- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment