Visceral Reality in Sam Shepard’s TRUE WEST

South Camden Theatre Company’s production of Sam Shepard’s TRUE WEST rocked audiences with its intensity and powerful performances primarily by the play’s leads, Jason Cutts as “Lee” and Patrick Alicarlo as “Austin”. The cameos by Breen Rourke and Kris Andrews provide the right touch as well.

Robert Bingaman’s set is perfect. Andrew Cowles’ lighting design contains beautiful sunrises and sunsets, and Josh Wallenfels’ great sound pulls us even more into the house in the desert.

TRUE WEST is the story of two brothers who come home to where they grew up–about 40 miles outside of Los Angeles—in one of the many desert family communities. The brothers share little in common: Austin has lived a “normal” life having gone to college, gotten married, etc., while Lee has survived the desert and in life, primarily by being a thief. Dad is a drunk and lives somewhere in the Sonoran desert near Juarez, Mexico.

While his mother is on an Alaskan cruise, Austin, an accomplished screenwriter from the city, is house-sitting for her, and his brother drops by to prey on the neighbors’ household appliances. Austin objects to Lee’s intentions, but eventually allows him to stay–if he is out of the house when a film producer arrives that afternoon. Lee returns from a heist while the producer is still there. Instead, he talks the producer into a playing golf and looking at an outline based on an idea he has for a screenplay. Austin helps his brother with the outline, but not without humiliating his brother by overstating his own successes.

The next day, Lee returns jubilant after gambling on the golf game to get the producer to drop Austin’s project and produce his.

You can imagine the sparks that fly next. Sam Shepard is one of America’s most prolific and celebrated playwrights with his work fitting a variety of stages. Shepard, known for narration in his plays, uses short quips and retorts to send his message this time, but the message is as powerful as always.

Why does Shepard place his story about sibling rivalry among other things in the desert location? It seems distance and their mother may be buffers between the brothers’ polarity. They seem to be trying, quite literally, to bust each other’s head in. Lee, of course, leaning more toward his dad’s side, argues vehemently that Austin couldn’t survive in the desert or steal a toaster. This time, Austin is on the defensive. Each tries to emulate the other, but there is no connection. Is that the message? Maybe we are supposed to be who we are for ourselves and no one else. Or, do we need a buffer, too?

Although their father never shows up, he is at the heart of the play. One brother refuses to be anything at all like his father, while the other is already showing signs of the same pattern in his life. Shepard’s plays continually pick at the father-son relationship. In this case, the sons are “bound by fate” to follow the father however dismal the future.

Despite Robert Bingaman’s realistic scene design (and it’s a good one), the emotional intensity of the brothers’ battles ensure that this production is not realistic, and stays on point. Even with the outstanding sound and lighting effects that draw us into the scene. We are stuck there as the brothers are, tied to home, the last place we knew who we were. If anyone yelled at us, the way these two carry on, we’d leave the house or call the police.

While the play could be played with less volume —especially in a small house—and still work, I’m glad director Christopher “Jumbo” Schimpf chose to go with the playwright’s intention, which I think, gives energy to his message.

What we might think, Shepard realizes and makes us see. Sam Shepard’s plays, like any good playwright’s, are not about the stories he or she tells.

TRUE WEST is full of symbols, motifs and meaning, but it is also quite entertaining. It is a dark comedy, but so full of emotion that it doesn’t feel like it. Remember, it is not a farce, but a Human Comedy, so you can expect it to affect you deeply. Bring tissues. The play is funny, sad, angry and full of despair at times.

The South Camden Theatre Company production of TRUE WEST does a great job of reminding us that we, too, can fall victim to what people say, and that we should strive to be true to ourselves. The acting performances alone are worth the price of a ticket, but you should go for the whole deal.

TRUE WEST
Written by Sam Shepard
Directed by Christopher “Jumbo” Schimpf
April 25 – May 11, 2014
Fridays and Saturdays at 8:00 p.m.
Sundays at 2:00 p.m.
South Camden Theatre Company
Waterfront South Theatre
400 Jasper Street
Camden, NJ 08104
866-811-4111
http://www.southcamdentheatre.org

Originally posted by Jack Shaw for STAGE Magazine.

