Review: “London Assurance” (City Lit Theatre)

Kraig Kelsey, Kat Evans/Photo: Ally Neutze

Show: “London Assurance”

Company: City Lit Theatre

Venue: City Lit Theatre (1020 West Bryn Mawr Ave)

If you follow the Chicago theatre market at all, you have probably noticed that the air is full of tension these days.  Even before the most recent controversy over the writings of another critic in town, theatre practitioners have been highly energized over the last few months, largely because of the political climate of the country.  There have been calls from artists to their peers that ask us all to focus exclusively on making our works political in nature.  The quote that “All art is political” can be attributed to many, many people over the years, but one of my favorite renditions of the maxim comes from Ingmar Bergman: “Today we say all art is political. But I’d say all art has to do with ethics. Which after all really comes to the same thing. It’s a matter of attitudes.”  A constant barrage of pieces of angry, politically charged theatre have come to Chicago’s stages since November (and before).  They are welcome and they are needed, but sometimes audiences and artists need reprieve from the repetition of comment on the political climate.  So, it is that a comedy of manners from 1841 is a welcome addition to the theatrical scene.  It is a beautiful bit of comedic relief from a world that grates daily upon the spirit.  And yet, any comedy of manners revolves around ethics, and so Mr. Bergman remains correct.

“London Assurance” covers familiar territory for British farces of the early 1800s.  An old man is engaged to a nubile youth of 18 years.  The geezer’s son meets the young lady and falls in love.  She, too, has feelings for the younger guy.  Additional characters get involved, muddle the plot, and everything works out in the end.  It’s fun, funny, and mostly predictable.  And, that’s okay.  In fact, it’s quite enjoyable.

Kingsley Day/Photo: Ally Neutze

Supposedly an influence on Oscar Wilde’s writing, this is witty show about the upper crust behaving badly.  At first light, Edward Kuffert takes the stage as the clever and droll butler, Cool.  His opening moments addressing the audience directly set a tone for the entire play, which does depend heavily on asides to comment on the action and provide a good deal of the humor.  A moment later, rapscallions Richard Dazzle (Richard Eisloeffel) and Charles Courtly (Kraig Kelsey) take the stage.  The latter of the two is the son, mentioned above, who will come to fall in love with his father’s betrothed.  The former is a scheming trouble-maker whose machinations don’t carry direct malice of mischievousness, but rather the overall goal of providing himself an easy life.  And yet, it is those self same plots and actions which lead to much of the show’s complications.  Eisloeffel plays the part with easy charm and a puckish grin.

The other unintentional trouble-maker of the show is Squire Max Harkaway (James Sparling).  He is charmed by Richard Dazzle, and starts the chain of invitations that leads to Charles Courtly’s wooing of Grace Harkaway (Kat Evans), who just so happens be to both Max Harkaway’s niece, and Charles’s father’s fiance.  Sparling’s confident and engaging presence allows the boisterous role of Max to take firm hold of the show and carry it upon his shoulders.  Each time he takes the stage, things get more interesting.

Director Terry McCabe has done a tremendous job of casting the show exactly as needed.  Each actor seems fits their character so well, I can’t imagine another in their part. And the staging flows naturally, in a play that has a number of far-from-natural contrivances that make the whole thing work.  I mentioned the asides earlier.  Often times, I find such theatrical conventions annoying thanks to poor staging.  They can kill an otherwise sharp production.  McCabe’s cast executes the clever side comments in a way that makes you look forward to the next one.

There was one character that I could do without, Mark Meddle (Joe Feliciano).  At the time of its writing, perhaps the self-serving, maleficent lawyer may have lampooned some specific current opinion of attorneys.  In fact, it still may.  But as scripted, the overly-litigious, money-grubbing lawyer could be edited out of the script and it would remove needless distraction from what is an otherwise tight script.  Feliciano does all he can with the role.  What is lacking here is a fault of the playwright, not the actor.

A quick call-out to the scenic designer, Ray Toler, whose  rotating walls allowed City Lit’s uniquely shaped stage to become two large British estates.  And Tom Kieffer’s costumes were exactly what it took to place this show in its time and place, the attention to detail in the dresses was marvelous.

