FPP: Urinetown

         So yes, this review is long over due. And no, there isn't any reason other than that I was incredibly slow in doing it. Urinetown holds a very special place in my heart - it was my senior year high school musical, and we did it very, very well. Not that I'm boasting, I'm just boasting. The show is an incredible, satirical, homage to musical theater throughout the years. It is, strangely enough, one of the more accessible shows on the theater circuit - Hate musical theater? GREAT! Laugh at all the things this show blatantly points out as terrible. Love musical theater? EVEN BETTER! You'll notice all of the references nobody else gets and you can walk out like the super knowledgable person you are.

"You're sooooo clever."

Company Presentation

          Sadly, there is only one word I can use to describe the advertisement for FPP's production of Urinetown. Failure. I'm sorry about it guys, but nothing released prior to the opening of this production actually made me want to see it. The oddly shot video promos that came out were like advertisements for a grungy version of Vogue that you hid under your bed because even your most effeminate friends would be ashamed to learn you owned it. And the poster? Black and white. Seriously? Black and white? That's what is going to grab the eye and pull me all the way over to the vern for a show with Urine in the title? I don't think so kids, I just don't think so.

Set

         What FPP lost in it's advertisement for Urinetown, it made up with the set. Urinetown is a tough one in that there are just so many different locations to cover. The set FPP created was both simple, and functional while at the same time achieving a level of flashiness and detail that the show requires. Laura DePaolo and whoever else helped to paint that set deserve a special shout out. Because they did a darn good job.

Lights

        This production had a great lighting design. It was dynamic and colorful, set a mood, and distinguished spaces in every way that it needed to. There were almost no holes on the stage (except for that pesky down stage right spot) and I found myself excited by it most of the time. Unfortunately, the cast didn't seem to know how to use it. I spent much of the show day dreaming about lassoing actors to pull them two steps downstage into their light. How did no one mention that during tech runs?

Acting

         Urinetown suffered from one of the problems that all medium to large musicals are afflicted with at GW - they just couldn't pull together a powerful enough chorus. While at times, the chorus jumped out and brought some energy into the theater (good job snuff that girl), the overall felt a little low energy. I've long since lost my program for the show, so bear with me on names and characters as I go forward here.

Fake Pregnant Girl - You get a special shout out because you were FIERCE. (Please read in the voice of Mr. Rick Westerkamp)

Jordan King - Jordan did a great job as bobby strong. His character was fun and light hearted, and Jordan seemed to really understand how ridiculous this show is. My one problem - I could barely hear him when he sang. For the leading man in a show not to be heard is a pretty big problem and Jordan was constantly drowned out by the band and chorus. Diaphragm my man!

Nina Lupan - Nina stole the show in a lot of ways. She was well cast and has a decent voice for the role. Nina's acting abilities didn't exactly blow me out of the water - but she did the role justice and was an obvious choice for this production.

Steph Brennan - Sadly, Steph just didn't live up to my expectations for Pennywise. The role is, most essentially, a belting role. Big powerful notes, and all the sass and attitude you can muster needs to go into Pennywise. Steph just didn't have that. Not to say she didn't play the role in her own, interesting, way. It just wasn't what I wanted from the production. She also had some difficulty with physicality - often moving her head as if on a swivel in an attempt to come across as sassy.

Erin Jones - Erin didn't have a huge role. But damn did she rock the role she had. Her comedic timing is near expert and I got more laughs from her than any other actor in the show.

Directing

         If Urinetown was Kolton's ice cream sundae, then he forgot to put hot fudge, nuts, and a cherry on top. The blocking wasn't bad. The choreography was pretty good. But Kolton sort of missed the point of the show. It seemed that he tried to make the show into a dark comedy, rather than what it is: a joke. Because let's face the facts here, Urinetown is one extended joke crammed inside of a full length musical. But what this show was missing (remember that hot fudge?) were the references. If you can think of a classic musical from the past fifty years, odds are it's in there somewhere. West Side, Fiddler, hell maybe even Anything Goes. It's in the music and it provides an excellent chance for some comedic choreographic and blocking jokes. Kolton missed every one of them.

Overall, FPP's Urinetown was an enjoyable production. It was fun to watch, generally funny, and didn't make me want to claw my eyes out (that's a pretty big compliment). But it wasn't the greatest musical around here. I look forward to Assassins this weekend from FPP and Cabaret from Generic next week.

Also, the Washington Revels opens their Christmas show in Lisner next weekend. It runs through the 16th, come check it out!

See you in the theater,

Ed

14th: Death of a Salesman

      It's your turn! Last weekend I performed as Willy Loman in Fourteenth Grade Player's production of Death of a Salesman. So now it's time for Salesman, and myself, to get a review. A few weeks before the show went up, David Neiman (student theater junkie) contacted me asking if I would allow him to do the review. David expressed such a love of what Death of a Salesman is as a piece of art that I couldn't turn him down - with one condition. I told him he had to call 'em like he sees 'em. So, without further ado, Mr. Neiman's review:

(Please forgive the formatting - I don't know what happened, and I can't fix it.)

