Review: "Twelfth Night" - Janus Theatre, Elgin IL Ends 8/27

See this show!  Run, don't walk to your nearest phone!  OK, these days it's really just a matter of reaching into your pocket.  Just do it.  Dial  847-841-1713 and reserve your tickets to see the best theatre I've witnessed in many, many months.  For more information, including directions to the theatre, go here.


This show is running in repertory with The Importance Of Being Earnest.  Both are being done by Janus Theatre.  I wasn't the biggest fan of the Wilde production, but I urge you to see Twelfth Night.  I'll wait until you have your ticket.


Got it?  Good.  OK, here's what you're going to see:

• A show that has great respect for the audience.  The actors are driven to connect and communicate, and do a damn fine job of it.  Director Sean Hargadon has altered, edited and re-imagined Shakespeare's work to make it pithy, direct and accessible to everyone.  This is not your father's Shakespeare.  It's better.  From the directors notes in the program, Hargadon says, "One thing is for sure, I have taken some liberties with the text in order to present a version of the play that attempts to streamline the story, heighten the comedy and provide some unexpected dramatic moments.  No doubt there will be those who say this is not true to the playwright."  He goes on to say, "The primary goal is to create an experience that is new and unexpected rather than another rehash of a classic that we all should dutifully watch as if we were in church.  Hopefully some of our choices land with the audience. The point of playing is for them after all."  My sentiments exactly.  Theatre companies and productions are there to serve the audience.  Otherwise, why do it?
• One of the finest acting ensembles I've ever encountered.  And for anyone who has been confused by the "seeing the acting rather than the result of the acting" discussion and how it applies to honesty of performance, here is the perfect example of actors being their characters rather than acting their characters.
• Marvelous pacing driving the story forward.  No lulls in the action and tremendous timing by the cast.  A masterpiece of the craft of acting.

On the off-chance that you don't know the story of Twelfth Night or As You Will, please go here and learn more than you need to know.  As I mentioned, it is a true ensemble piece, but there were several performances that stayed with me after I left the theatre.  Liz Vanderhoof does an extraordinary job as Viola, who makes a seamless transformation into the squire Cesario.  Kathleen Donoghue and Sarafina Vecchio displayed great comic timing as Olivia and her maid, Maria.  Chris Bibby is absolutely delightful as Sir Toby Belch and Tyler Thompson rocks the room as the fool, Feste.  The rest of the cast is fully committed to the show, delivering great turns and leave it all out on the stage for us to admire and drink in.  Nary a false note from this group who gave us complete honesty

Usually, I can go on for pages, but this time, the performance speaks for itself.  See this show and experience just how good local theatre can be.  Is it worth the price of admission?  Really?  After all that, you need to ask?

Running time:  100 minutes, with intermission.  And they will be the best 100 minutes of theatre you're likely to see in a long time.

Review: "The Hot L Baltimore" The Drama Group, Chicago Heights, IL Ends 8/14

All of the current business was put forth in the last review, posted 8/10/2011.  So let's get right to it.


Recently, there was a production of The Hot L Baltimore at Steppenwolf Theatre that I wanted to see because it was one of the first shows I'd seen when I started college.  I don’t recall whether I enjoyed it or not.  All I remember is one of the denizens of the hotel was played by Agnes Belushi, mother of John and Jim.  I never saw the Steppenwolf production (which met with mixed reviews), so I was very excited to learn through Theatre in Chicago's website that another local theatre, The Drama Group in Chicago Heights was mounting a production.  I called and asked if they would like me to review their production.  They set aside a comp (full discourse achieved) and I went to the opening night at their very spacious theatre and was delighted with their excellent set.