Finally, I cannot truly review this show without mention of Kingsley Day’s performance as Sir Harcourt Courtly.  The elder lover in this play is an absurd role, and this is just the sort of thing at which Day excels.  I’ve worked with Kingsley on stage in Gilbert & Sullivan shows, and this role has a bit of the flavor of many of the characters he’s embodied over the years.  I thoroughly enjoy watching an actor shine in a role that seems to have been written for him.  Not once do you hope that Sir Harcourt will get the girl, and it is easy to revel in his self-inflicted mishaps.  And yet, the character is hard not to love.  Day gives him that little something special that wriggles the aging fop into one’s heart.

TEN WORD SUMMARY:  After 120 years, this show is welcome back in Chicago

RATING: d12 – “Heckuva Good Show”

Review: “Musical Therapy” (Death & Pretzels)

Show: “Musical Therapy”

Company: Death & Pretzels

Venue: Gorilla Tango (1919 N. Milwaukee)

Die Roll: 19

There are certain things that one looks for in a major Broadway musical or a show at the Goodman that one doesn’t expect from a small theatre in a tiny black box setting.  In fact, the storefront theatre scene creates a very different hunk of art than does the loop theatre district.  This isn’t really a headline of any sort.  Anyone who has taken in a show or two in Chicago knows how it is.  But, if you don’t take in storefront musicals often, perhaps you’ll allow me to take a moment to contemplate what makes the perfect storefront musical experience…

For me, a perfect storefront musical must begin with an admission to oneself that expectations are not high.  I see 10 to 20 new musicals a year and most of them are in tiny venues by people who are earnest, but not experienced makers of musical art.  And, because of this, I know that in most instances I’m going to leave in what amounts to a listener’s walk of shame, head slung low wondering how I’ll forget what just came to pass (and normally, once I’ve written my review of said show, it does leave my brain quickly).  However, there are a few shows that were so remarkably bad that the damage sticks with me years later.  So, when the music starts and the first number gets rolling, there has to be that moment when a singer hits a sour note, or an errant step makes the choreography look wrong.  That single moment is the set-up for the perfect storefront musical.  That flaw allows the reviewer/audience to think that they are once again in for a stinker, only to then have the whole ship righted and the production to rise well above their anticipated quality.

In “Musical Therapy”, Death & Pretzels presents an evening that isn’t perfect, but which does offer up the perfect storefront musical theatre experience.  The harmonies in composer Joey Katsiroubas’s first number are a little roughly rendered by the five actors who first grace the stage.  Dan Hass’s book staggers into the first spoken scene like a timid and gawky teen.  Awkwardness abounds.  Then, after about five minutes, the show hits its stride and its comfort zone, and it never looks back.  Hass’s script is funny, and intelligent.  Karsiroubas’s songs are memorable to the point that I’ve currently got one of them stuck in my head as I write this.  The show’s structure is familiar, but quirky in a way that both reinforces what we want in a musical, but also pokes fun at what can be a a too tired trope at times.  It is refreshingly tongue-in-cheek while simultaneously honest and true to itself.

At the heart of this production is a tale about a couples therapist, Theresa (Haley Mozer), who is unlucky in love herself.  She is in lust with the guy (Ethan Peterson) who’s just moved into the office next door to hers.  And she longs to get with him. Most of the show takes place in Theresa’s therapy sessions with two couples.  Ryder (Matt Lamson) and Liz (Emma Palizza) suffer from a lack of sexual chemistry (largely because she’s secretly a lesbian). Timothy (Sean Cameron) and Darcie (Erika Hakmiller) are addressing some control issues (hers over him). Each session contains a catchy number in which the relationship is explained, and then a time buzzes and the session is over.  Theresa discovers that Will (Peterson) has a girlfriend, and she schemes to use her practice to tear them apart, while also reshuffling the romantic deck for all of her clients.  Hilarity ensues.

Director Madison Smith guides the cast through what could be cliche situations with a deft sense of comedy, elevating the show’s potentially silly moments to something better.  Smith’s efforts are helped along by the choreography of Brian Boller.  None of the dancing is too technically demanding, but it fits the mood of the piece perfectly, and establishes that the show’s laughs will come from physical sources as well as script-based chuckles.

My one gripe with the show is that there is only a 5-minute intermission.  In this day and age of short shows with no intermission, I wouldn’t have minded if the break were outright eliminated, but if it is necessary, a slightly longer lull in the action would be good so that drinks may be procured and bathrooms visited.  I understand that Gorilla Tango runs a tight ship when it comes to scheduling multiple shows on the same stage each night, but the 5-minute interlude doesn’t serve a positive purpose for anyone.