There’s no fucking way. What a cliché! A student production of Death of a Salesman? Psshh. Get real. We all know Death of a Salesman. Literally every single one of us. We’ve all read it, or seen it, or heard about it, or something like that. It’s one of those shows that everyone already knows the story: the ending. And me personally, well shit, I’ve done a bunch of those scenes before. I was muttering some of the characters’ lines to myself before they got a chance to spit them out onstage. So there’s no way that a show like that can grip you right? No way you can get sucked in to the action as if you don’t know who dies in the end. Right? No way you can root for everyone you know will fail. Right? Right!? There’s just no way!

But there is. There is and the team behind 14th Grade Players’ production of Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller found it. If you don’t/didn’t trek up to the luxurious West Hall Theatre on the Vern this weekend to see one of the true classics, you missed out. Plain and simple. I told Big Man Eddie Churchill I’d write him an honest guest review, so here goes.

Company Presentation

What company presentation? The white picket fence? Oh! That was for this show? Ahhhhh! That makes sense now. Now that I look very closely and see that it’s not just a plug for a Seattle-based grunge-rebirth band. But actually. It’s Death of a Salesman! DEATH. OF. A. SALESMAN! You know? The show that sells itself? Where’s the big writing to catch my eye? Where’s the iconic profile of Willy failing: his fist raised to the gods? You know? Where’s THE SALESMAN!? Don’t get me wrong, it’s elegant. I like it. But me personally, if I’m marketing this show, I make sure the title takes up half the poster, not the fence. If anything, the fence can make a little, tiny, cut-off appearance on the bottom so you can get the idea, “Oh! A white picket fence! Americana! I get it!”

Set

Let me say something about my relationship with sets. I only ever think about them right before the show starts and when someone runs into a flat that’s supposed to be a wall and it wobbles and I fear for the actors’ safety. That’s it. That being said, was it a good set? Yes. Perfectly good set. It did its job just fine, and I loved the color scheme along the walls, as well as the kitchen floor (nice touch). Could it have had a few more homey touches? Things to help myself and, more importantly, the actors connect with this old, fixed-up home? Sure. A little more personal history would have been nice. It would have been nice if Willy and Linda had some family photos to look at while reminiscing. It would have been nice for Happy and Biff to have some old kids’ toys they hadn’t seen in quite a while up in their room. How do they interact with them now as grown men? Overall, I’d say what separates this very good set from a great set is a few little details. That’s all.

Lights

I don’t know a whole heckuvalot about lights, but what I do know is how this show should be lit. This show flows from the bright, stark reality of the present to amber- and rose-colored visions of the past, and it does this abruptly. I think the lighting designer did a great job lighting these moments, many of them occurring onstage at the same time, as well as nailing the mood lighting as the show went on. It’s a challenging design, and I’d say the actors were lit to satisfaction 97% of the time. Not Walter White’s product, but I’ll settle for Jesse’s any day.

Acting

Acting Death of a Salesman is an uphill battle. I’ll say it again. It’s an uphill battle. Not only are students fighting against the ages of their characters: imagining experiences that they’ve still yet to live. They’re dealing with a culture 60-80 years removed at this point. It’s not easy.

I say this because the acting was really that impressive. I mean really. Bravo! Let’s get to it:

Ed Churchill: You think this guy could get away with writing a theatre blog without being that good? Ed was in the first show I did at GW, August: Osage County, and he played a similar character to what he plays in Death of a Salesman. Back then, I thought, “Oh, I guess he is the closest to that casting that the auditions had to offer. It’s a shame no one better suited for the part auditioned.” Now that being said, Ed nailed it in August, but HOLY JUMPING JESUS CHRIST! He walks onstage in this show and he’s it. All he needs is some good stage makeup and BAM! Effect achieved! Ed was phenomenal. His character was specific; beautifully crafted, and his relationships were spot on, not to mention he did the senile thing just about as well as you can. Every show needs a backbone, and Ed was it. A++. I was thoroughly impressed.

Shira Hereld: Someone call the police, ‘cause this girl stole the show. Linda, in my opinion, is the most challenging role in this show, because she gives all of Willy’s actions the necessary weight. No one cares what happens with Willy’s job or Happy or Biff if Linda doesn’t make us care about keeping the family together. There’s no love in this play unless Linda shows us where it should go. Every heart-wrenching moment, every failure, all of it comes back to our desire for everything to work out: for the Loman family to be happy together, and those desires are anchored in Linda. All I can say about Shira is that she got it. Physically, emotionally, vocally she got it. I’ve read this play quite a few times, and I didn’t know you could do that much with this role. Straight up. A+++.

Kent Ricci: I don’t know Kent, nor had I ever seen Kent in a student theatre show before this one, and I think that worked out perfectly. His Biff was incredibly grounded and sympathetic. You could really feel the contrast between his respect for Willy in his younger days and the weight of Willy’s shadow on his shoulders in the present, and that did a whole lot for this production and the tension between them. His point-of-view and character were both very complete and specific.

Julian Sacca-Schaeffer: I thought Julian did a great job with his role. I think he knew his job and he did his job, and the show wouldn’t have worked as well if he hadn’t. A piece of advice that I’d give Julian, though, and I say this to a lot of people, is to jog a lap or two around the Vern before the show to get himself loose. Of the four main characters, I think JS-S seemed a little stiff among them. However, I loved the choices he made, specifically the heat of his ambition when talking about his plans, “The Loman Brothers.” A great job all-around by everyone in this core group.

Ensemble: You can’t have a Thanksgiving turkey without the stuffing. And oh was the stuffing good. The ensemble for this show had some solid performers to compete with, and they delivered. Josh Bierman’s Charlie was outstanding. He sold his age better than anyone. Sean Viscount’s Ben was perfectly ethereal, a very hard thing to act as well as he did. A shoutout to Brad McKeen, Bekah Meyer, and the rest of the ensemble as well. They all rounded the play out with style.

Directing

Well done Andy Brown! He took on the mountain and reached the summit. The set and lighting did a great job framing what was clearly a carefully crafted beauty. The blocking was natural and fluid. The music was played at the perfect volume. His guidance and touch were evident in the ebb and flow of the show. He should be proud of what you put together.

-David Neiman


Well that's all for now folks - more reviews to come as the semester winds down to a close!

See you in the theater,
Ed

Generic: American Buffalo

         If you didn't get a chance to see Generic's production of American Buffalo last week then you missed out on a pretty great production of a Mamet show. One of the reasons I've always loved American Buffalo is because I just can't figure out what it's about - in a good way. I'm happy to say that is still the case. The show follows three men in a theft-based-quasi-pawn-shop. They plan a heist that they never follow through with and argue with each other the whole way through. If I were to pin down why I like it, and what it is about in one way it would be this: American Buffalo falls into alignment with my tastes because it is humanizing.

Company Presentation:

         Interesting choice of poster on the part of Generic. It's simple, and I suppose elegant - but it isn't really the attention grabber it could be. Especially considering the intense, attention grabbing nature of the show. Generic's posters are usually a little better than this one. It comes off sort of like a rusted nickel. Get it? That was a joke about the show.

        The only about getting into the downstage I didn't like is something a few companies have made us do - we had to enter through the set. Now, I understand you have to be sort of innovative in the downstage. But, I just don't like walking through the stage to get to my seat - it makes me strangely queasy and leads to things like Bekah Meyer breaking the only door on the stage. (Did you seriously think I wouldn't put that in here after you told me about it, Bekah? You know better than that.)

Set:

       The set was pretty basic. One wall of flats, and a whole bunch of junk. Yet, there was something really endearing about it. With the amount of junk, knick-knacks, the poker table, and the beaten up arm chair, I had no trouble believing these guys spent A LOT of their lives in the shop. My favorite touch, however, was the addition of the old Downstage light board with a sign reading "Works perfectly guaranteed!". The actors seemed comfortable on the stage and it worked. Nothing fancy, nothing over the top, just simplistic quality.

Lights:

       Again, a fairly basic design executed well. For a show that really only calls for general wash, one might even call the lighting impressive. It is rare that we see a designer able to completely eliminate shadow in the downstage. Peter Guren, kudos to you man.

Acting:

      Three men take the stage for Generic. All of them fit their roles perfectly. Michael Salgarolo once again proves himself as the best male actor Generic has in their pocket, with David Neiman pulling up a close second. Preston Reynolds was a relative unknown for me, but even he pulled it in and was the perfect completion to the trio. Each person added their own quirks to the characters with Preston, perhaps, creating the quirkiest of the three. His Bob was quiet, timid, awkward, and lovingly incomprehensible.

      My favorite parts of the show were when watching the play between Michael and David. The two of them seemed to really bond on stage and it became clear that their characters had a very long friendship. What impressed me most, and what I still can't quite understand, is how these two managed to create characters so similar in their frustrations and anger, yet clearly distinct from one another.

     The big bang moment for the cast, however, was when Teach threw a nutter and trashed the whole set. Reactions were perfect, the destruction was complete, and it all came as a complete surprise.

Directing:

      With Carson Miller coming off his success with A Clockwork Orange last year, this show had additional meaning. It meant that Carson had a chance to prove whether he was actually a good director, or if Ben Wagner was really just that good. In my honest opinion, Carson came off the winner. His production was naturalistically directed without too much heavy handed blocking. It seemed that he gave the actors quite a bit of freedom in making their own decisions while providing the guiding hand that a director is meant to be.

     American Buffalo was definitely one of the better productions Generic has put together in quite a while. Though I may have a bias in that I love Mamet, I feel that Generic pulled this one off in a brilliant manner. Next week check back for a review of FPP's Urinetown and (with fingers crossed because my schedule is stupidly busy) GW Shakespeare's Sir Thomas More. Go see some shows folks. ADVENTURE IS OUT THERE!