Check out this video with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich.

NEXT TO NORMAL – A Different Reality

Krissy Fraelich, Brian Bortnick and Adam Hoyak (in the background) in NEXT TO NORMAL at The Eagle Theatre. (Photo credit: Chris Miller)

Let’s face it: thinking about mental illness is depressing–a trigger taking us down. But it doesn’t have to be.

By the way, this isn’t the review, but I am going to talk about the musical. The link is several paragraphs below.

We know reality depends on perception. That point was driven home when I reviewed the rock musical, NEXT TO NORMAL at The Eagle Theatre in South Jersey (local identification for people who live in southern New Jersey). The musical deals with reality and perception in a big way. While good plays engage us with a dialogue, the musical, too, can address similar topics.

The standard American musical used to be viewed as fluff entertainment–a way of setting up song and dance numbers. Today, most successful musical theatre productions work in the same way as dramas or comedies; they set us up to listen to a point of view–another’s perception.

What we see and hear on stage is theatre. On different level, a pithy musical like NEXT TO NORMAL informs us and makes us look deeper into ourselves. In this case, the subjects are mental illness and a few other societal problems. Granted, some folks may miss the intended deeper meaning while they are transported to another reality, but most of us are moved to see more than song and dance.

It’s not unusual for theatre to address important topics and differing views. NEXT TO NORMAL entertains us with beautiful, often haunting music and witty lyrics. Any musical, drama, comedy or any variation that successfully dramatizes important subjects usually makes for good theatre art.

Spoofs were invented because its satire masks the intended message, yet still we get it. It’s the same with good musicals like HAIR, LES MISERABLES, RENT and, of course, NEXT TO NORMAL–to name just a few.

This particular play focuses on how mental illness, seen close to home, affects family relationships and the behavior of others. The family has all the right intentions with the wrong result. The play and its music tell the story with sensitivity and, believe it or not, the reality of curing mental illness and families trying to cope.

People who are mentally ill see the same world differently. And, since their current reality doesn’t reflect our own, we are frustrated with their unusual, irrational behavior. While coping with the seemingly ever present illness and trying to understand another’s misperception of the world, loved ones may devote their lives to find a way to help, even though they may do harm instead. Sadly, it’s what families do.

In my review of the production, I focus on humanity’s inability to cope under such circumstances. With realities mixed up, it’s interesting to see how the situation comes to a conclusion.

Check out the review .

Reality, as we all know, is in our perception of the world viewed through our senses. We create a reality based on sensory input. We deploy all of the senses, if we have them, or as many as we do have. i.e. someone who has been blind or deaf or both does not have those sensations. Yet, the blind and deaf have different perceptions than those of us with all our senses intact, but their perceptions are based on the senses they do have. Their realities are as rich as any of our’s. What we see, hear and smell is filtered naturally by our brain.

Obviously, the brain is more than flesh and nerves. What makes it different is that it contains the mind, which is impossible to pinpoint with today’s technology. We do have a good idea where memory is stored. Many a science fiction novel has dealt with the repercussions of trying to change reality or control human behavior by enhancing unknown parts of the brain. The brain uses automatic responses that keep our organs working to keep us alive. It is also responsible for storing memories.

Memories seem concrete. Consistent. And, when they aren’t consistent, we see a need to correct that inconsistency.

Should we tell someone else what his or her memories are supposed to be because we shared the same moment together?

Our perception of the moment is a combination of the mind’s conscious, unconscious and subconscious thoughts, as well as our feelings, what we hear and see so we are assured no two memories are exactly alike.

From Colonial Theatre’s production of THE BOYS NEXT DOOR, Damien Ladd as the son and Jack Shaw as the wasted parent trying to make his son normal. Photo Credit: The Colonial Theatre

We can only approximate a memory by using facts. Memories can’t be confirmed by others. Only the facts can be confirmed. The reality of another who experienced the exact moment, and being in the same place in time–may be similar. Even the moment isn’t exact. That reality is always different, depending on who is living it. We are once again talking about individual and unique perceptions.