Gorilla Tango can be a very limiting space in which to put up a production, and it’s probably the last place I would think to put up a musical, but I can safely say that “Musical Therapy” is worth casting aside any trepidation or otherwise negative expectations regarding the venue and/or storefront musicals in general.  It is a good evening well spent, a fun time, and a show that fits its environs perfectly, treating its topic both viciously and lovingly.  Death & Pretzels has created a show that succeeds at being exactly what is and what it should be.

TEN WORD SUMMARY: Sock puppets and sex and singing and dancing and wow.

RATING: d20 – “One Of The Best”

Review: “Objects in the Mirror” (Goodman Theatre)

Daniel Kyri/Photo: Liz Lauren

Show: “Objects in the Mirror”

Company: Goodman Theatre

Venue: Goodman Theatre

Die Roll: 11

Let me begin by saying that this show is the best production that I’ve seen so far in 2017.  It’s scope and scale are epic, and though Charles Smith’s “Objects in the Mirror” addresses the struggles of one family unit, the story told is so much bigger than that of just a handful of people.  This production, directed by Chuck Smith (not the same guy as the aforementioned Charles, nor of any relation), only has five actors who often seem dwarfed by the massive, yet simple scenery (designed by Riccardo Hernandez).  As I continue to digest what I saw on the Goodman’s stage, I keep returning to the set and how it informed the action of the play.  The set itself was simple in that it included very few elements and there were no raised platforms or intricately built pieces, or ornate decorations.  Yet, every piece was immense.  A large and imposing ceiling/roof loom large over segments of the play that take place in the present (much of the show is in flashback).  A massive, retractable rear wall facilitates projections, as well as a border that rises up from ground level to the infinite heavens.  Often a bare stage creates a sense of vastness that is difficult to overcome because a lone actor in that gaping space seems ever so small; a tiny force against insurmountable odds.

Breon Arzell, Daniel Kyri, Allen Gilmore/Photo: Liz Lauren

Shedrick Kennedy Yarkpai (Daniel Kyri) is the individual most often confronted by the outward forces in this story.  After all, he is the tale’s protagonist.  We meet him as a survivor of a decade-long struggle to be free of the violence and oppression that has torn many western African nations apart.  He now resides in Australia.  He is on a search for meaning in his life and for who he really is.  As part of that, he revisits his life story up to that point.  In flashback we meet his crafty trickster uncle (Allen Gilmore), his mother (Lily Mojekwu), and his cousin (Breon Arzell).  These are the people who share Shedrick’s world.  And they are the ones who make it possible for him to escape the dangers of a country that kills off its young men by fighting civil wars with child armies.

Charles Smith has written a piece that makes the reality of war ever-present and imposing.  Shedrick is never sure of who he can trust, and in all likelihood, his uncle’s advice to trust no one is best applied.  And yet, one wants to trust the people nearest to them.  And the internal struggle of who to trust and how much is at the heart of this play.  The narrative struggle of the journey toward freedom is matched in intensity by the personal journey taken by Shedrick as he struggles with self-identity and conscience.  Can Shedrick trust his uncle?  Can he trust his own mother?  Can he trust himself?  For that matter, can anyone trust anyone else ever?

Chuck Smith’s powerfully simple staging gives the more dynamic and complex moments of the play a gigantic blank canvas upon which to create an overall picture that is both brilliant and dark.  The cast rises to the task of telling a gripping and meaningful tale, always surrounded by the spirit that they are just a small part of something so much larger, but never being defeated by the overall massiveness of their troubles.  This is a piece that must be seen.

TEN WORD SUMMARY: Trust in this one thing: You should see this play.

DICE RATING: d20 – “One Of The Best”

Review: “We’re Gonna Die” (Haven Theatre)

Isa Arciniegas/ Photo: Austin D Oie

Show: “We’re Gonna Die”

Company: Haven Theatre Company

Venue: The Den Theatre (1333 N Milwaukee Ave)

Die Roll: 4

On the surface, I really like the idea of a show that is made up of a rock singer and a backing band.  In fact, I was really excited going into this show, especially since Haven Theatre Company has a production of “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” in its not-to-distant past.  So, if anyone can tackle what could be described quickly as a female approach to the same idea, it should be them.  And, in all regards, the production managed to do a reasonable job of putting forth a one-woman show about confronting her own mortality.  The backing band was solid (more on that shortly).  The lead singer (Isa Aciniegas) was well matched to the songs, her vocals being both impassioned and frenzied, while capturing a soulful resonance at the right times.