If you don't know the show, I have the wiki-info linked to the word "wiki-info".  You may have noticed the scant description of the show.  That’s because there’s not much to write about as there is no story line, just a situation:  A grand hotel has gotten old and fallen into disrepair, and is slated for demolition.  The residents are being evicted and forced into having to find ways of coping.  After seeing it in 2011, I found it has not sustained relevance over the past 40 years.  We've seen these character types many times since Lanford Wilson wrote the play, and we will see them again.  We are well acquainted with their trials and tribulations and their journeys through life.  There’s nothing new here to discover.  We are aware of the spiritual and physical obstacles these characters must face because endless afternoon specials, movies of the week and live theatre have tread the same ground over these years.  Yes, Lanford Wilson was a profound humanist and superb playwright, and you can see how much he cared about his characters in this show.  But over the past 40 years, we've seen similar stories better told.


As I was doing research for this blog entry, I came across this statement in a review of the Steppenwolf production, “...this play depends heavily on the performance of its ensemble. Lanford Wilson’s script offers little help for faltering actors. This is not a play for lengthy monologues, dramatic entrances, or third-act revelations. The story lives and dies on the actors’ ability to fabricate a vibrant, frighteningly conflicted community of lost souls who have been pushed to the bottom of the social hierarchy. And while a few actors strive to create such a community, others simply cannot pull it off. Some acting is downright shoddy...while others are competent enough but cannot respond well to their castmates. Even more so than in many other plays, the cast of The Hot L Baltimore is only as strong as its weakest link."  My first thought was, “Damn, I wish I had written that.”  The reviewer summed up everything I wanted to say about this show. To read his review, go here.


Here’s what I saw in The Drama Group’s production:  most of the characters were just caricatures, with the actors relying on artifice as a substitute for any real substance.  I think that's a lazy approach.  Dialects, limps, annoying stuttering, over-the-top bombast, and stereotypical portrayals were used to add depth to characters, but were nothing more than a superficial coating that speaks of a lack of truth in the moments.  One of my notes was, “Lots of vocal gymnastics that did not support the characters.”   Many times, the blocking was awkward, with backs to the audience.  I’m not a stickler about that, but when an entire scene is played with the actor’s butt facing the audience, it shuts us out of the scene, excluding us from feeling the connection between the characters.  I’m sorry, but there are very few asses out there that can communicate well.  Take that however you may.


And then there was Act 2.  More of the same, only longer.  This is actually a 3-act play, but this production decided to meld the last two acts together.  The energy of the cast could not sustain the length and the whole thing started to lag, and then crawled to the finish.  I was praying for the wrecking ball to come crashing through the wall.  And, honestly, I didn't care about many of the characters because I was never given a reason to empathize.


As I said, the set was very nice and dilapidated as is fitting the show.  Technically, it was good, except for the disconcerting “tuning the radio” sound between songs in the pre-show music.  Trite.  And, they went safe with the “Suzy drops the towel” scene (she wears a classic Victoria Secret’s ensemble, which looked rather too rich for a prostitute living in a flea-bag hotel), but left the language mature.  By the way, someone should grab a can of WD40 and spray the squeaking on-stage chair that took away from a heartfelt moment from Deb Brunette in the role of Millie, the old lady of the lobby.  


Given all that, there were a few performances that I thought were wonderful, but just not enough to carry this show through.  Remember this name:  Kaci Antkiewicz.  Kaci delivered an honest and truthful performance as Girl, a young prostitute with a savant-like knowledge of train schedules.  The character tries to see good in everything, no matter how bad it is, and this young actor hit the right balance of emotions to show her struggle to hold on to that disposition. She came to life and has the “it” factor.  Also doing a nice turn was betty wigell (of the e.e. cummings school of capitalization) as Jackie, the young girl who is light years ahead of the organic foods wave.  I had trouble with her uncontrolled frenetic movements at first, but she has a nice, powerful moment later in the show that sold me.  Basically, she gave into the raw emotion and connected with her character and the audience.  And kudos to Kyle Decker, who was real and grounded in his portrayal of a man in search of his grandfather.  I'll leave it at that.


So, do I think it’s worth the price of admission.  Unfortunately, no.


For more information on tickets, location and general things about the group, go to their website.

