I've been slow getting this review posted. I saw this show on Sunday 4/18 of their opening weekend, and have sat on the review because I just didn't know how to approach it without sounding overly harsh. But there's no avoiding the fact that it is not a good production and not worth the price of admission. Please realize that this is just my opinion, and I can only report what I felt and why I think I felt that way.
Imaging going to a community theatre production of Oklahoma, and learning that the director has decided to do it as kabuki theatre. Or Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf presented as a Punch and Judy show (now that I think about it, the latter could actually work and I call dibs on the concept). It’s a case of a square peg going into a round hole. The director can either recognize it’s a bad fit and scrap the idea, or tries to rectify it with subtle creative dexterity. Ofttimes though, there is no rectification, and the synthesis is accomplished with the destructive force of a big-ass hammer. Unfortunately, that is the case with GreenMan Theatre Troupe’s current production of Don’t Drink The Water.
Written in 1966 by Woody Allen, Don’t Drink The Water tells the story of an American family seeking sanctuary in the US embassy of the small eastern European communist country. They are typical Americans tourists, the embassy personnel are bumbling characters, and the bad guys are stereotypic communists with accents. It's more concerned with the clash of culture rather than the clash of political ideologies. For a more complete synopsis (and spoilers), go here.
In the director's note, Benjamin Vargas states, "I have chosen to direct this comedy as a farce, giving appropriate nods to the sights and sounds of 1963 American culture." In my head, I was asking, "Why would he take a piece of witty, erudite verbal comedy and force it into a structure for which it's not intended? Has he no faith in the author or the show as it is?" Actually, in my notes I wrote, "Farce?? WTF?"
Usually I go through each actor's performance, but I can't blame them for what I saw, so I'll forgo that. They had energy and commitment, but not in a pleasant way, and totally misdirected. I'm throwing this onto the director, who didn't trust the script and felt he needed to energize it in his own fashion.
So, what you get are actors breaking the 4th wall and mugging to the audience (there are only so many times you can watch someone look out with the "OH" expression during a chase scene), incessant pratfalls to emphasize the concept of a bumbling embassy worker (which means "inept" rather than gravity-challenged), a chef who does nothing but run around like a high-pitched screaming nancy (I think my ears bled), a head of the foreign country's KGB-like police force who stomps around with his arms swinging in an exaggerated manner through the whole show, and an ugly American acting like the love child of Ralph Kramden and Al Bundy (in my notes I wrote Ted Bundy). This is the Woody Allen character, as written by Woody Allen. In the rhythm of a Woody Allen stand-up routine. Having it played as a loud American without that patter eliminates the self-effacing neurotic sarcasm written into the dialog. There are many more instances like this throughout the show.
When you do a period piece (1963), you need to remain true to it from start to finish and know early 60s and late 60s were significantly different. The director mentions, "...appropriate nods to the sights and sounds of 1963 American culture." Really? I heard White Rabbit playing in the background, which wasn't written until 1965, and made popular by Jefferson Airplane in 1967. The presidential portraits in the embassy vanished during act break and were replaced by a picture of Phil Silvers and a drawing of Alfred E Newman. They were askew in the frame, which made it extra funny, I guess. There was the embassy worker with long hair (never would have happened in 1963) and the other one with the beard (also would not have happened in 1963). Again, the list of bad and inconsistent choices by the director is lengthy. I won't get into the pacing issues, the slow sound cues, the muddied dialects, or the lighting problems (too many dark spaces on stage). I think it really comes down to the the details. By trying to make the show more than it is, he lost sight of what he had.
Is it worth the price of admission? No...even in 1963 dollars.
Paid: $15
Worth: $3
Runtime: 1 hour, 56 minutes with intermission
For times and ticket information, visit the GreenMan web site.
No comments:
Post a Comment