So, wherein is my problem with this show?  First, the execution of the basic concept.  Normally a statement like that would put the blame on the director, but the failing here is not on Josh Sobel.  It is on playwright Young Jean Lee.  While speaking at the top of the show, Singer (Aciniegas) says that she is going to share thoughts with us that she’s been having that have to do with the darker times and her intention in doing so is to give us positive things to reflect on when we hit those more difficult moments (I’m paraphrasing here, but that’s a quick summation of her opening monologue).  She then spends the first half hour relating tales and singing songs that do not work toward that stated purpose, but which seem to have been written as exposition for some play that might have a plot, and may happen in the future, but not tonight.  Luckily the second half of the piece gets on track, and not only targets the stated goal of the show, but makes it quite enjoyable.

The show itself is brief (barely over an hour and perhaps a quarter more).  And it is loud.  The company kindly provides earplugs.  The show can easily be heard through them clearly, and wearing them prevents tinnitus, so I recommend them heartily.  The band is backed up against a brick wall and no matter where you sit in the tiny Janet Bookspan Theatre (one of the ground floor spaces at The Den), you’re never more than 16 feet from an amplifier.

Sarah Giovannetti, Spencer Meeks, Jordan Harris, Isa Arciniegas/Photo by Austin D. Oie

So, the songs that make up the better part of the show are really well written.  And the band rocks them hard.  Spencer Meeks is a tremendous guitarist and has an enviable stack of effects pedals which color the moods of the world we’re visiting in this show.  Drummer Sarah Giovannetti sets the beat and drives her way through some impressive solos, and Jordan Harris and Elle Walker (both on keys and backing vocals) blend really well and create a great overall sound.  As a concert, I was both impressed by this show, and I enjoyed it.

Then there were the stories/monologues/whatevers.  None of them were badly scripted.  Young Jean Lee is a skillful writer.  But, the words didn’t necessarily ring true.  Part of that is due to the presentational structure of a concert setting.  Singer’s direct interaction with the audience at what should be moments of connection are inhibited by a microphone planted against her lips.  Touching moments feel more like stand-up comedy than instances of emotional vulnerability.  Also, there seems to be a casting issue here.  I’m not besmirching Arciniegas, nor her talent.  She’s good.  But, she’s not in her 40’s.  She’s not old enough to be the contemporary of her friend who she is talking about in one scene, a friend who was 40-something long enough ago that the two have now lost touch and she can speak about it casually as having taken place a few years ago.  Another scene talks about Singer confronting her own realization of mortality when she gets her first gray hair. As an early middle-aged individual, plucking that first gray hair could definitely cause one to realize that youth has come to a close.  Once again, though, the script puts that occurrence in Singer’s past, and in her early- to mid-20’s, it is highly unlikely that she’s sensing that her youth has now flown.

I found myself constantly struggling with a disconnected feeling from the material.  I see what Sobel and his cast are attempting to do, but never was I drawn into what could have been an empowering, or at least entertaining evening about life, death, and everything else.  So it is that I merely got to hear some well-executed music, and some sub-par storytelling.

TEN WORD SUMMARY: Monologue masquerades as rock concert. Trying hard to be profound.

DICE RATING: d8 – “Not Bad.  Not Great.”

Review: “Queen” (Victory Gardens)

Stephen Spencer, Priya Mohanty, Darci Nalepa/Photo: Liz Lauren

Show: “Queen”

Company: Victory Gardens Theater

Venue: Biograph Theater (2433 N. Lincoln Ave)

Die Roll: 3

For the last ten years or so, there has been a spotlight on the mysterious disappearance of honey bees in America, and across the planet.  So, it isn’t at all surprising that plays have now been written about Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).  I’ve reviewed one other play about the topic a couple of years ago.  This second go-’round with the topic is similar to my last, in that both works are less about the bees than about the relationships of the humans on the stage.  Madhuri Shekar’s “Queen” looks at the interactions between two women who are researching the issue of CCD.  Shekar doesn’t try to draw comparisons between the lives of the bees and the humans investigating them.  That’s a relief.  When it comes down to it, the social structures forced upon those who live within academia are nothing like the shared communal intellect of a beehive.  Shekar’s characters are solid representations of scientists in the high-pressure final stage of getting a study published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Ariel Spiegel (Darci Nalepa) and Sanam Shah (Priya Mohanty) are two PhD candidates at a school that is part of the University of California system (in real life, UC-Davis is one of the leading sites of research into CCD).  The ladies are good friends, in addition to being partners on a study that is set to be published in the journal “Nature”.  They are simply one batch of data away from making their careers go gangbusters.  A problem arises when the newest data doesn’t match their earlier projections, and the validity of their whole study is called into question.

