Some business first:
I need to formalize a policy on comments. I don’t want to, but I need to. As I said before, if the readers wish to comment, they have the right to do so anonymously or with a name. They can say what they want about me, my analysis or my writing. They can call me names. And they have. And I will approve the comments for posting. If a reader takes issue with another reader’s comment, I believe in a free market of philosophies and ideas, and will also publish those. When the comments become personal attacks on another reader, I have to draw the line and require that the person use their name. And not just a first name, as it turns out.
If you look back at the comments on the last post, you’ll see that someone named Karl posted a retort to Craig Gustafson’s comment concerning a sold-out performance. And, had I read it closer, I would have seen that Karl’s arguments, while having some rhetorical and philosophical validity, became an ambush on Craig near the end. I received the email telling me that Karl had commented while I was driving home last night, and a quick look (yes, I’m a bad boy) showed that there was a link associated with his name, so thinking the bases were covered, I hit the “publish” button. Then Craig responded while I was grocery shopping, and knowing him, I just published it. Finally, somewhere in the dairy section, I thought of Craig again and looked closer and realized I needed to do something. I sat in the parking lot and dashed off a quick comment. When I actually looked at Karl’s link, I found it was to deathclock.com. By the way, I put my information in it, and it told me I had zero seconds to live and should have died in 2008. WOO-HOO...I win!!! So, the rule is: “If it gets personal between readers, then real names have to be used.” I’m sure someone will have an issue with that, but you can’t please everyone. And, it’s my pool, so my rules. And no peeing.
The sad part in all this is that Craig has asked to be removed from the mailing list that I use when I send out notices about a new post. And that’s the only time I send anything. If people are getting more than that, please let me know. I don’t send out anything about comments being published. Just the initial review. To paraphrase Craig, who I've known for 35 to 40 years, “How many more anonymous pinheads (or the same one, multiply, probably) am I supposed to deal with?...Has nothing to do with what you write.” Sad.
On to the mini-reviews...
Yellow Face: I saw this Silk Road Project production last Thursday, and really enjoyed it. I have since discovered that it is an equity show, so it falls outside the breadth of my criticism. I will say that it is well written, acted and paced. There is a wonderful ensemble of actors playing multiple roles that brings this mash-up of autobiography and fantasy to life. It does get sluggish and preachy midway through the second act, but everything pulls together nicely at the end. It closes this Sunday. If you have an opportunity to get downtown to see anything, this is a good one to see. Look for discounts on GoldStar or Hot Tix or wherever. For more info, go to srtp.org.
ART: This production is part of the 4th Annual Walkabout Theater On Your Feet. It only runs three Saturdays in July, the last one being 7/30/11. Go here for more info and call to get on the list for one of the theatre tours. It’s like a pub-crawl for theatre, and well worth the $15. Besides seeing a good show performed in three parts at three different venues by three different theatre companies, you also get a nice t-shirt, some yummy pastry at a coffee shop, some exercise walking through downtown Elgin and a chocolate malt at Al’s Café while you fill out a comment card at the end of the tour. I was intrigued by the concept of seeing three different interpretations of the characters within a 2-hour period. Even more interesting: as the show progresses, the group of actors get younger. As a theatre geek, I found the experience wonderful, and well worth the price of admission.
I need to make a disclosure: I played the role of Marc in a production of this play in 2004. I’m very familiar with the script. My favorite line is Marc saying, "The older I get, the more offensive I hope to become." It was foreshadowing. This version has been sanitized of any f-bombs. If you don't know the play, you can find information here.
I found the approach of each group to be unique, but not always successful. The first “act” was presented by Janus Theatre Company, directed by Sean Hargadon, and played at Villa Verone, an Italian restaurant in downtown Elgin. The characters of Marc, Serge and Yvan are played (in order) by Brian Rabinowitz, Steve Macarus and Chris Bibby. Each did a nice job of establishing a character and playing their moments. The direction used the venue space well and was well-paced. And as a whole, I liked it. But they never overcame what I think is an inherent problem in the script/story: It's hard to accept that these three men are actually friends. There is nothing in the script that would make you believe it, and as the scene went on, I never felt that these three cared about each other. Not bad...but I wanted more.
