I first saw the very small and intimate set, I was afraid I would feel claustrophobic, especially during the long monologues. I could see there was nowhere to go for blocking, so longer passages of exposition would be limited in movement, which can be stifling. And, it is a wordy show. But for me the words rang, because this production concentrates on text over action. There was a readers theatre feel to it that relies on the minds of the audience to fill in the blanks and forces them to participate.
This is a strong cast. Brian Parry plays Dysart. I felt his inner turmoil as he tries to make sense of what he's doing, meddling around in the mind and passions of this boy who has blinded six horses. Nothing rang false as he lead us from one level to the next in the uncovering of the events leading to the incident of the crime against the horses. He took us through those long wordy passages with ease, and he held my focus.
Alan is portrayed by Andrew Jessop. There was an intensity that undulated beneath the surface of his performance, promising the excitement of the explosive moments of the show. And it came through. Jan Ellen Graves does a nice turn as Hester, the magistrate who brings Alan to Dysart for analysis. I was at a disadvantage to fully appreciate what she did because of where I sat, since she is on stage right most of the time, turned to center, so I mostly saw the back of her head. At times, without the nuance and shadings that facial expressions add to spoken text, I felt I was experiencing her performance through a radio. Of course, this has nothing to do with Graves. It's a function of the 3/4 thrust staging. I would suggest sitting in the audience section that is directly opposite the set. It's a small theatre that holds around 45 people, so get there early.
Holly Bittinger gives a nice turn as Jill Mason, a country-girl horse trainer with an impish streak. She eases into the role of mentor to Alan, teaching him the ins and outs of both stable work and stable play, and becomes one of the catalysts for the incident with the horses.
It is an easy out to blame the parents for the behavior of a child, and in some ways, Shaffer uses that mindset as misdirection. The parents are both idiosyncratic and lay a foundation for the mental framework of Alan's passions. Debra Rodkin and Laurens Wilson played Dora and Frank Strang, Alan's parents. I felt a slight disconnect from both of them in the beginning, but they grew on me as the show progressed, especially Rodkin's heartfelt monologue in Act II. Meredith Hogeland and John Rushing do nice turns in supporting roles and added to the overall strength of the show. Of particular note is Scott Butler, who doubles as the horseman and Nugget, the horse. The start of the show is haunting, as Butler comes on stage, dons leather fetish-wear, a wonderfully-designed eerie horse head, and becomes the horse. It was a true and stellar metamorphosis.
Director Michael Colucci took risks with this staging and re-invention, and they pay off. The show runs through August 29 and as I said before, you really should see it. For times and ticket information, go to the Redtwist web site.
Run time: 2 hours, 30 minutes, including a 15-minute intermission
Paid: $13.50 (I saw the final preview. But I did just receive a HotTix e-mail showing they have discounted tickets for this weekend.)
Is it worth the price of admission: Yes. Full price, discounted price, whatever, you should make the effort to see this production. I'm going again, I liked it that much.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Review: "The Sleeper" The Riverfront Playhouse, Aurora, IL 6/26/10
When the lights went down and the music began, I heard the distinctive sound of the Ultra-Lounge music series. I am a big fan, and I was in heaven. Then the music stopped and the show started. The title of the show is The Sleeper, and as a word, it best describes the show. Written by Catherine Butterfield and set in 2002, the story is a dark comedy about national paranoia after the 9/11 attacks.
An interesting concept to be sure, but it is explored so superficially that it left me feeling that it was not so much a story she wanted to write, but something onto which she could hang her "surprise" ending. A means to an end, if you will. And, about 25 minutes into it, I knew what the surprise was going to be because nothing else could logically explain what I was seeing in the presentation. But I won't give it away. Here's how they describe the show at Dramatist Play Service: A suburban "security mom," shell-shocked by the new post 9/11 reality, finds herself irresistibly drawn to her son's tutor, a handsome young man with political leanings far different from her own. Her "awakening" leads to a bizarre series of events that blow the lid off her previously sheltered existence and change the lives of all around her. A dark and slightly zany comedy.
The show plays on one level, and the execution of this production didn't help. On whole, the cast came across weak and tentative and certainly not in command of the material. In addition, the pace was deadly slow in spots, and uneven. There was no flow to the progression of the show.