The photo on the left: A scene from THE BOYS NEXT DOOR, a play that looks sympathetically at being able to appear normal and the behavior of someone close. In this case the father. The schizophrenic son elicits sympathy from the audience, while the parent, obviously affected by his sons erratic behavior, is unable to cope and has a more dangerous sickness than his son.

To be sure, this is the abridged version of studying the brain, the mind and the idea of reality. To keep it blog size. The concept of reality is tied to all.

The brain, if we could use it completely, has more capacity than we can imagine. It has as much potential as a rather complicated computer.

What else the brain can do beyond current science is obviously unknown but speculated about especially in the areas of paranormal activity. Which brings up a question of reality once again. Mere mention of  the word, “paranormal,” makes us take a look at a different reality. We think a person who has these unusual abilities inhabits a different reality, seeing the world with his or her extra perception.

The same can be said of a person who suffers from a mental illness–the reality is there, but the filter is broken. The brain may not be broken necessarily, but the mysterious and unique mind may be confused. Its ability to adapt is broken somehow. In layman’s terms, it is probably safe to say that the mind is a sum of all our experiences, including our unconscious ones we have in our dreams (yet another reality). Some of those dreams we remember, some we do not. But they are still there.

The human answer, as an outsider coping with all this, may be as simple as giving unconditional love.

There is no doubt that mental illness takes its toll on everyone involved. In most cases, it’s impossible to cure. That is today. Perhaps tomorrow will be different. The rescue of a person in need is risky, taking its toll on those affected in many ways–only a few of which are seen in NEXT TO NORMAL.

Maybe, the key to easing that frustration first is understanding that mental illness is not someone’s fault. Secondly, it is not always someone’s responsibility to try and fix the problem. And, thirdly to find a cure, if possible, is a long and hard road to travel.

We, humans, like to fix things. It makes us feel good, but only when our efforts seem to help. That’s the problem with mental illness; there’s never a complete cure, so we may never feel good.

Mental illness remains a disease that rarely comes with complete cure. Sometimes it is a biological anomaly that can be corrected by surgery. More often it is not. Maintaining a “next to normal” level of behavior through drugs and therapy may be the best we can do.

We have to understand our limitations and try to do more good than harm. In families where one person is sick, everyone is affected. It seems everyone should be involved in the “maintenance” and understanding–if that’s the best we can do.

An Actor Devouring Characters’ Lives

So what happens when you cancel a much-needed rehearsal? We are rescheduled for two run-thru rehearsals on Sunday, plus tech. Ought to be a fun day. Guess I’ll bring Wings and/or Sushi to share. Odd choice I know, but you’d be surprised who eats what. I like both.

While I’m talking about eating, let’s talk about how acting is like devouring other people’s lives, their characters–an accepted form of cannibalism–in the theatre.

I thought I’d write a bit on characterization and memorization—definitely an important part of theatre. In order to do these things, the actor must devour the script and, if he is to find his character, he must devour the lives created by the playwright. Not everyone finds his or her character the same way. For some, it’s lines first, then character. For some, they’ll get the character and paraphrase and substitute lines and go back later to correct—if they can. I memorize my lines in character.

There are a variety of memorization techniques that actors use, but for me the character is an important part of my memorization technique. For some actors, mere repetition of the same words through the course of several rehearsals will work. It usually works for me. Want to mess up the process? Go out of sequence, interrupt scenes with direction, start and stop scenes, etc. We are, after all, creatures of habit.

While some actors memorize as soon as they get the book, I don’t like to do that. I prefer to memorize my “action,” which involves my movements and locations on stage. This works especially well when all the actors are present and the blocking is set rather early. Some actors memorize by recording all the characters parts they will interact with and going over it and over it in the car on their way to work. An IPod works well for that, although I’m sure the traffic police would be too crazy about it.

I tried memorizing from a CD once and it didn’t work well for me, although just going through my lines in order in the car did help; it just took an extra step of noting where the cue lines came in. Some actors find writing their lines over and over works for them. If I have to memorize a traditional way, I cover and slide over lines as I repeat them until I get them smooth. Not my favorite way of memorizing lines for a play, but when the rehearsal method doesn’t work, you still have to get the job done.