The women are pressured by their advising professor (played by the dynamic Stephen Spencer) into fudging the numbers so that publication can go forward.  And, Sanam encounters a potential love interest whose opposing views on most of her beliefs shakes the foundations upon which her work rests.  Adam Poss’s turn as Arvind Patel, the suave, over-sexed, greed-driven match found for Sanam by her parents, is one of the most entertaining parts of the show.  Arvind is not a terribly redeemable character, but he is strangely likable to both the audience and Sanam.

In most moments of this play, there is an intimacy and an urgency that can draw in people who know nothing about science generally, or the bee problem specifically.  One need not know anything about science and how it is pursued in order to identify with the two women who are struggling within their own lives with the day-to-day stressors that make all of our lives complicated.  I think this is wherein Shekar’s script most succeeds.  Friends support each other, until the crucial moment when they don’t.  Fights get personal, and healing is difficult.  This is the messiness of being human told in a tale of people who are often seen as distant and clinical in their interactions with others.

Director Joanie Schultz brings out both the common preconception of scientists (socially awkward, logical rather than emotional beings) and the truly passionate side of real life scientists who truly believe in what they are doing and the people whom they are doing them with.  I struggled with the first scene of the play as it is seen at Victory Gardens because Nalepa and Mohanty stand awkwardly together and have what is essentially a very awkward presentational chat which serves as the play’s exposition.  They have this chat with beers in hand, so we’re supposed to see them as friendly to each other and having a casual chat at a conference.  It is a scene that doesn’t immediately draw you into liking the characters, nor understanding that they are close friends and have been for years.  But, as was recently explained to me by my wife (who is a scientist–a chemist, to be precise), that’s basically what socializing at a conference is like.  So, now after the fact, I give the first scene a bit of a pass, though while watching the show, I was relieved that the production improved greatly after a rough start.

TEN WORD SUMMARY:  Watching their dreams collapse causes friends to take a stand.

RATING: d12 – “Heckuva Good Show”

Weekly Preview: 2/8 – 2/14 (Chart and Musings)

What on Earth?!  We’re finally back with weekly previews?!  Yes.  It is true.  Finally, after a few months away, you can join us in rolling your dice on the chart to determine the show you’re going to attend this weekend.  We’ve got two shows on our docket.  Exciting stuff!  As you look over the chart to the right, you’ll notice a number of terrific pieces opening this weekend, and a few on there that are just in their second week.  Should be a lot of fun!

For Something Completely Different:

If you’re thinking you’d rather not go all random, and put your fate in the luck of a roll.  Then, perhaps you’d prefer to take in a surefire laugher… Here’s a show that isn’t listed on our charts because it doesn’t have quite enough performances to meet our minimums for inclusion, but it’s one that is close to our hearts here at Theatre By Numbers: “Hot Buns & Beefcakes: Linda Belcher’s Love Connection” is playing at The Playground Theater every Saturday in February.  For those familiar with “Bob’s Burgers”, you’ll note that the show is named for one of the TV cartoon’s characters.  For those of you not familiar, well, why aren’t you?!  C’mon!  So, we seldom get to see one of our own on the stage (we’re writers, after all)– but in the instance of this show, Theatre By Numbers regular contributor Maggie Wagner is starring in the production.  Click here for more info, and Click here for tickets.

Do You Have A Critical Eye?

We are looking for at least one critic (most likely, two) to join our ranks here at Theatre By Numbers.  We’re expanding our coverage, but in order to do so, we need another pen or two to join up and help us tell the world about the awesome theatre scene here in Chicago.  If you’re interested, please send a couple of writing samples to cokidder@theatre1234.com along with a blurb about you and why you’d make a good theatre reviewer.  We’d love to read your stuff and help to ensure that other people do, too!

Well… that’s it for this week.  More next week. And a few reviews in the meantime!