(Zach said he was going to put scorpions in my bed for not using this as my profile picture. I post it here in an attempt to appease him.)

See you in the theater,

Ed

TRDA: Sweeney Todd

    So I've been really lazy about getting these posts up - but here goes!

          GW's Department of Theater and Dance certainly did not hold anything back with this year's musical production of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Everything this department has to offer - from powerhouse actors to top-notch designers - got poured into this production, and it shows. While I might not go so far as to call the musical a "thriller" as the poster proclaims, the grit and grime thrown onto the stage made the Dorothy Betts Marvin Theater just the right kind of disgusting.

         Sweeney has been a long run. With casting back in May, and rehearsals beginning early this semester, the team has been at it for several months. But, rather than resulting in a stale, over-rehearsed, performance, the cast put all they had into it. And, despite the many difficulties the technical side faced (a finicky automation device, hurricane, low man power, a hurricane, a fire alarm, and not being allowed to use their hazer), they managed to pull off a beautifully designed, nearly flawless technical production. 

Company Presentation:

         With two departments promoting the musical every year (TRDA and Music), it's easy to see why seeing Sweeney has been such a pervasive thought amongst the performance community at GW. Department musicals are always heavily advertised, and this production was no exception. Posters littered the Marvin Center and Rome/Phillips. But, then again, with a poster that gorgeous why wouldn't you want it everywhere? Sure, it may be a little text heavy - but considering the amount of nonsense you're legally required to put on advertisement for a Sondheim production, Kirk did damn good.

Set:
        Simple design, excellent set dressing - gorgeous. When I says simple though, what I really mean is simply to look at. In reality, it was rather complex. Beautifully constructed back drops filled the gaping chasm that can, at times, be the betts stage. Not to mention that automated cube. Seriously, who puts a completely automated, rotating cube on stage? The GW Department of Theater and Dance that's who. And despite the troubles they had with it during tech week - it was extremely effective. Having seen the evolution of the set from bare stage through final construction, I was impressed with the changes everyday. The final touch, which was probably my favor part of the set, was the newspapers and ads pasted all over the walls creating the feel of a well lived in London.

Lights:
       Any theater professional would love this light design, but if you don't know the intricacies of lighting design it may have been a little tough. The pattern work and colors were expertly chosen by Department Producer Carl Gudenis. But, for those hoping to see the glitz and glam of a big musical, you would have been disappointed. Carl's design was not about looking pretty, if anything it was the exact opposite. In fact, it was one of the few places where the grit and grime I was looking for really came through. Personally, I loved Carl's design. I thought it was intricate and exciting and that his selective lighting choices were perfectly done.

Acting:
      Boy are there some things to say about the acting in this show. It might be worth it for you to skip ahead, read my directing section, and then come back though. I'm going to break it down now by pulling out a few people:

Chorus:  Ok, I know the chorus isn't a singular person, but they deserve a section all their own. For me, the chorus was a little lackluster. That's not say they did poorly, just that they didn't have the force and strength they needed to overcome the micing of the leads. But in "city on fire" all the sudden they were THERE. That number was far and away the best piece of work the chorus did with "God that's good" being a close second. It was, however, fun to watch the inner relationships that the chorus created. It seemed each one of them had a little back story of their own.

Lizzy Marmon:  Bias warning, Lizzy is my roommate and my favorite person in the world to make art with. This was one of Lizzy's best performances by far. What amazes me about her as an actress is the fact that I know her in real life. What I mean by that, is Lizzy turns into a completely different person on stage like no one else I know. Her Mrs. Lovett was deeply layered, funny, and most importantly honest. Every word that came out of her mouth I believed. To highlight a single moment: the end of the show, with Lucy dead and Sweeney enraged, Lovett sinks to her knees singing "I love you." And it was breathtaking. All of Lovett's hopes and failings were summed up in one single line. Even if you didn't like a single other moment of the show, it was worth it for this.

Mike Noel:   Mike was actually acting! While I might describe his performance as "not quite crude enough" I was still rather impressed. His voice was fantastic and his acting more than acceptable. In has grand epiphany that we "all deserve to die", he was truly frightening - challenging the audience and Lovett alike. The moment gave credence to the phrase "perhaps today you gave a nod, to sweeney todd" and made it a terrifying prospect.

Kevin Frye:  Dayum voice. That is all. Good job.

John Gearhart: John stuck out like a sore thumb in this production. While I empathize with him, in that he was playing one of the campiest and cheesiest roles musical theater has to offer - I was still disappointed in his performance. His facial expressions were flat and his emotion, at times, resembled that of a toaster someone had drawn a smiley face on. What got me the most though, is that the idea of motivated movement seemed to go entirely over his head - though this may be a problem with the directing more than anything else. I don't particularly know John personally, and don't mean to be offensive -  but I had hoped for a lot more.