The second "act" was performed at the Elgin Art Showcase and presented by The Guild Theatre. The usual suspects were played (in order) by David Schaplowsky, Paul Sprecher and Scott Mills, directed by Dan Scott. Unfortunately, these were the least compelling performances of these characters. If the Janus group had a hard time overcoming the script weakness, the Guild cadre ignored it. The whole scene played too low key, with no sense of energy, and lost moments of comedy. Mills brought some life to it with his entrance, and then lost that momentum through his long monologue, disrupting the flow with ill-timed pauses. Everyone seemed detached from the other, and it didn't play as an ensemble. Add to that the terrible acoustics (everything sounds like it's in a cave), and the terrible use of natural light. At some point, someone should tell them that putting the "white" painting in front of a window adds the shadow of the frame's cross-bars and ruins the effect. The irony is it happens during a scene where they talk about where the painting should go in the apartment. I laughed for the wrong reason.
The third act turned out to be the best. Presented by Nothing Special Productions, in Ravenheart Cafe, the cast (in order) is Joe Bianco, Kurt Proepper and Scott Sawa directed by Mikey Laird. There was so much energy to the scene, especially coming from the droning of the scene before it, that it was compelling and attention-grabbing. It was exciting to watch these three very talented actors. And they did overcome the flaw. I believed they were friends. The looks that passed between the three spoke volumes about how much they cared. It was a great ending to the concept piece. And after that, a chocolate malt at Al's Cafe. How can you resist?
Your last chance is tomorrow 7/30. I made my reservation last Saturday via the phone at 11am and got a spot on the first tour at 1pm. Give them a call at 847-841-1713.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Review: "Picasso At The Lapin Agile" Wheaton Drama Inc., Wheaton, IL, Ends 7/24/11
A couple items of business:
If you don’t know the show, you should go here and read. Also read the comment from Chris on my last posting. Not sure I agree with what he said, but anyone who can use “fin-de-siecle” and “zeitgeist” in a sentence deserves a shout-out. Way to go, Mr. Thesaurus!
Done reading? Good, because I missed you. So, as you can tell, the show is absurdest theatre that rides a roller-coaster of low brow, high brow and ethereal comedy. It is a show that asks you to think by posing interesting “what if” scenarios. It posits that the creative process in science and art are very similar, and that commercialism will inevitably bypass that process. And it makes its point through comedy. It’s 80 minutes of playfulness. Or should be. Sadly, Wheaton Drama’s production is not. Oh, it tried to be. But sometimes it tried too hard. And there were too many missteps in this production that crippled a wonderful script.
The acting on average was ok. Nothing spectacular, but certainly serviceable. A couple of people left very favorable impressions, many others held my interest but were in desperate need of good direction, and one person managed to find a way of sucking the life out of his character, just like a Dementor.
On the bright side (in no particular order) was Zach Gibson as Schmendiman, who represents the idiocy that lurks behind most commercialism. Gibson’s character brought life when it was needed the most with his enthusiastic disposition, inspired lunacy, dangerous naivete and high-voltage energy. I enjoyed what he brought to the stage; although I didn’t care for the facial tic he adopted as a character bit. It was superfluous. That was one of the moments when the show pushed too hard for laughs. The character is funny for what he says and represents, not because he makes a funny face. I don’t know if it was the actor’s choice or the director’s, but it was certainly a bad choice. When a physical bit skews attention away from the cleverness of the text, it’s a cheat.
Also delightful to watch was Sara Malloy as Suzanne, a paramour of Picasso. She developed a character that was three dimensional, if you believe in that sort of thing. Still, I wanted to see better definition of the different levels of the character’s adroitness at manipulating her fellow bar patrons. Harmony Barry did a nice job as Germaine, the barmaid and current girlfriend of Freddy, the bar owner. Her down-to-earth realism lends the show a necessary grounding in reality. I was a bit concerned her face was telegraphing too much of a reveal the comes about 2/3 of the way through the script. But there was tangible “ooohhh” and “ahhhh” coming from the audience at the moment of reveal and it allayed my fears. I thought Margie Gustafson played her character’s 45 seconds on stage with great panache. The physical bit at the end didn’t fit well, and should have been left out because it disrupted the flow of the scene. She received laughs, but should have received more. Stevan Vulic makes a late arrival in the show as Vistor. His interpretation of the character was spot on. Note to costumes: the “watch the shoes” lines only work if the damn shoes are blue.
