Review: "Don't Dress For Dinner" The Riverfront Playhouse Aurora, IL 4/16/10

There is a school of thought that advocates the following:  people doing community theatre are doing it just for fun; therefore, they should be absolved from negative criticism.  And I would accept that, if the show were on a make-shift stage, in someone's backyard, with a bed sheet strung along a clothesline acting as a curtain and they were doing it for mom and dad.  But the community theatres are asking the audience to hand over hard-earned cash to watch them have fun.  Or, as is sometimes the case, watch them not invest themselves personally into the show that people are paying to see.  And when the actors don’t display the joy of performance or necessary energy to let the paying audience also have fun, the audience feels let down, and may not return.  Where is the accountability if there is no criticism?


I believe that if you ask people to pay to see your fun, then you have a responsibility to do everything in your power, as actor, director and producer, to engage the patrons.  And if you're not doing it, someone should say so.  Yes, the theatres should be able to recoup the cost of giving the actors a playground on which to play.  But it takes the same amount of money to put on a good show as a bad one, so why not attempt to be stellar?


When actors display that joy of performance, have explosive energy that let's you know they care and are there to entertain, it is magic.  When directors take hold of the show and guide the actors to fine performances, the audience leaves feeling satisfied.  Such is the case with The Riverfront Playhouse production of Don’t Dress For Dinner.


Perfect show?  Nope.  Definitely has issues.  But the overall production sparkled with vitality and joy and there was a palpable energy exchange between audience and actors. The actors related to one another, seemed to all be in the same show and played the moments with skill. There was also a performance that stood out and stole the show.


The play was written by the late French playwright Marc Camoletti and adapted to English by Robin Hawdon.  Here's the synopsis that appears on the theatre's web site: Under the direction of Gene Scheffler and Pam Rowe, the play tells the story of frantic cover-ups and comedic discoveries when a cheating husband is almost caught by his cheating wife... It goes on, but let's sum it up by saying it's a French farce, and has the usual farcical elements of mistaken identities, marital infidelities and mind-boggling plot twists.  Mix in a well-written and witty script and you have a delightful evening of theatre.


Thom Dickens plays Bernard, the ever-charming philandering husband.  He paints him with a fine coating of aplomb.  You can see his Bernard thinking as he improvises his way around seemingly unsurmountable setbacks in his plans for a tryst.  His delivery is droll and deadpan, and his face speaks tomes.  There were a few times when I could see the actor thinking, rather than his character, as he searched for his lines.  But, it was opening night, it wasn't a big distraction and his comic timing was wonderful.  Overall, he was fun to watch.

Marla Holman portrays his wife Jacqueline.  I'm not sure why, but I felt a bit distanced from her performance.  It's possible it lacked freshness.  I think she was working a little too hard at creating a full character, which held her back from actualizing one.  She had energy, but I felt it would have been better directed at making her performance more natural.  Still, she kept me involved in the show.

Jim Oberg is Bernard's friend Robert, who is dragged unwittingly into the fray.  There are many moments when he shines, especially as he tries to keep up and understand all the twisted lunacy going on around him.  And when he attempts to add his own twist to the story of the evening, the results are hysterical.  Like Dickens, Oberg infuses the character with relentless audacity and charm.  He has great comic instincts.

Jill Kustush plays Bernard’s mistress, the model/actress Suzanne.  This character, as written, is one note.  Kustush tries hard to flesh her out.  It's a noble effort, but fell flat, because things felt a bit forced.  Not so with Suzette’s menacing husband George, who is played by Jonathan Witt.  Again, it's another one-dimensional character, but Witt plays the right note.

The real highlight for me was Connie Pfister as the French cook Suzette.  Her comic timing is impeccable.  Her commitment to the character was expressed in a nuanced portrayal that was a joy to watch.  I marveled at how she morphed in front of my eyes from an innocent by-stander dragged into the events of the evening to a major force that drove the action.  Her performance was exciting, her transformation was subtle and her comic panache grabbed my attention and wouldn't let go.  Her explanation of the "game" at the end of Act 2 was an inspired moment.

Farces need to be done with precision and frenetic energy, and for the most part, that's what I witnessed.  There were small moments, however, when the show ran out of steam, and felt as if it was chugging up the hill hoping to crest and glide into the next set of laughs.  There were also moments where the dialog needed to snap with precision but fell short of hitting that stride.  Still, directors Gene Scheffler and Pam Rowe are to be commended for displaying a deft understanding of farce, and for their ability to transfer that onto the stage.  Again, not a perfect show, but a wonderful night of laughter.


So, is it worth the price of admission?  Yes, I think it is.


For ticket information and times, go to the RIverfront Playhouse web site.


Paid:  $15
Worth: $12 plus a $3 tip for Connie Pfister


Run time:  2 hours, 10 minutes, with intermission.