Directing:
      Director Muriel Von Villas is an opera director, and that's what she should stick to. While the music was done beautifully (likely a credit to music director Patrick O'Donnell), the rest of the show displayed a lack of power that clearly came down from the director. Muriel is a master of creating a stage picture. But she's not so good at getting people into it. At best the blocking was boring or clearly driven by the actor, at worst it was unmotivated and awkward. But, what hurt most about the directing was the lack of depth. Sweeney Todd has the opportunity to be a complex, dramatic, and powerful production. It should have knocked me back into my seat (and with some of these performers, I suppose it did at times). The problem was that it just wasn't quite in your face enough. The general M.O. of this production seemed to be "stand here, sing this". Character didn't seem to be a huge concern for Muriel either, allowing several performers to slide by on simply the bare essentials. In general, the production simply lacked a layer of depth that only a director could provide - and she simply let it slide.


The department's production of Sweeney Todd was, overall, very enjoyable. It was a GREAT college production. So, I don't want anyone to misunderstand me when I say this department could have done more. I only expected more of this department because of the incredible level of talent centered here. Still, the production was fantastic, and the leads really blew it away - not to mention the absolutely incredible design choices.

Next up is Generic Theater Company's: American Buffalo. Look for that review to be up tomorrow!

See you in the theater,
Ed

14th: Dog Day Afternoon (Guest Post)

Hello friends,
   For a myriad of different reasons, I was unable to get out to GW's performances this weekend. That being the case, Max Young-Jones has stepped in to review 14th's production of Dog Day Afternoon for me. I should be back at it with the reviews myself next week for TRDA's Sweeney Todd and Generic's American Buffalo. For now, enjoy someone's opinion who isn't me!
See you in the theater,
Ed

PS - A special mention should be made for FPP's annual Rocky Horror Picture Show. Congrats on going legal with your 18th year FPP! (I didn't find a guest reviewer for Rocky.. if anyone is interested shoot me a message).

So in the interest of full disclosure, I went to go see 14th Grade Players' Production of Dog Day Afternoon…on Friday at 10:00.  Now normally this is an acceptable time to see a show but as any self respecting FPPerson would tell you, if they don't see your ass in the Rocky Horror line by 11:00 at least, you're not getting to see theirs. Student Theatre and quite a lot of the general GW populace know this, so the audience at the Vernbox was sparse.

Now of course this shouldn't effect performance, but it can. After all the audience are the actors primary source of energy. They're voyeurs that devour us with their eyes just as we devour their gaze in turn. Now I'm not saying that Dog Day Afternoon suffered or flourished because of the small audience, but I do have to note it.

So. On to the review.

Company Presentation

While it doesn't catch the eye, if stared at the poster is certainly arresting (pun intended). Andrea Edman's detached androgynous look shows that if the acting thing won't work out (and it will, see below) she's got a good career as a model. That and and the tagline give a kind of haunting quality  to the whole thing, suggesting that maybe the show is a psycho drama in a women's prison….which it isn't. The misrepresentation of show tone, lack of color, and cluttered top showing Mohamed Sidibay for no real reason other than to sport the 14th logo, make the posters an interesting art piece but ultimately fails for the job they're trying to accomplish. The tagline is extremely catchy though.

OH! And did you know that 14th is selling cups now!? I didn't and they are fabulous. Get some if you can. And if you haven't spent more than your entry ticket buying people in the show candy as part of 14's give a piece/buy a piece for the actors and yourself thing I highly recommend it. It's the little touches.

Set

The real star of the show.

I kid, I kid. Seriously though this was one of the coolest things I had ever seen, and one of 14th's more ambitious designing projects to date. Since the entire show takes place outside and inside a bank that's about to be robbed with a few scenes in the police department, the logical thing would be to divide the acting space into three playing areas, and perhaps play with levels to establish different contexts.

Well 14th had more ovaries than that. Instead, the audience is initially treated to what appear to be flats, a few painted that represent the outside of the bank (complete with door) and a blue painted playing space far stage left on a level that indicate the police station. Pretty boring, until the first blackout and you realize that the bank wall opens into a bank.  That's right, the outside walls fold in and reveal a well crafted and thoughtfully constructed playing space that includes a bank back door, counter, a bathroom, and even a money vault. I wish I knew who set designed this (the program doesn't say) since the entire thing is a masterwork. You could even fold one wall in and one out so that you could have a scene outside the bank as well as a scene inside simultaneously.  I guess my one complaint though would be that the police station, with it's lone telephone, looked a little bear. All in all though. Well done, people, well done.

Lights

Serviceable and that's really all to say. They don't especially stand out, but everyone was well lit even when they had to go to odd places on the stage. There's a moment in the play where the power is cut out, but all they did was just switch a few lights off. To wit while there was no particular artistry to the lighting, there was incredibly good craftsmanship. 

Acting

While some of it was quite charming, and it  was clear the cast was trying their hardest, it was largely mired by a lack of character refinement. If one is going to attempt mannerisms, modes of speech, or accent work one has to be able to do so in a way that it does not interfere with what the character is actually doing onstage. When it worked it worked, but when it didn't it fell flat.