Review: Psychonaut Librarians (The New Colony)

Jack McCabe, Christine Mayland Perkins, Matt Farabee/Photo by Evan Hanover

Show: “Psychonaut Librarians”

Company: The New Colony

Venue: The Den Theatre (1333 N Milwaukee Ave, 2nd Floor)

Die Roll: 7

As a lover of books, I find any play that takes on the topic of librarians as fascinating.  As the child of a children’s librarian myself, I spent many an hour among the shelves and stacks.  Libraries–as well as the books contained therein–can be magical.  From my viewpoint, a play that suggests that what is often a figurative bridge to other worlds might also be a literal one launches itself from a solid base.  However, not every launch is successful.  Many rockets crashed or exploded before we put one into space.  And, though “Psychonaut Librarians” by Sean Kelly doesn’t crash and burn, it fails to get into orbit, or touch the stratosphere.

At its core this play is one in want of development.  There are perfect moments.  Kelly’s script mentions the perfect moments in one’s life when his lead character, Jane (Christine Mayland Perkins), speaks of having just added one to her list of perfect moments.  And, in truth, that moment is exactly what it mentions.  It is one of the few times when the script, the physicality of the actors, the sound design, and the projections all come together to create a well-defined, believable, and embraceable universe.  I wish that more of the show could be like that.

Director Krissy Vanderwarker has put together a cast of varied skill and called upon them to take on widely varied tasks in creating a world that is supernatural and familiar.  Perkins is strong enough to carry much of the show on her own.  Her acting brings you into the action and tempts you to care about what is going on.  Her physical work, along with that of her frequent scene partner, Matt Farabee (in the role of Jane’s love from another world, Dewey), is great.  The two of them share a physical vocabulary that creates some beautifully executed moments.  Yet, no matter how skillfully

David Cerda, Christine Maylan Perkins/Photo by Evan Hanover

employed a technique is, if the moment doesn’t fit in with the adjacent moments, then it is just out of place.  Such is the case with the show’s perfect moment.  The rest of its surroundings don’t jive.

Most of the time, when I see David Cerda’s name on a cast list, I assume that the show is going to be a campy comedy.  That’s because it is what Cerda is best at (as evidenced by the success of his company Hell in a Handbag Productions).  While I’ve seen him do other roles very successfully, I still expect something specific from him as an actor, and this production delivers that.  At least, when Cerda is on stage.  The show’s camp level goes up when Cerda’s librarian character, Hester, is present.  She is melodramatically making her way through a messy divorce, which is why she’s got her daughter with her in the library at the show’s beginning.  In that library we meet the Sandman (stiffly rendered by Jack McCabe) and his minions, Dreams (puppets manipulated by various cast members).  This villain resonates with all the menace of a mid-January mud puddle.  But, as the script informs us, he is pure evil and something to be feared.  Oh, and he apparently nibbles away parts of your soul.

Now, you may have noticed that I mention above that “the script informs us”.  That’s the greatest problem with this show.  In what appears to be an attempt to mimic the narrator’s voice within a story, various actors/characters recite pieces of exposition in the manner of prose from a somewhat poetic novel.  I get why this device is employed, for Jane eventually takes control of and tells her own story.  Nevertheless, the play suffers from an immense amount of telling-rather-than-showing.

And what it tells us isn’t terribly interesting much of the time.  Or, it is just too cluttered and not fleshed out.  Hester’s coworkers eventually join Jane on an adventure across the “anyverse” wherein you can be and do anything. And yet the do not choose to be or do much of anything that creates an interesting tale.  A few fun bits do pop up.  One particularly enjoyable moment is when the characters each have to pop through a tight spot and do so by miraculously shrinking and morphing into puppet form until they are on the other side.  This is a much better employment of puppetry arts than the earlier representation of the Dreams.

Matthew Farabee, Christine Mayland Perkins/Photo by Evan Hanover

But, why go on this adventure?  Why does it matter?  If, as Jane states, this is a love story, why does Jane chase her love all over creation and then some?  This especially confuses me because each time she comes near Dewey, he declares his love or his oneness with her, and then tries to kill her, violently.  Granted, one can say that it’s because he’s being controlled by the Sandman, but one can also discern a pattern in the behavior.  There is room in this tale to show Dewey’s struggle against that control, but it isn’t shown as the play currently exists.  There is room for Dewey’s regret, or Jane’s attempt to reconcile his behavior and his words.  Those things don’t happen here, either.  So, I don’t care if Jane and Dewey ever get together.  Why should they?  And why should any of the others be convinced that they are perfect for each other and worthy of an epic quest?