You hear a lot about the different schools of acting and that this is where you find the characters for your part in the play and give them the intensity of real life. I don’t consider myself an actor, via method, Stanislavski nor Meisner, or via improvisation although I have read the books. For most actors, these methods are fine in themselves. My acting teacher said to do what works. Ironically, my psychology teacher said the same thing when dealing with mental illness. “Do what works!”

Any or all in any combination is a good way to learn how to act. As an acting coach and as an actor, I use a combination myself, I think—some of it pure psychology. How would a real person (this character) act in a given situation, and what did the playwright believe? What works for the play’s message to be enhanced or feel its impact? I teach a combination of methods or techniques, depending on the student and what works for them. I never have believed in only one approach.

I look at a character’s reason for being in the play. In this play–which is a very literary one, if you haven’t already figured it out–my character mirrors the main characters’ dreams and reality. My character provides hope and at the same time provides proof the reality is more likely to be than the dream. My dog, old and used, “no good to himself or nobody,” is better off dead. The same can be said for my character, but that’s the dilemma.

Sometimes a play holds a mirror to life; sometimes a play doesn’t look anything like that and still holds a mirror to life. It’s like casting against type or writing science fiction or fantasy. The idea is make your audience not pre-judge. It already knows the world, but seeing it displayed in a way that is against expectation (against type) or (real life).

Case in point is a not-very-well-received play by Arthur Miller, CREATION OF THE WORLD AND OTHER BUSINESS. The audience is too busy arguing with images of God, Lucifer, Adam and Eve, etc., and assuming the play is to denigrate its religion or belief system to see the play isn’t about religion as we know it as individuals, but as the world knows it. The play lasted 27 performances on Broadway.

Not considered one of Miller’s best, but it has gotten more attention, acclaim even, in recent productions when directors tried to find ways to separate the audience from its reality and the show’s reality. To me, it is a perfect challenge to a director and I’m up for it, but that’s another story.

Your audience is more likely to get the message if they aren’t arguing the reality. Are the people who see this play likely to have the same “life” as the characters in this play? Not likely. Is the audience able to identify with the characters in the play and feel for the characters in the play? Of course, the characters are usually human. If the characters are not (as in SUESSICAL and CATS), they still exhibit human traits.  We identify with those traits in whatever body or form they take as human traits–at least subconsciously.  An audience should identify with the characters from playwright’s words in the play, and from the actors’ actions on stage that makes them live.

Reading the history and analysis of the play by others as well as the director’s advice, insight and vision will help an actor develop a character. Knowing the history in which the play was written, what critics have said of a play—not necessarily of the performance—although much can be learned what the critic says about the playwright’s intention and its realization on stage.

THE ELEPHANT MAN Comes to Town

~ A STAGE Review ~

Fever Dream Repertory brought a stirring production of THE ELEPHANT MAN by Bernard Pomerance to the Second Stage at the Adrienne Theatre in Philadelphia tonight.  Most of us are familiar with the “classic and poignant true story about the man who looked like a monster, but whose luminous spirit captured the heart of a nation.”  THE ELEPHANT MAN won the 1979 Tony for Best Play and several other prestigious awards that year, as well as in later revivals.

The current stage production, deftly directed by Gary L. Day and performed by a stellar cast, reveals a world of monsters within us, and the innocence of the monster outside.

The story is about more than that, isn’t it?  It’s also about striving to be like everyone else.  What’s worse?  Being so different you scare people?  Or, trying to change other people to conform to your way of thinking?  Or, to change yourself to please those people you have affected or afflicted?  Who has the right to ask you?  Is it okay if it’s in the name of God or Science?

The saying, “It’s a cruel world,” must have come from this play.  I have no proof of that—just a feeling.  It fits so perfect here.  At times sad, mean, witty, or uplifting, the play does not depress but forces you to stop what you’re doing and think.  Sometimes plays do that, and that’s a good thing.