Review: "The Importance Of Being Earnest" Janus Theater, Elgin IL Ends 8/28

A few items of business:

1. In the comments from the last post, I received the following: "I know that you love "community theater" from both the participation and audience standpoint. Your blog could do a great service by also announcing each week what shows are out there to be seen and where, even though you may not be doing a review. I often get annoyed that sometimes it is not the easiest thing to find out what shows are being done from week to week. As you seem to have "your ear to the ground" and get information about a lot of productions, your mention of them would do community theater a great service."  That’s not a bad idea.  I also have a hard time finding information about shows, and rely on different resources like greenroomonline.org and theatreinchicago.com (which is how I learned about The Hot L Baltimore in Chicago Heights, the subject of my next review appearing tomorrow).  If anyone knows of a source providing this service, please let me know.  I will consider doing it, but it is a matter of time.  I need to find a calendar gadget that will work with this blog that will be easy to maintain, given the fluid nature of the information.  Most importantly, I need the information.  There are many theatres out there with many schedules.  Taking the time to gather it all is overwhelming.  I’m sure there are theatre companies out there of which I've never heard.  I know most of the ones in the western suburbs, since that is where I live.  But I would want to include all of Chicago and the surrounding area.  I’m trying to do that through the reviews.  Last year, I reviewed shows in Highland Park and Bolingbrook and Joliet.  This past week I saw a show in Elgin and Chicago Heights.  This week I’m seeing something in Elgin and Lisle and at my favorite storefront theatre in Chicago.  And there are other productions going on.  The events calendar will only be as good as the information I receive from the theatre companies. They would have to add me to their “press release” list.  I won’t know about their show until they send it to me.  In other words, I won’t pro-actively seek it out.  If they want to be on the calendar, they need to indicate so by sending me the information. I also think it needs to come from the theatre, not a cast member, or relative or friend.  I think that’s fair.  I can then cull out the cogent information and put it on the calendar.  I will look for something that will work with the blog.  Let your theatre companies know that I’m willing to do this, and it’s something that can be up and running by the start of most theatre seasons in mid-September.
2. I also received this comment: "Could you do a review of Jedlica Performing Arts in Cicero's production of "Man of La Mancha"? I'm not involved and I can't see the show myself but I'd love to know what you thought about it. Promise to reimburse you your cost."  This addresses a number of items.  First, I didn't know there was a production of this show going on, which further demonstrates a need for a calendar of events as discussed above.  Second, there are only two performances left, so going to review a show on its last weekend doesn't make sense.  I normally won’t review a two-weekend show unless I know I can get a review posted before the start of the last weekend.  The promise to reimburse my cost is a nice thought and brings me to my last item of business...
3. I am changing my policy on comp tickets.  It’s explained in the recently updated “start here” pages.  Basically, the new policy is: If the theatre gives a comp ticket to reviewers, I’ll accept it to help defray other costs.  In return, I promise to have my review posted before the opening of the next weekend.  The comp will not affect my tone.  It will only prioritize my postings.  This doesn't mean that I won't review shows I have to pay for.  It's just that those who have asked me to review will get higher priority on my list of getting the review posted.

So, on to the review:

Full disclosure:  I received a comp ticket.  Also, I directed Jocelyn Adamski in a production earlier this year.

The Importance Of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde is considered a classic.  And rightly so.  For more information about the play and playwright, go here.  It is also, by definition, a farce:  a light, humorous play in which the plot depends upon a skillfully exploited situation rather than upon the development of character.  So, while it is not of the slapstick, door-slamming variety, it is a farce nonetheless.  Its success relies on ridiculous situations, silly social manners, trivial assumptions and clever wordplay;  all of which need precise timing to make them crackle with excitement.  Unfortunately, what I witnessed opening night at Janus Theatre missed the target.  Not by much, but enough to keep it from being a very good production.