Tom Walker, Lars Timpa, Jim Quan and Debbie Trueblood played auxiliary characters, and did decent jobs that could have been remarkable and memorable had they been given some direction. Simple little fixes would have enhanced the comedy that is handed to then in the wonderful script. Timpa’s Gaston would have more audience connection if he had played things just slightly older and a more charming. Instead, I felt he was edging into shtick from his days in the Catskills and needed someone to help him control it. Tom Walker’s portrayal of Freddy, the bar owner, lacked energy and purpose. I never got the feeling that he was comfortable with what he was doing and needed someone to coach him into finding insight into the character. Quan’s version of Sagot, the art critic and dealer, was adequate, but lacked the authority and commanding presence that is his due. His time on stage should have felt more witty and clever. He has some of the best lines about art and commercialism, but they fell flat because there was none of the bombast one would expect from an art dealer. He also needed someone to set his focus. And, when he does his bit on how the Matisse painting really holds the room, a great opportunity for some absurdity (it is, after all, absurd theatre) was lost. Why not have him back off from the painting until he is either in the bathroom or out the front door before he says, “Lost it there.” Instead, he just reaches some arbitrary boundary in the cavernous space that is WDI and makes the declaration. Again, lack of direction. Trueblood’s Countess was a walk-on that should have left a bigger impression. Unfortunately, no one seemed to be bothered that she is awkwardly pulled/dragged upstage for her scene, and then never given the chance to make an impact with her line reading because of bad timing on the part of her scene partner. Speaking of Einstein...
Daniel Scobey had some good moments. But he also needed some help in developing a character with depth. He should be engaging and authoritative, with a bit of egotism. Mostly, he needs to be real. He seemed to be pushing the comedy rather than letting it emerge and develop. He lost his character rhythm a few times and was iffy with his timing. I felt he never quite “got it.” And folks, if anyone is supposed to get it, it has to be him. The character and show demand it. At one point I saw him doing a little “wink-wink, nod-nod” action out to the audience, saying, “I’m aware of the joke.” Someone (his director, maybe?), needs to point out that breaking the forth wall at a specific moment early in the script doesn’t give you a free pass to constantly do so until the end of the show.
As for the titular character, Dave Amato was a disaster. He looked uncomfortable on stage, and when others were in scenes with him, they looked the same way. He did not exude the sexiness, charm and bravado that is needed for the character of Picasso. Instead, he found a way of sucking up all the happiness in the theatre. Any momentum that was achieved before his entrance was eliminated when he hit the stage. Forward motion was stopped. I felt a great emptiness. Chilled. I called a local church (Wheaton is riddled with them) and asked if any statues had started bleeding. If you don’t believe me, read the review by Joe Stead. You’ll find it by clicking here.
And you thought I was brutal. Did he call him a boorish lout? I don’t know Amato well enough to call him that. But I can say that watching him on stage confirms that he fails in this role.
There is a laundry list of other things that I felt were wrong with this production:
✓ Plastic cups? Really? This takes place in 1904. Nothing more weak sounding than a plastic cocktail cup being set on a wood table. Of course, people were dropping them or knocking them over on opening night, but still...it's wrong.
✓ The set was as wide as the stage, which at Wheaton is wider than deeper. It was a neighborhood bar with enough room for banquet facilities, a dance floor, and nine-hole putt-putt for the kids. Nothing like a wide stage to force awkward blocking. I guess no one thought of bringing in the drapes, making the play space smaller and more intimate...you know, like a Parisian bar. Then you could angle the doors, and allow people to be seen when they play within the frame. Ah well...tech rules.
✓ It is utterly ridiculous to have the “sheep” picture as high as it is. It makes the big space even bigger by giving it 20-foot ceilings, and causes one to think the show is inhabited with Lilliputians. It smacked of an airplane hangar. And how did Freddy, who has trouble handling a tray, ever manage to hang it up so high where the characters on stage had to crane their necks back to see the damn thing?
✓ There is magic in theatre that is sorely missed when technology is used in lieu of stagecraft and creativity. The magical transition near the end of the show created a feeling of “hmmm...projections” rather than the “hey, how did they do that” feeling. The tech on this show was mediocre and not well thought out. Lighting was average when it could have been effective and exciting. It didn’t appear as if anyone thought about it from the POV of the audience. Well, you get what you pay for...it's the summer bargain show.
✓ I was disappointed with the direction by Peter Lemongelli. At times, it felt as if none was given. The blocking was a white-hot mess. People upstaging each other. Mostly linear, with movement for movement sake. At one point, two characters stand in front of a character that is sitting, blocking them from view. It was disturbing. None of the stage tableaus were interesting. He had some real talent on his hands, but apparently, didn’t know what to do with them.
There's more...but why?
For ticket information, go to www.wheatondrama.org
Was it worth the $10 price of admission? Not really...but see it anyway. Not many theatres do this wonderful script, and there are some talented people in the cast. See it for those reasons.
- An anonymous commentator offered to share in the funding of the blog. My expense is the cost of seeing shows (travel, admission, absinthe). That is something I would certainly consider, to allow me to see more shows. Whomever you are, send me e-mail, please.