Contributing greatly to the show’s success were the superb performances by both Wade Andrew Corder as the good doctor, Frederick Treves, who rescues Merrick; and Joe Matyas, whose masterful contortions and acting transformed a young man into Joseph Merrick, the Elephant Man, without disguise, costume or make-up as in the original play.

Matyas begins his contortions nude on stage with Dr. Treves describing him to an audience of medical professionals.  As the doctor describes what effect the massive deformity is having on the normal parts of his body, Matyas adjusts his body accordingly, ending with a believable character for the rest of the play.  He was even able to increase his handicap later as he was deteriorating and losing more normalcy as time went on.

I was very impressed by the craft and consistency of Corder and Matyas throughout the show.  You can’t flinch in an intimate theatre like the Second Stage; there’s simply no place to hide.

Then again, all the actors gave fine performances.  Apart from the outstanding leads, I found Brittany Brazill (Mrs. Kendal) very convincing in a subtle, yet pivotal role.  Daniel Patrick DeRosia as Ross shined as well in a tough role, especially after he deserts Merrick and returns a broken wreck of a man.

The stage, pretty bare most of the time, was changed only as much as it needed to.  It was a simple stage as in the original Broadway production.   It contained two cut-away walls to give actors exits and entrances, and then furniture and props were added as needed.  This way, we are focused more on what the characters say and do rather than looking for a nineteenth century re-creation of London and Brussels.

The first conversation introducing us to Dr. Treves and his story was a bit staid.  Once Dr. Treves started telling his story, the play really began to move.  Ross was too in-your-face at first.  I grant you he is supposed to be crass, but I think in the intimacy of the setting, it was overkill.  Too much audience recoil is distracting.  I was surprised by the nudity on stage but thought it was used appropriately.  Treves’ dream sequence later was nicely staged and effective.

Even though most of us know this story, sometimes it is hard to follow the action if you aren’t listening closely.   For audiences that like to think and feel deeply for the characters, then this is the show for you.  THE ELEPHANT MAN will start you thinking and leave you speechless.  It may even be a little cathartic.

Casting: the Director’s Vision

There are casting directors who know in their minds who they want to cast, but can’t afford to cast them.

“I want Jack Nicholson, Sean Penn, Tom Cruise, Jennifer Aniston, Teri Garr…”

Unable to do that, they look to cast a double. Sort of. As an actor, I think I was once asked if I could be a Jeff Foxworthy type (that was for a voiceover, but it’s the same here). My answer: “Sure I could be.” But I think I should have said, “No, I’d rather be a different type, one like me,” but no actor who wants the part says such a thing.

Directors also like looking for a type or someone like he or she saw in another performance. In Southern California, I experienced this on a big scale. As you might imagine, casting takes on a whole new meaning. I auditioned for “Tom” in Glass Menagerie for The National Deaf Theater Company. Imagine my shock at discovering 200 plus actors in the waiting room who all looked like me. Well, they had similar looks, and I hope had similar credentials on their resumes. Apparently we all looked what the director thought Tom should look like. So far it sort of made sense. Now, you get to the part where I, the auditioning actor, learn this role is for the actor backstage who will be performing Tom for the hearing audience. A signing “Tom” will be in front of the audience. So, did it really matter what we looked like if we were not to be seen?

Should directors cast the roles based on the playwright’s vision? You know, the descriptions in the script. Those aren’t in stone by the way. Most are based on the first show produced and how those characters were played. I suppose, if the director’s vision is to succeed, his or her casting decision must come into play as well to make the work accordingly. Sometimes the availability of certain actors affect the selection of certain shows. Question is how far the director should go, or how much he or she can affect the playwright’s vision.