Newcomer Mohamed Sidibay and Charlie's Aunt veteran Michael Farzi who played Sal and Every Side Character Ever respectably, were quite good and quite funny. Although Mohhamed was  hard to hear at times, he portrayed just the right amount of deadpan stupidity, and while his character was frequently confused I was never confused by his character. Michael Farzi on the other hand was perhaps a little too audible demonstrating a slight tendency towards hamminess, but his ability to drop in and out of character and his ability to be hilarious no matter who he was is impressive showing that he's still an acting force to be reckoned with.

However Jake Hoffman, Amy Szen, and Andrea Edman deserve extra special shootouts. Jake's Patrick Mulvaney was incredibly believable, gung-ho, and oddly paternal. It would've been easy to ignore that aspect of his character but Jake's interactions with his staff and his choice to be disappointed in Sam, rather than self-righteous, really hit home. Bravo, Jake, Bravo.

Amy Szen seemingly has little to do since Sylvia is a minor character, but what she does with that 'little' she does amazingly. Although a captive bank teller, she walks the thin line more than anyone of being in league with her captors. Ms. Szen accurately demonstrates Sylvia's inherent strength and it was always clear as to what she wanted and what she was thinking.

Last, but certainly not least, there is Andrea Edman. Having seen her act a few times in the past I know that her talent was never in question but this role really demonstrates her range. Playing the lead Sam Wortzik, a no-nonsense, ambiguously (and then not so ambiguously) lesbian bank robber, Andrea Edman is  thrilling to watch. Ms Edman is also smart enough to know that though her character naturally has a rough demeanor, she is not ruled by it. Her scene on the telephone with her wife Lana (played by Tori Kontor) is heartbreaking precisely because Ms. Edman is able to demonstrate how her characters natural reserve hinders her ability to connect with others. A very humanizing performance.

Directing

Mixed. All in all Cameron Hopkins directed a mixed show. I wasn't sure what it wanted to do tonally and some directorial choices didn't help. While the set was beautiful, the soundless blackouts required to change from the outside to the inside sucked away a lot of the energy giving it a dramatic vibe, which is fine if this were a straight drama. However since it was largely a comedy, energy is key and the moments without stimuli were wasted moments. Adding some music or even doing the set changes in light would have rectified that.

Furthermore a lot of characters were caricatures because they didn't seem directed with a specific focus on action. I did like that Mr. Hopkins knew enough to have the bank start acting more and more like a family, captor and captive alike but it wasn't clear if it was supposed to be funny or tense or whatever during a lot of moments. One may argue that the ambiguity was intentional and it was supposed to be one sometimes and the other the next, or even 'both' but if that were the case it didn't come down strongly on either side and good theatre is all about coming down strongly. I frequently found myself wondering if I should be laughing, not because the jokes were dark or morbid or whatever but because I wasn't sure if they were jokes. That combined with abrupt ending, made me wonder about what I just saw.

The play wasn't terrible it was just terribly confusing. In fact there was some incredibly good staging and character work which was impressive considering that this was a cast of 15. Not a great show, but  not a bad one either. 

See you in the theatre,

Max

Dog Day Afternoon was a 14th Grade Players production that ran in the Westhall Theatre from October 25th through October 28th. It was directed by Cameron Hopkins and was adapted from the Frank Pierson Screenplay also called Dog Day Afternoon. If you want, you can even see the 1975 Al Pacino movie that differs somewhat from the originally screenplay and differs significantly from Cameron's vision since he gender-bent the cast. 

Edited for grammar and format 10/30/12 - ESC

Studio Theater: The Invisible Man (A Guest Review)

Hello all! Today I present to you a guest review by my friend Max Young-Jones. Max is a junior in the theater department here at GW and the current artistic director of the GW Shakespeare Company. Enjoy!
-Ed

Today we talk about a professional  theatre community with a review of Studio Theatre's production of Invisible Man based off of the awe inspiring and lyrically ridonkulus novel by Ralph Ellison. No, not the THE Invisible Man with the invisible murderer in late Victorian London written by H.G. Wells. I'm talking about Invisible Man your High School English Teacher (and I) actually care about. The one with the racial commentary and the Marxist and the Africanism critique. Yeah. That one. Studio theatre staged It. Cue much fanboying.

Since Invisible Man was one of the rare books that I liked as much as my English Teacher I am obviously coming in with a bias. I know the material and themes are good. On the flip side I am paranoid that they'll mess it up. Still, since this wasn't Student Theatre and all of the actors on the program are Equity I knew not to be too afraid. In fact spoiler alert: It was really really quite good. Not perfect but well worth seeing and an exemplary bit of theatre. Let's take a look at the Invisible Man shall we?

Company Presentation:

It's Studio Theatre and they are professionals. Despite this, however, the poster and the image on the program was incredibly lackluster showing a purple hatted silhouette on a blue background. Go figure. I want my advertising to grab me by the balls and I felt rather unmolested.