The main focus of the show is Gretchen, played by Beth Goncher. For this show to work, the audience has to care about Gretchen, her emotional journey and story arc. Unfortunately, the character as written is neither compelling nor an empathetic figure, and I never felt that even Goncher believed in the character she was portraying. She was stilted and removed, and that eventually translates to a lack of connection and empathy with the audience.
Her husband Bill, who is too involved with his company's upcoming IPO to notice Gretchen's decline into paranoia, is portrayed by Thomass Dickens. He has a few fine comic moments, but overall his timing was slow on the pickups and dragged down many of the scenes. Nikki Edwards plays Vivian, Gretchen's alcoholic sister. I thought there was too much acting going on when she was on stage and the overall effect was forced.
Rob Siebert plays Matthew, the tutor. I'm not sure if it was Rob, or the writing, but the character lacks depth. Maybe this is to enhance the mystique of Gretchen's lover by not revealing too much? But in my notes, I wrote, "This is the stud she has the hots for??" Again, nothing compelling about a principal character, so as more was revealed, I just didn't care. He is just a story convenience to get to the surprise ending. Maybe the author did a little reverse engineering here; started where she wanted it to end, and worked backwards.
It was NOT worth the price of admission.
An interesting concept to be sure, but it is explored so superficially that it left me feeling that it was not so much a story she wanted to write, but something onto which she could hang her "surprise" ending. A means to an end, if you will. And, about 25 minutes into it, I knew what the surprise was going to be because nothing else could logically explain what I was seeing in the presentation. But I won't give it away. Here's how they describe the show at Dramatist Play Service: A suburban "security mom," shell-shocked by the new post 9/11 reality, finds herself irresistibly drawn to her son's tutor, a handsome young man with political leanings far different from her own. Her "awakening" leads to a bizarre series of events that blow the lid off her previously sheltered existence and change the lives of all around her. A dark and slightly zany comedy.
The show plays on one level, and the execution of this production didn't help. On whole, the cast came across weak and tentative and certainly not in command of the material. In addition, the pace was deadly slow in spots, and uneven. There was no flow to the progression of the show.
The main focus of the show is Gretchen, played by Beth Goncher. For this show to work, the audience has to care about Gretchen, her emotional journey and story arc. Unfortunately, the character as written is neither compelling nor an empathetic figure, and I never felt that even Goncher believed in the character she was portraying. She was stilted and removed, and that eventually translates to a lack of connection and empathy with the audience.
Her husband Bill, who is too involved with his company's upcoming IPO to notice Gretchen's decline into paranoia, is portrayed by Thomass Dickens. He has a few fine comic moments, but overall his timing was slow on the pickups and dragged down many of the scenes. Nikki Edwards plays Vivian, Gretchen's alcoholic sister. I thought there was too much acting going on when she was on stage and the overall effect was forced.
Rob Siebert plays Matthew, the tutor. I'm not sure if it was Rob, or the writing, but the character lacks depth. Maybe this is to enhance the mystique of Gretchen's lover by not revealing too much? But in my notes, I wrote, "This is the stud she has the hots for??" Again, nothing compelling about a principal character, so as more was revealed, I just didn't care. He is just a story convenience to get to the surprise ending. Maybe the author did a little reverse engineering here; started where she wanted it to end, and worked backwards.
Steve Ramussen, Luke Pascale, and Denise D'Asto, round out the cast, playing various characters. Some good, some not so good. There is a scene of an anthrax safety seminar, with Rasussen as the speaker, that could have been very funny. Unfortunately, Ramussen either had trouble with the lines or decided to act really hard, and depleted the scene of its comic nature. Then he and Pascale end up playing Arabic men and I found myself laughing for all the wrong reasons.
A main ingredient missing from this stew is passion. We should feel a smoldering desire between the mom and the tutor. But there was no chemistry between them. The faux-sex scene they had in bed was lame and boring. They looked like kids crawling around in the plastic ball pit at Chucky Cheese. Hell, she kept her shoes on during the entire scene. So, again, I was left thinking, "Who cares?"
Something that annoyed me as I was watching the show is something I have seen a lot recently. Actors need to find the light in the scene. That's in every scene where you should be lit. But, if your character is one who breaks the 4th wall and speaks directly to the audience bathed in a different light than the rest of the scene, find the damn light. Look, I have to assume you want to be up there for different reasons, one of which is to be noticed for what you're doing. The audience can't fully appreciate what you're doing in your moment to shine when you leave half your face out of the light. Feel the heat, check your placement on the stage to the spill of light...something, anything. Just find the frigging light. If we can't see you, we stop caring.