“I can be taller. I can be this…and that.” Dustin Hoffman‘s frustration with not getting roles led him to dress as “Tootsie.” It worked for him. What didn’t work for him was when he said he could be taller–all for the sake of getting the part. Many actors believe they did not get the role because they weren’t good enough or did something wrong. Too many factors are in play here. In auditions where actors are invited after submitting a headshot and resume, they are expected to be competent actors at least. Do actors really think they didn’t get cast because they didn’t do something correctly and need to correct that? I hope not. Some times it is a look. It may be the way an actor looks along side (tall versus short) another actor. I was positive I wasn’t going to be cast in a role because all of the actors with whom I auditioned were much taller. Ironically, the cast list revealed a short-in-stature cast; the other “auditionees” I had not chanced to see at the audition. It may be that a part is pre-cast and the director isn’t telling anyone yet. Once a part is promised, a director would have to take it back from person who also felt he or she deserves it. Not cool, but it can happen for the good of the show.

My own preference, as an actor, is to know a head of time if a show has certain roles pre-cast; although that in itself is a turn-off to me personally. I think a show should have the benefit of “wiggly” casting. If you can’t cast with who comes to the original casting call, call another casting call, but tell those auditioning and let them make the decision to audition under those circumstances. Some bad shows were pre-cast and other cast members have to fit around that individual rather than being cast as a whole. I think it happens to a director once and he or she doesn’t do it again. Cast chosen as a whole generally can more easily develop a camaraderie that may never surface in a pre-cast show. A show cast together has a real chance at being an ensemble cast.

Another strictly physical casting guideline to keep in mind: The director is also making pictures here. The look of his cast contributes to the whole some times as much as the acting. That’s just one of the factors besides acting ability. Singing ability, if the part calls for singing. Physical fitness. A boxer in Heaven Can Wait, for example, should to look like a boxer, or if you’re doing the film, a football player.

There are other obvious physical factors that can affect casting, right or wrong. Imagine not being cast for a role because you have a tattoo? Really? When make-up is so good these days; mostly tattoos are painted on for characters rather than removed. Elimination on the basis of being tattooed? It does happen; it happened to me, but I think there must have been a need to eliminate some actors from the pool and that circumstance worked as well as anything. Why bother covering a tattoo when there is an equal candidate without it. So many factors play into casting…some are fair, some or not. You can be eliminated for other reasons when the director or assistant director don’t think you’ll you’ll fit with the director and/or cast. For example, say the assistant director wants to do warm-ups and you don’t want to participate because you have a sore back or some other legitimate reason, and despite an excellent read and characterization you did not get cast. Even so, it probably wouldn’t have been a good fit for you and the directer anyway.

Can the casting process be more fair? Probably with more awareness, but an actor doesn’t necessarily why he or she did not get cast unless the director (as a courtesy) wants to point out another or other roles he or she knows the actor is better suited for. That’s information an actor can use and as fair as it gets. The actor can only comply with what the director is asking for in the audition, and if he or she cannot do that, expect the possibility that the actor’s choice can affect the casting decision.

For more information on the subject, reviews, other points of view besides my opinion, check out Stage and American Theater magazines.

Excellent WAIT UNTIL DARK Thriller at Tri-County Performing Arts Center

A Theatre Review for STAGE MAGAZINE

By

Jack Shaw

WAIT UNTIL DARK, by Frederick Knott, has to be one of the most suspenseful and thrilling plays performed since its debut on Broadway in 1966.  After seven previews, the Broadway show, with Lee Remick and Robert Duvall, lasted 337 performances.  The London West End production, with Honor Blackman, lasted twice as long.  The 1967 film was also successful earning an Oscar and Golden Globe nomination for Audrey Hepburn and Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.  Knott’s other major play, is DIAL M FOR MURDER another well-known thriller.  It has been said of Knott that he is one of the most performed contemporary playwrights of the 20^th Century (we’ll see how he does in the 21^st); I think there may be other playwrights like O’Neil and Shepard, “the publicist” has overlooked, but I will certainly agree that it can be said for that Knott’s plays are certainly classics in the genre.

In WAIT UNTIL DARK, theatre audiences want to experience the vulnerability of Suzy Hendrix and her husband, Sam, the helplessness and desperation of all its characters, the realistic set, and a thrilling climax.  The Tri-County Performing Arts Center in Pottstown, Pa. presented WAIT UNTIL DARK to one of these audiences and we weren’t disappointed.