Set: 

Invisible Man takes place in Studio Theatre's Metheny Theatre which is a demi-thrust a-La the Betts Theatre, only far smaller and the proscenium portion is elevated very slightly. Also like the Betts there are four vomitory aisles (two in the middle two on these sides) that the directors of the space like to abuse for some prime-time fourth wall breaking.

But this is all the boring stuff, since the set on the proscenium is gorgeous in it's dilapidation. While certainly not 'realism' the set mostly looks like, as it's supposed to look like, an underground bedroom in a crappy mid 20th century apartment. There's a disgusting bed, some crates, a table etc.  Further downstage are staircases that lead to a balcony area, as well as projector screens that act as thematic observers to the action, showing busy streets, rallies, etc.

The sets real virtue however is it's versatility. It can suddenly become a southern bar, a busy new york street, a college board room, a rally…at the drop of a hat. Since the framing device is the Invisible Man's memory and the play strays from realism this works incredibly well. 

Lighting

Sexy-Awesome and anyone familiar with the novel knows why. For those of you who aren't however, in the book the first description we get is of the hidey-hole our nameless protagonist has set up in, and the main features of that hidey-hole are the LIGHTS. He has hung hundreds of thousands of lightbulbs and chandeliers of every kind from the ceiling without rhyme or reason, because even though 'he's invisible he loves light'. 

Naturally Studio Theatre replicated this with great success. The low hanging ceiling even rises  when he's reenacting a scene from his memory and the lights give a sharp pulse along with a sound cue whenever a moment needs punctuating.  Apart from the obvious though the rest of the lights on the set do a good job of ranging from subtle and ethereal for the more surrealist moments of the play, and more hard and rigid for the realist ones. Even the vomitory aisle cast their actors in a kind of half light when called for. Very cool.

Acting 

Since Invisible Man is quite a large novel with several notable characters that appear across several locations the cast of ten, save for the nameless protagonist, play multiple characters and take part in a Greek Chorus like-ensemble. Suffice it to say they're all extremely talented however a few standouts do deserve mention.

First and foremost of course is Mr. Teagle F. Bougre, who plays the titular Invisible Man. While his acting was compelling, heartfelt, and powerful, when his character needed to portray extreme despair he very nearly avoided hamminess.  Despite this though he as able to switch between the narrator and the participator of his life at the drop of a hat, and all the scenes when his character needed to make speeches were so effective that I wanted to join Mr. Bougre's in rioting in the street. All and all a powerhouse performance from a gifted actor.

Johnny Lee Davenport  deserves noting, especially in his role as Doctor Bledsoe. While the character only appears at the very beginning of the play, his ability to portray a corrupt, charming, smug, Uncle-Tom who ironically is more powerful than his 'masters' was astounding. Mr. Davenport, also understands the twisted majesty of the character as well playing him with a sense of royal entitlement to his college rather than a sense of insecurity. 

Finally Julia Watt's Emma was incredibly well realized and even has the honor of deplaning my previous vision of the character. Ms Watt portrays the complexities of a young charming socialite, devout ideologue, and manipulative sex-kitten with ease and more importantly, restraint. It was probably the most reserved performance even during the (hilarious) seduction scene and for that  it was all the more intellectually stimulating and sexy. Well done Ms. Watt.

Direction.

I could go on and on and on about how fantastic Christopher McElroen's direction of the play was, so let's just assume that everything I talk about was perfect, engaging, clever and respectful so we save time shall we? Here's what I saw.

Since the novel drops in and out of  different times, spaces, memories and literary style the production does the same. Sometimes the director opts for more conventional ways of  staging to get points across but more often than not he lapses into thematics. To accomplish this McElroen uses actors like props to embody concepts, placing them half-lit in the vows, behind screens, and around corners. A particularly compelling scene was when a a character describes his deceased wife and an actress just wanders in slow motion in shadow upstage behind a scrim.

McElroen is also respectful of the racialized nature of the text and as such engages in traditional African American theatrical practices. Namely through song and poetic nature of expression. Throughout the production there are numerous musical interludes that are all thematically and tonally meaty. For those of you unfamiliar with Black Theatre I'm not saying that suddenly it became a musical, I'm saying that they sang songs that never effected the plot but nevertheless strengthened the production. Another clever touch was that whenever there needed to be a crowd of white people (three out of the ten actors were white) they'd have the other actors wear incredibly creepy and intentionally soulless white masks.  All and all an extremely good move on McElroen's part.

Invisible Man is a Studio Theatre production that closes on October 28 based off of the novel by Ralph Ellison, adapted to stage by Oren Jacoby and Directed by Christpher McElroen. If you have not seen it as of yet, make it a priority since it's one of the more unique and engaging pieces of art available. If not, at least read the novel.