Something that annoyed me as I was watching the show is something I have seen a lot recently. Actors need to find the light in the scene. That's in every scene where you should be lit. But, if your character is one who breaks the 4th wall and speaks directly to the audience bathed in a different light than the rest of the scene, find the damn light. Look, I have to assume you want to be up there for different reasons, one of which is to be noticed for what you're doing. The audience can't fully appreciate what you're doing in your moment to shine when you leave half your face out of the light. Feel the heat, check your placement on the stage to the spill of light...something, anything. Just find the frigging light. If we can't see you, we stop caring.
As I mentioned, the pace was off. It was chunky, if that makes sense. Starts and stops and hiccups, like a car that can't get its pistons firing in sequence. There was no awareness of flow. Again, I'm not sure if this is because of the actors, director or writer. I suspect it was an unfortunate mixture of the three, and it never quite gelled.
I did get the feeling as I watched the show that it would have played better as a one-act. Maybe it would have given the show a longer runway to pick up speed and really take off at the end, allowing it to become the zany comedy as described by Dramatist. The intermission broke up any momentum the show had gained despite its chunky pacing and things had to get started again to build up to the ending...in this case, a big surprise. It didn't work out that way. As I did research on this show, it ran 80 minutes at most theatres it played at.
For info on tickets, visit their web site.
Run time: 1 hour, 39 minutes (looks like they did insert the intermission)
Price: $15
I did get the feeling as I watched the show that it would have played better as a one-act. Maybe it would have given the show a longer runway to pick up speed and really take off at the end, allowing it to become the zany comedy as described by Dramatist. The intermission broke up any momentum the show had gained despite its chunky pacing and things had to get started again to build up to the ending...in this case, a big surprise. It didn't work out that way. As I did research on this show, it ran 80 minutes at most theatres it played at.
For info on tickets, visit their web site.
Run time: 1 hour, 39 minutes (looks like they did insert the intermission)
Price: $15
It was NOT worth the price of admission.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Review: "Tommy - The Musical" Theatre On The Hill, Bolingbrook, IL 6/25/10
First, a few items of business:
What causes me to ask for help in defining local theatre is that I'm not sure how to review Theatre On The Hill's production of The Who's Tommy. It was not theatre as I define it. Maybe my definition is too narrow. What I experienced was an amateur, badly conceived dance recital backed by a tribute band of The Who. They had too many technical glitches with microphones and under-whelming special effects that did nothing to enhance the show. They were saying, "See, I have all these cool toys." It came off as self-indulgent.
I was in high school when the album Tommy was released in 1969. I saw The Who perform it in concert. Great show. They labeled it a "rock opera," but without the staging, it more closely resembled an oratorio. The story was razor thin, and you'll find a synopsis here. But who cared? It was a concept album and helped spawn numerous others like Jethro Tull's Thick As A Brick and Passion Play. The album was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame.
They made changes to the story when Peter Townsend of The Who decided to mount it as a stage musical. You can read about the changes by following this link. After having been exposed to both, I prefer the original. Not because I'm old-school. Rather, I think it's more fun to fill in the story in your own head and paint the pictures using your mind's eye, like you would with a reader's theatre or radio play. For the stage version, Townsend added a song that doesn't fit in musically (it sounds too Broadway) and is only there to force some dramatic tension between the father and mother, and the "all is now good" ending tries too hard to give substance and message to the show. As for this production, it was a mess.
I'll approach this with bullet points:
Run time: 1 hour 50 minutes
Paid: $15
- Here's a preview of the next set of reviews: The Sleeper at Riverfront Playhouse gets a No. Equus at Redtwist Theatre gets an enthusiastic Yes. And on 7/3, I saw two Baliwick Chicago productions: Aida and F**king Men. A big Yes to both. Now I need to find the time to write the reviews.
- Again, if you'd like me to let you know about the new reviews when I post them without having to check the blog each day, send an e-mail to wjbreviews@gmail.com and I'll put you on the list. I have received quite a few requests already, and I'm sure once the previous post gets approved on Craig Gustafson's theatre list, I'll get a few more. Sometimes it can take up to a week for things to go public on his list. And there is always NICOTH.