- If you read my previous posting, you know about my plan to use Twitter to give immediate feedback after a show. The tweet I sent said Friday night said, “Picasso: Fantastic script, a smattering of good acting, iffy timing, questionable pacing, missed comedy and bad direction. See it for 1&2” You can follow me at my Twitter account, wbarryjr. By the way, I now have seven...that’s right...seven Twitter followers. WOO-HOO!!! In your face, Ashton.
- In an earlier incarnation of this blog, I received comments about a lack of transparency and full disclosure. The thinking was that my critiques would be tarnished by any instances of a hint of impropriety, and that I might not be taken seriously as a critic...as if that were an achievable, viable, or welcome goal. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to tell you that I love this script. So much so that I directed a production in 2004. I’m very familiar with the story, the characters, and comedic references. To that extent, then, I do have a bias, but I know myself well enough to know when it is tainting my critique of a show. To be fair, I will not compare what I did in 2004 to what I saw last Friday night.
- The second bit of disclosure is that my daughter Harmony is in the show. I know, I said I would not review shows that contained family-member involvement. But by adhering to that codicil, I never got the chance to let you know that The Drowsy Chaperone at Wheaton Drama was one of the best productions I’d seen there, or that a production of Godspell at Geneva Underground Playground had great pacing and was delightful entertainment (despite the crucifixion...oops...I just gave away the ending.) And, most recently, Harmony choreographed 1776 at Wheaton, and I didn’t get a chance to tell you that the production moved with glacier-like speed, suffered from a lack of energy, was blocked terribly and had many characters that were played with all the emotion of the dreary animatronics figures in Disney’s Hall Of Presidents attraction. Therefore, I am removing my own restriction and will disclose potential conflicts for each show I review.
If you don’t know the show, you should go here and read. Also read the comment from Chris on my last posting. Not sure I agree with what he said, but anyone who can use “fin-de-siecle” and “zeitgeist” in a sentence deserves a shout-out. Way to go, Mr. Thesaurus!
Done reading? Good, because I missed you. So, as you can tell, the show is absurdest theatre that rides a roller-coaster of low brow, high brow and ethereal comedy. It is a show that asks you to think by posing interesting “what if” scenarios. It posits that the creative process in science and art are very similar, and that commercialism will inevitably bypass that process. And it makes its point through comedy. It’s 80 minutes of playfulness. Or should be. Sadly, Wheaton Drama’s production is not. Oh, it tried to be. But sometimes it tried too hard. And there were too many missteps in this production that crippled a wonderful script.
The acting on average was ok. Nothing spectacular, but certainly serviceable. A couple of people left very favorable impressions, many others held my interest but were in desperate need of good direction, and one person managed to find a way of sucking the life out of his character, just like a Dementor.
On the bright side (in no particular order) was Zach Gibson as Schmendiman, who represents the idiocy that lurks behind most commercialism. Gibson’s character brought life when it was needed the most with his enthusiastic disposition, inspired lunacy, dangerous naivete and high-voltage energy. I enjoyed what he brought to the stage; although I didn’t care for the facial tic he adopted as a character bit. It was superfluous. That was one of the moments when the show pushed too hard for laughs. The character is funny for what he says and represents, not because he makes a funny face. I don’t know if it was the actor’s choice or the director’s, but it was certainly a bad choice. When a physical bit skews attention away from the cleverness of the text, it’s a cheat.
Also delightful to watch was Sara Malloy as Suzanne, a paramour of Picasso. She developed a character that was three dimensional, if you believe in that sort of thing. Still, I wanted to see better definition of the different levels of the character’s adroitness at manipulating her fellow bar patrons. Harmony Barry did a nice job as Germaine, the barmaid and current girlfriend of Freddy, the bar owner. Her down-to-earth realism lends the show a necessary grounding in reality. I was a bit concerned her face was telegraphing too much of a reveal the comes about 2/3 of the way through the script. But there was tangible “ooohhh” and “ahhhh” coming from the audience at the moment of reveal and it allayed my fears. I thought Margie Gustafson played her character’s 45 seconds on stage with great panache. The physical bit at the end didn’t fit well, and should have been left out because it disrupted the flow of the scene. She received laughs, but should have received more. Stevan Vulic makes a late arrival in the show as Vistor. His interpretation of the character was spot on. Note to costumes: the “watch the shoes” lines only work if the damn shoes are blue.