This was my first time at the Performing Arts Center and I was immediately impressed with its theatrical practicality of its space.  In a theatre that has no bad seats, I found the realistic set in front of me was a treat in itself with what appeared to be a working refrigerator, stove, washer, sink with running water, and ceiling lights and lamps.  I could only hope the other elements would be on par, and, for the most part, they were.  The sound and lighting were both perfect in design and execution, by the way.

Tara McFalls as Susy Hendrix was quite believable as a woman who lost her sight in an accident and is adapting to life without it.  McFalls performance is outstanding and consistent throughout the play.  Her relationship with husband photographer Sam, played by Paul Recupero, showed a natural and easy chemistry, a tribute to both actors.  I was also impressed with ten-year-old Hannah C. Paczkowski’s performance as Gloria, an initially bratty little girl who comes to Susy’s aid later in the show.  Anthony Marsala did a fine job with his Mike Talman character, who I felt needed the soft touch he gave it later when the real Talman or whatever-his-real-name-is comes out.  He was the “not so bad guy” and he got it perfect.

Overall the cast did a fine job with a show that can easily lose momentum and suspense if some goes awry.  Naturally, this is something a director does not want to happen; when something is amiss, it distracts from show.  In spite of some truly wonderful performances, there seemed to me some blocking that lacked purpose, which made for some slow moments for me in Act I.  I did not care for the circling of the “bad” guys in the beginning.  Circling would be for bad guys of somewhat equal standing.  I think Harry Roat needs to dominate the moment as he dominates the lesser criminals, and that he doesn’t do as they dance around each other.  I understand where the idea comes from; however, the more powerful the “bad” guy, the less he needs to worry about his underlings.  This is a weakness, albeit it may be a weakness in the script.  When Harry Roat comes on the scene, he does not see himself equal to the petty criminals he sees before him, and he should be able to intimidate them with a look, a beat of silence or a slow steady hand gesture; here he dances around and acts the “crazy” bad guy, which is not what I think Knott is after.

I wasn’t sure why he had to smoke (a joint?) and refer to needle marks on his arm—at least his gestures seemed to indicate that.  Now, I’m confused.  If he is a junky himself, he makes himself an even weaker bad guy.  Drug dealers, especially smart ones, don’t generally partake of their own product.  His flipping the knife around made its appearance later less menacing.  Perhaps, it is more stereotypical, but a switch blade or gravity knife might have made a better weapon prop.

Rob Patey (Sergeant Carlino) did an excellent job at being similar to his bud in background, Mike, but different in personality.  I didn’t much care for the apron bit at the beginning.  True, it fits what we know of his past, but he didn’t have to put it on.  When he did, it became shtick.  One thing that seems to have been missed is that these guys aren’t just con-men (this is the role they are playing with Suzy), they are desperate ex-cons.  One person is pushing them, and hard.  We weren’t feeling it until we learn of the consequences in the second act.

It is so hard in a play where an actor has to look for things, fiddle with things, and remember lines, character and blocking, all the keeping the scene tense, tight and suspenseful.  One thing is to make it real.  One of Carlino’s jobs, it seems, is to come into the apartment and continually search for things; in fact, everyone searches for things.  When “looking for something,” give it a register.  The audience doesn’t always read a quick glance at something and notice you actually saw it.  I thought the props throughout the set gave performance all a sense of realism.  Seeing a fridge that actually looked like it was filled with food was a wonderful realistic touch.  And so it should go with the rest of the show.

Realism is what this show is about, but is it?  Why doesn’t Suzy leave when she has the chance?  Of course, the guys would have nailed her leaving.  One murder aside, why not just torture the information out of her?  If any of those situations had occurred we wouldn’t have the show.  That wasn’t the show, Knott wrote.  Still, The Tri-County Performing Arts Center’s, WAIT UNTIL DARK is an excellent show;  so much hard work and attention to detail is necessary for authenticity and the outstanding individual talent and a fine group effort definitely shows here.

http://stagepartners.org/2010/10/excellent-wait-until-dark-thriller-at-tri-county-performing-arts-center/

“HAMELOT” – or Hollywood Hamlet in Burlington

A Theatre Review for STAGE MAGAZINE

By

Jack Shaw

The Bridge Players Theatre Company opening night production of I HATE HAMLET played to a sparse but enthusiastic audience at the Methodist Church in Burlington.  Here’s one time “strictly theatre fans” and “strictly TV fans” can unite and enjoy the show.  If those groups actually exist…  It doesn’t really matter which kind of fan you are; the play is full of barbs at both stage and small screen that will make you smile, chuckle or laugh.