Overall, the show suffered from a lack of energy and playfulness. Pacing seemed a problem at times, and humor was lost due to faulty timing.  One of my notes during Act 1 was, “Everything is moving through molasses.”  At least, that’s how it felt.  The other element that was missing was honesty.  A strange term to use in a farce, but it has to do with the performance of the actor.  The characters portrayed need to feel real.  Someone once told me, "Farce is reality plus one."  Rather insightful given who told it to me.  My feeling is I don’t want to see the work - I only want to see the result of the work.  I don’t want to be put in a position where I ask, “Why did he/she make that awkward choice as an actor?”   I should be able to just accept it because it feels honest.  Seeing the acting is seeing the pretense and makes the experience as an audience member less satisfying.

Jack is portrayed by Dennis Edwards, and Algernon is played by Corey Noble.  They are gentry with epicene movements and very little moral architecture, as is expected.  Noble appeared very comfortable and committed in his charming portrayal.  On the other hand, Edwards seemed disconnected and not at all confident.  His character felt forced, as did his actions.  For example, in the beginning of the show, his character picks up a decorative pillow and holds it awkwardly, only to throw it at Algernon to emphasize a point.  But it felt fake, as if the only reason he did it is because his director told him to do it.  There was nothing driving his action to make it feel real.

I had similar issues with Gwendolyn as played by Lucy Zukaitis.  Most of what she did was posturing, which fits the character, but not the actress.  Her posturing felt forced. I didn't glean any honesty from her as an actress. And when Gwendolyn and Jack had scenes together, there was no connection or chemistry between them.  Yes, the characters are jejune, but it needs to be honest for us to accept it.  It's the difference between seeing them act at being shallow and seeing them be shallow.  Jose DeJesus plays two different menservants and either squandered an opportunity to create two memorably distinct characters, or was never pointed in that direction. 

There were some good performances that need mentioning.  Patricia True and Brad Davidson brought excitement and energy to Act 2 with their interpretations of Miss Prism and Rev Chasuble.  They worked well off each other and made a delightful couple. Brian Rabinowitz does a nice turn as Lady Bracknell, bringing energy and life to Act 1 at a time when it was waning terribly.  I would have preferred that he not use the falsetto voice because, at times, it hampered the rapid-fire wordplay the character often engages in.  And it is an element of artifice that was unneeded.  I was hoping for something more along the line of Charlie's Aunt.  But overall, he did a nice job, honoring the tradition of having a man play that character and created quite a formidable Lady.


The highlight of the evening was the performance by Jocelyn Adamski as Cecily.  She captured the essence of these farcical creatures beautifully and was fully believable.  She kept in the scenes, unlike some of her fellow cast members who occasionally darted glances at the audience.  Her energy brightened each scene she was in, driving them forward and her movements were motivated rather than directed.   Mostly, she commanded our attention, which some of the others were in danger of losing.


So, while there were performances that shone brightly, there were others that sapped the energy out of scenes.  And, because I found myself not fully engaged in the show, I started noticing things and asking myself questions.  Such as, "Why are they using that bell, which can't be heard in another room to summon a servant?  "Why are some characters breaking the 4th wall and directing asides to us when it's not written that way?  Did the director Terry Domschke think this added a needed dimension to this classic?" "Why does Act 3 feel under-rehearsed?"  I shouldn't find myself thinking these things.  My eyes and mind should be glued to the stage.


It's a wonderfully witty play.  This production just needs polishing to give it the performance the show deserves.  Still in all, it was entertaining.  And the performance of Adamski and a few others tip the scales to "favorable."


Is it worth the price of admission?  A conditional yes.


For more information and to reserve tickets, go to the Janus website.

Mini-reviews: "Yellow Face" Silk Road Project, Chicago Temple, Chicago, IL, Ends 7/31 and "ART" Elgin Walkabout Theater, Elgin IL, Ends 7/30

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.

Review: "Picasso At The Lapin Agile" Wheaton Drama Inc., Wheaton, IL, Ends 7/24/11

A couple items of business:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

On to the 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.

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.

Review: "Where's My Money?" Riverfront Playhouse, Aurora, IL ends 9/18/10

A two items of business

1. 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.
2. 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!!!