- As I mentioned in the previous post, I'd like to know your thoughts on how to define local theatre. I'm assuming it is an area of interest for you, since you read this blog. I'd like your input. Actually, I need your input. We may never come up with a definitive statement, but we can flesh out the concept and give it some boundaries. What are the differences between community theatre, local theatre and non-equity theatre? Are there any? Is local theatre the same as community theatre? Should they all be viewed and judged through the same lens? Besides location, what are the differences between the likes of Redtwist and other storefront theatres in Chicago versus the venues in the burbs, like Wheaton Drama, Summer Place, Riverfront? Where in the mix would you put, let's say, Metropolis Centre in Arlington Heights? I'm looking for your help. Is paying actors a factor? How much? And does that make it professional? If you paid people, would it still be community theatre? I have lots of questions, and would love to sit and chit chat sometime with people from all venues of theatre, if only to momentarily quench the thirst of curiosity. Any help here would be greatly appreciated.
What causes me to ask for help in defining local theatre is that I'm not sure how to review Theatre On The Hill's production of The Who's Tommy. It was not theatre as I define it. Maybe my definition is too narrow. What I experienced was an amateur, badly conceived dance recital backed by a tribute band of The Who. They had too many technical glitches with microphones and under-whelming special effects that did nothing to enhance the show. They were saying, "See, I have all these cool toys." It came off as self-indulgent.
I was in high school when the album Tommy was released in 1969. I saw The Who perform it in concert. Great show. They labeled it a "rock opera," but without the staging, it more closely resembled an oratorio. The story was razor thin, and you'll find a synopsis here. But who cared? It was a concept album and helped spawn numerous others like Jethro Tull's Thick As A Brick and Passion Play. The album was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame.
They made changes to the story when Peter Townsend of The Who decided to mount it as a stage musical. You can read about the changes by following this link. After having been exposed to both, I prefer the original. Not because I'm old-school. Rather, I think it's more fun to fill in the story in your own head and paint the pictures using your mind's eye, like you would with a reader's theatre or radio play. For the stage version, Townsend added a song that doesn't fit in musically (it sounds too Broadway) and is only there to force some dramatic tension between the father and mother, and the "all is now good" ending tries too hard to give substance and message to the show. As for this production, it was a mess.
I'll approach this with bullet points:
- This show is made up of adults and kids. A wide range of ages, though it skews to the young. I'm just guessing, but I think that if you auditioned for this show, you were cast. This outdoor venture reminded me more of an annual summer extravaganza or fest for families and friends. The audience can sit on the grassy knoll and watch little or big Bobby and Susie on stage. There was lots of whooping and hollering showing support for individual cast members. While that's something you usually hear during a curtain call, it's a bit disturbing when it's done during the show. Perhaps the combination of the alcoholic beverages they sell at concessions and the outdoor concert atmosphere added to this feeling of freedom amongst the patrons.
- Because there was no quality control during casting, there were vastly varying degrees of talent. The choreography catered to the weakest, so whole groups of people were performing mundane dance steps, which consisted of jazz squares and jazz hands. Here's one of the combinations that became the bread and butter of the show: side step, side step, clap and spin...now the other way...side step, side step, clap and spin. No one moved with purpose. And, if you're going to let these kids be in this show, why not teach them some basic fundamentals of performance? Like looking as if they enjoy what they are doing. Try smiling on stage. And do not focus on what the person next to you is doing...that will eventually lead to "the blind leading the blind" mayhem and all hell breaks lose. There were a few of those moments.
- The show started 30 minutes late. I sat there waiting for them to work out a technical issue with projections, video cameras and RF signals. And in the end, the wait was for naught, since the projections added nothing to the show because of poor execution. When Tommy is looking at an image of his younger or older self in the mirror (represented by the digital image), the camera was aimed too low. I'm not sure what younger or older Tommy looked like, but I could ID his shoes in a police line-up.