Paul Rudnick’s play is about a television actor who after his TV show is cancelled has won the role of Hamlet in the city’s theatre in the park production.  Was Andrew Rally, of L.A. Medical fame, cast because his “star” was particularly shining or was it his acting ability?  So, why does an “actor” who loves L.A. and “modern” furniture come to New York, rent John Barrymore’s old pad and agree to play Hamlet?  The answer, of course, has to do with a girl:  his girlfriend, Deidre, is in love with the classical theatre, but not sure enough about him to sleep with him.  In this “dramatic comedy,” there is chaste romance, unchaste romance, blatant romance, a fair amount of comedy and a little drama.  What’s next is the real question.

The show was filled with some great character performances.  Newel Gatrell as John Barrymore’s ghost is the perfect foil (they use those, too) to Steve Kumke’s Andrew Rally, in part because they have opposite looks and voices.   Kumke is blond and, I would guess, a tenor, while Gatrell has dark hair and is probably a baritone.  As actors, they worked well together, but it seemed to me Kumke’s best moments in the show are when they are paired.  I liked Gatrell’s flourish as Barrymore, but there was moment in the second act (the dramatic part) where I felt he peaked in the scene too soon.  Whether it was the director’s call or his, the performance felt strained at the end because he nearly screeched his last few lines.  He did have some wonderful moments when he nailed it and captured Barrymore’s essence.  In all fairness, Gatrell or anyone else in the cast may have a better rhythm on another night in the same way as a light may flicker or sound cue comes a bit early.  No worries.

Marissa DiPilla does a nice job with romantic, wide-eyed girlfriend, Deirdre.  Stand-out performers are generally the character actors, who always seem to get the best comedic lines to work with, and it’s no different in this show.  I especially liked Lillian Troy as his agent who has a great tender scene with Barrymore in the second act.  Lily K. Doyle as the realtor, Felicia Dantine, and Ken Marblestone, as Gary Peter Lefkowitz play well together for laughs.  I don’t know how Lily was able to keep a straight face when Gatrell (as Barrymore’s ghost) is kissing and biting her arm while she is supposed to be unaware he is there.  Ken:  I loved those white shoes for both casual and formal wear.

Comedy is about playing it straight and it’s funny.  It still needs to be real.  What we find funny about some characters is that they remind us of people we know—often stereotypes with whom we can identify.  Aside.  I find myself typing “Hamelot” instead of Hamlet, but I don’t think there’s anything Freudian in that; Rally does call Barrymore a “ham,” but there don’t seem to be real “hams” here just honest actors.

This show marked the directorial debut of Chris Focarile and is a fine community theatre effort.  I’m sure we’ll see more from him.  Overall, I liked the show.  While I found performances in the first act a bit too campy, the actors settled more into their parts by the second act.

Call OSHA if you want to, but I was bothered that actors sat on boxes without checking if they would hold their weight.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t generally sit on a card board box without seeing what I’m sitting on.  Books?  Okay.  Dishes or knick-knacks?  No.  However, the sword fight was well choreographed and played well (and safely)

I didn’t care for the card table being used for the séance (and is never seen again) when a regular piece of furniture, a small table could have been used from the set.  This would have given actors another acting area and more variety of staging.  It seemed the actors played mostly down stage right by the front door, albeit the most attractive part of the set.  At the Bridge Players, the theatre productions are in the Methodist Church gym/auditorium on a nice wide but not very deep stage, which has to be real challenge in designing and building the set.

I was able to suspend my disbelief with I HATE HAMLET or “HAMELOT,” and for first-time director, talented cast and crew, a job nicely done.

http://stagepartners.org/2010/10/hollywood-hamlet-at-bridge-players-in-burlington/