Tom Walker, Lars Timpa, Jim Quan and Debbie Trueblood played auxiliary characters, and did decent jobs that could have been remarkable and memorable had they been given some direction. Simple little fixes would have enhanced the comedy that is handed to then in the wonderful script. Timpa’s Gaston would have more audience connection if he had played things just slightly older and a more charming. Instead, I felt he was edging into shtick from his days in the Catskills and needed someone to help him control it. Tom Walker’s portrayal of Freddy, the bar owner, lacked energy and purpose. I never got the feeling that he was comfortable with what he was doing and needed someone to coach him into finding insight into the character. Quan’s version of Sagot, the art critic and dealer, was adequate, but lacked the authority and commanding presence that is his due. His time on stage should have felt more witty and clever. He has some of the best lines about art and commercialism, but they fell flat because there was none of the bombast one would expect from an art dealer. He also needed someone to set his focus. And, when he does his bit on how the Matisse painting really holds the room, a great opportunity for some absurdity (it is, after all, absurd theatre) was lost. Why not have him back off from the painting until he is either in the bathroom or out the front door before he says, “Lost it there.” Instead, he just reaches some arbitrary boundary in the cavernous space that is WDI and makes the declaration. Again, lack of direction. Trueblood’s Countess was a walk-on that should have left a bigger impression. Unfortunately, no one seemed to be bothered that she is awkwardly pulled/dragged upstage for her scene, and then never given the chance to make an impact with her line reading because of bad timing on the part of her scene partner. Speaking of Einstein...
Daniel Scobey had some good moments. But he also needed some help in developing a character with depth. He should be engaging and authoritative, with a bit of egotism. Mostly, he needs to be real. He seemed to be pushing the comedy rather than letting it emerge and develop. He lost his character rhythm a few times and was iffy with his timing. I felt he never quite “got it.” And folks, if anyone is supposed to get it, it has to be him. The character and show demand it. At one point I saw him doing a little “wink-wink, nod-nod” action out to the audience, saying, “I’m aware of the joke.” Someone (his director, maybe?), needs to point out that breaking the forth wall at a specific moment early in the script doesn’t give you a free pass to constantly do so until the end of the show.
As for the titular character, Dave Amato was a disaster. He looked uncomfortable on stage, and when others were in scenes with him, they looked the same way. He did not exude the sexiness, charm and bravado that is needed for the character of Picasso. Instead, he found a way of sucking up all the happiness in the theatre. Any momentum that was achieved before his entrance was eliminated when he hit the stage. Forward motion was stopped. I felt a great emptiness. Chilled. I called a local church (Wheaton is riddled with them) and asked if any statues had started bleeding. If you don’t believe me, read the review by Joe Stead. You’ll find it by clicking here.
And you thought I was brutal. Did he call him a boorish lout? I don’t know Amato well enough to call him that. But I can say that watching him on stage confirms that he fails in this role.
There is a laundry list of other things that I felt were wrong with this production:
✓ Plastic cups? Really? This takes place in 1904. Nothing more weak sounding than a plastic cocktail cup being set on a wood table. Of course, people were dropping them or knocking them over on opening night, but still...it's wrong.
✓ The set was as wide as the stage, which at Wheaton is wider than deeper. It was a neighborhood bar with enough room for banquet facilities, a dance floor, and nine-hole putt-putt for the kids. Nothing like a wide stage to force awkward blocking. I guess no one thought of bringing in the drapes, making the play space smaller and more intimate...you know, like a Parisian bar. Then you could angle the doors, and allow people to be seen when they play within the frame. Ah well...tech rules.
✓ It is utterly ridiculous to have the “sheep” picture as high as it is. It makes the big space even bigger by giving it 20-foot ceilings, and causes one to think the show is inhabited with Lilliputians. It smacked of an airplane hangar. And how did Freddy, who has trouble handling a tray, ever manage to hang it up so high where the characters on stage had to crane their necks back to see the damn thing?
✓ There is magic in theatre that is sorely missed when technology is used in lieu of stagecraft and creativity. The magical transition near the end of the show created a feeling of “hmmm...projections” rather than the “hey, how did they do that” feeling. The tech on this show was mediocre and not well thought out. Lighting was average when it could have been effective and exciting. It didn’t appear as if anyone thought about it from the POV of the audience. Well, you get what you pay for...it's the summer bargain show.
✓ I was disappointed with the direction by Peter Lemongelli. At times, it felt as if none was given. The blocking was a white-hot mess. People upstaging each other. Mostly linear, with movement for movement sake. At one point, two characters stand in front of a character that is sitting, blocking them from view. It was disturbing. None of the stage tableaus were interesting. He had some real talent on his hands, but apparently, didn’t know what to do with them.
There's more...but why?
For ticket information, go to www.wheatondrama.org
Was it worth the $10 price of admission? Not really...but see it anyway. Not many theatres do this wonderful script, and there are some talented people in the cast. See it for those reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)