- Racing quickly to the top of my list of pet peeves - using "It's opening night" as an excuse for poor execution. Look people, get it out of your heads that opening night is an extra final dress rehearsal. You now have PAYING patrons here to see the show. They should get the same level of show as the people who come to the final show. "Opening night" is now being used as a shield to hide behind if something goes wrong. These are issues that should have been cleared up in rehearsals and previews. It's an unprofessional attitude and just adds to the mindset that "community theatre" is a lesser form of theatre. I have also heard that the second show will suffer from "sophomore slump" and will lack the edge of opening night. Again, that's crap and you know it. The audience doesn't care if you're tired, hungover, depressed over the death of your pet snail or just don't feel jazzed by the energy you had on opening night. Your responsibility is to give a great show every time. And, I've heard that I should wait until the second weekend to review the show, since it will be much better. Why is that? If you're really that insecure with your show, how is that going to translate to the paying audience? If you need an extra week of rehearsal, load it onto the front end of the process, not the end. It's like cheating the public the first week. When you open a show, you should be as ready to do it as when you close the show. I had two people who know me and my blog come up to me and say they wished I hadn't come on opening night of The Who's Tommy because this is always what happens on their opening nights. I asked if I should ask for a refund because I was going to watch their tech rehearsal. Not much was said after that.
- The microphone cut in and out constantly. Again, these are the things that should have been worked out in tech rehearsal. So, for many of the songs, I could not hear the featured vocalist. When I did hear them, they were tinny and distorted. Once they got past the technical stuff, it became apparent that this was not a strong group of vocalists and they had a hard time selling the songs. Perhaps the technical difficulties were a blessing in disguise. These were mainly the adults. I'm not going to name names. There's no point, and I don't have that much bandwidth. Further down, I will tell you about those who shone through the fog of this calamity.
- Because this is a family fest show, it's been sanitized. I dislike censorship of any form, and if they felt they needed to hygienize the show, they should have picked another show. Here's a change Theatre On The Hill made: Uncle Ernie, in the all versions of the show, is a pedophile. There is a song sung by the parents wondering if they should leave little Tommy with Ernie. They decide to err on the side of ignorance so they can have a night out. And then we get Ernie's song, "Fiddle About." It's about the uncle sexually molesting the child. The lyrics, "Down with the bed clothes / up with the night shirt / fiddle about, fiddle about, fiddle about. You won't shout as I fiddle about..." The ending of the song becomes a repetitive masturbatory chant and ends with a small crescendo. You get the idea. It's a creepy little song that adds to understanding the depth of the family's dysfunction, and helps one to feel more empathy for helpless Tommy. But in the sanitized for your protection version, Uncle Ernie starts doing a jig like a maniacal leprechaun while pretending his cane is a fiddle, while a nurse or someone helps Tommy change clothes and go to bed. It was just plain stupid if you know the show. Another change was with the song "Acid Queen." The character is supposed to be a prostitute who uses sex and drugs to draw young Tommy out of his catatonic state. In the sanitized version, she's a gypsy, and references to sex and drugs are hidden. When you see the ages of these kids in the ensemble, it's understandable, I guess. But then they reference these same kids in the program as playing the roles of Harlots, Thugs and Drunks. It was a "wuh?" moment for me.
- The band was good. They did a pretty nice job with the music. Something about "Pinball Wizard" seemed off. When I was waiting to hear the powerful electric guitar while the acoustic guitar was setting the rhythm all I heard was a weak sounding synthesizer. It actually sounded tentative, if that's possible. Maybe it was an issue with the sound board. You'd think that after an extra 30-minute sound check, that song should have rocked.
- Uncle Ernie - He's supposed to be an unsavory child molester. Instead, he looked like the love child of Burl Ive's snowman in the Rankin/Bass Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer and Bob's Big Boy. Maybe a little Charlie Chaplin DNA mixed in. They clean up the pedophilia references and make him a lovable little roly-poly drunk. The character choice and portrayal was ridiculous.
- Here are some people that should be noted for their good performances: Shane and Brynn Frantz as Tommy (age 4) and Tommy (age 10); Marcus Gentry and Mercy Pattawi as Hawker and The Gypsy. These two have great voices. And Christine Martin, who was in most of the dance numbers, and invested herself into the characters she was portraying. She played the moments and enjoyed it and showed it. That was missing from many of the faces on stage.
- After the song "Finale" was over, the band kept playing. Curtain call, maybe? Nope...they just kept playing, and cast members came on stage and they started performing songs from the album Quadrophenia by The Who, which was released in 1973. They did five songs, by my count. Another "wuh?"
So, you can see, it was not really theatre. It was a concert and a dance recital. And the kids danced, and the parents and supporters sat on the grassy knoll, drank beer and enjoyed. And if that's what you're looking for, you can find more information on Theatre On The Hill's website.
Run time: 1 hour 50 minutes
Paid: $15
Was it worth the price of admission? No, not for me. I wanted theatre, not a concert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)