See you in the theatre,

-Max

Edited for spelling and grammar 10/25/12

Generic: Doubt, A Parable

         Before I begin my review of Doubt, I need to do two things. First, I need everyone to go back and read the welcome post to this blog. Remember, this is in the interest of good theater and is a critique of work, not of people. Second, I need to reveal two more biases. The first is that I am a Catholic. Not just a Catholic, but a liberal Catholic - one who believes in the humanity of the Church, not just the divinity. As a Catholic, I have found the Church to be a place of refuge, hope, faith, and grace. And, I have befriended clergy members. I mean, anyone who is friends with me on Facebook knows that Fr. Brian is not only a spiritual mentor, but a dear friend.

         The second is that I love the written work that is John Patrick Shanley's Doubt. In fact, there was a time where I was considering doing it as an independent study with friend and roommate Lizzy Marmon. Why? Because it is a story of humanity. It raises one of the most important questions of Faith that a Christian can face: the question of doubt. But, while it does that, it also humanizes the clergy. Doubt takes a view of the clergy as PEOPLE. It reminds us that every single person we meet is a human being, as flawed and beautiful as you. Doubt pushes three clergy members to the breaking points of emotion with fiery language and deep seeded emotional truth. Unfortunately, as I am about to explain, I feel that this is a point which this production missed.

Company Presentation

        Once again, Generic's PR shows itself a bit ahead of the game in the student theater world. While not quite as cool as the audition posters (some of Priya's best work) the posters are still shadowy, and intriguing as they should be.

        Getting into the downstage was same old, same old. Which is totally fine and at this point in my GW career, strangely comforting. But, once inside I found I had to sit in a pew. Cool idea, not so well thought out. I mean, it totally added to the general ambiance of the production, but after an hour and a half on a narrow, wooden bench my bum was getting a bit numb (numb bum, heh heh).

        The director's opening speech given from the pulpit was a pretty nice touch though, and I settled in hoping for the best.

Set

       The set was decent. Just that, decent. It was essentially split into three segments: Sr. Aloysius' office SR, the court yard SL, and the church far SL. While Sr. Aloysius' office was well dressed with all the mundane accoutrement that one would expect in a nun's office, seams between flats showed that some details were simply over looked. The beige color was also a bit unappealing, though I suppose that's what they were going for. The leaves at least were pretty in the courtyard, and the stained glass window was gorgeous (though one audience member did joke asking if the Jesus depicted was a picture of artistic director Henry Morillo).

Lights
      A simplistic design was poorly executed here. What should have been an easy lights up, lights down was marred by shadow and holes. At one point - as Fr. Flynn adressed the audience as if they were a bunch of boys playing basketball - the light wasn't even on Fr. Flynn, it was on the front two rows of the audience. I found the lighting bland at best and distracting at worst. I noted in the program that the design was done by Megan Cowher - but I know she is out of town right now. So, purely speculation here, it would be my guess that much of the lighting work fell to master electrician Keaton White. Keaton is a new name to me so, again speculating, I would guess this is some of his first lighting work at GW. If that is the case then all is excusable. The secrets of downstage lighting take some time to figure out. So, if this was Keaton's first lighting work then I would be more than willing to give this production's lighting a pass.

Acting
      I had one major problem with the acting in this show: it seemed stifled. What should have been an energetic, powerfully emotional show came off as one note. Many of the characters felt one-sided and none of the moments that I wanted to be big (read: explosive) were. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the lack of dynamics bothered me. But not only that, the pacing was painfully slow. For a full scene it was possible to count 3 second breaks between every line - nearly every sentence. What should have been an hour and 15 minute show ran an hour and 35 minutes. At least Meghan Bernstein had a distinct character as Sr. Aloysius. Unfortunately she seemed to have been stifled and held back. The one character whose pain I could feel only had one scene. Francisca Cromwell did a good job as Mrs. Muller, portraying a woman who had been repeatedly burned by the world and was sadly willing to take it again if she had to.

Directing
     I have to begin by saying Lianna Havel is wonderful girl. Her director's note implies that she took away from Doubt the same things I did when I first read it. Unfortunately, the things she stated in her director's note didn't seem to translate to the stage. The blocking seemed restrictive and forced. Several bad actor habits that should have been caught in rehearsal seem to have gone unnoticed [Our Fr. Flynn had a claw hand problem that slightly resembles a closed Zoidberg version of Mike Noel's open Zoidberg hand (Love you Mike... David, I don't know you, I'm sure I'd love you too)]. But what got me the most was the one note approach that seemed to be taken with characterization. The whole thing felt very one note, missing the complexities and excitement of the human experience.



Really, I just wanted so much more from this production. I wanted so badly to be blown away by Shanley's work again. Perhaps that caused me to go in with expectations that were too high. Not one of Generic's best productions, but I still look forward to seeing their next show American Buffalo November 1st through 3rd. Love you all.

See you in the theater,
Ed

PS- I want to take this moment to remind people of something dangerous: the comment section! Don't agree with me? Let me know! The whole point here is to start discussion. Though, keep in mind, any shall we say "inappropriate memes" will be flagged as spam (regardless of how hilarious).