Too much is left to the audience’s imaginations to supply, which ironically is the beauty of books.  Much of what one can glean from a book is then processed in each reader’s own imagination.  But, the trick in writing a good book, perhaps one that gets published as opposed to a few hundred pages that should remain in someone’s bottom drawer, is knowing that you must provide a complete enough picture that the reader doesn’t have to fill in so much that it is overwhelming.

There is enough fun and laughter throughout to make the show a mostly enjoyable evening, even if it is a bit of a let down overall.  And that’s in and of itself a bit frustrating.  Each time the show leads you to believe it’s getting good, it lapses into disconnected segments surrounding that one perfect moment.

TEN WORD SUMMARY: Surreal adventures of librarian’s daughter chasing abusive lover across universe.

DICE RATING: d8 – “Not Bad.  Not Great.”

Review: “The Sundial” (City Lit Theater)

Show: The Sundial

Company: City Lit Theater

Venue:  Edgewater Presbyterian – 2nd Floor (1020 W Bryn Mawr)

As the lights went down on the first act of “The Sundial”, the woman behind me was speaking to whomever came to the show with her.  She said, “I’m really glad I read this book before we came.  I’m not sure I would understand what’s going on if I hadn’t.”  Sadly, I hadn’t read Shirley Jackson’s book prior to attending the performance.  Any adaptation that requires extensive knowledge of the source material to fill in the gaps left in the script is not a good adaptation.  I was a huge fan of director Paul Edwards’ previous adaptation of Jackson’s “The Haunting of Hill House”.  I cannot say that I am a fan of this current production, however.

What was missing from this production, that permeated the earlier one, is a sense that you can tell what the characters are thinking. Motivation is often lacking in the decisions made by these characters.  At least, it isn’t at all clear.  Much of this presentation seems more like an absurdist play akin to “Ubu Roi”, rather than a suspense-filled thriller that influenced the works of Stephen King, among others.  Events happen in an established order.  That’s the closest this show comes to having an actual plot.

Here’s the nitty-gritty:  Leo has died.  This only matters in the fact that he is in line to inherit the manor house in which the play is set.  We never meet him.  We do, however, meet his widow, his daughter, his mother, his father, and the servants and others who reside in the house.  As the lights rise on the scene, the play initially seems to be about an angry pre-teen (Lauren Mangum) who claims that her grandmother has killed her father.  The grandmother (Sheila Willis) is a youthful and comely woman who takes care of her ailing husband (Kingsley Day) while having a blatantly public affair with Essex (John Blick) who is in residence as the family archivist.  With Leo out of the way, Orianna (the grandmother) has become her husband’s lone heir.  And she’s kicking everyone out of the house who has lived there prior to the funeral, including her man-thing, Essex.

That all sounds like a great set up for a dramatic family intrigue.  Murder, suspense, wickedness and spiteful revenge.  But, that’s not what we get.  Instead, there is suddenly a whole bunch of poorly explained supernatural crap that interrupts what could have been an otherwise intriguing peace.  The issue of whether or not Orianna killed her son to get the house is quickly forgotten and instead we watch a frantically obsessed household prepare for the end of the world by essentially becoming the early-1960s version of preppers.

Why does this happen?  Well, apparently because Aunt Fanny (Morgan McCabe) has seen a vision of her father (who is also the father of Orianna’s terminally ill husband).  Fanny’s vision predicts the end of the world, followed by paradise on earth.  Now, why an entirely large household buys into this vision isn’t very clear.  There are two instances that may serve as arguments for the vision’s validity, but no character is a skeptic, no character explains why they are swayed to believe that what the old lady is saying is true.  Everyone just jumps on the bandwagon and fully embraces a massive lifestyle change that involves never leaving the house and believing that they are the ones chosen to survive the apocalypse.

The previous three paragraphs explaining what was happening are only possible for me to write because I looked up the book’s information and summary on Wikipedia.  In truth, I spent most of the first act horribly thrown off by the disjointed storytelling and the fact that it was difficult to tell who was talking about whom and why.

In the second act some things became more clear, although a small subplot about one of the house’s guests trying to leave muddies things a bit.  Nevertheless, the script improves in the 2nd act.  The characters are also better defined.  The show never rises to the level of brilliant, but it’s easier to follow after the break.

I am frustrated in writing this review, as I wanted to like the show.  I really wanted to like it, largely because of how much I enjoyed the previous effort by the same adapter of the same author’s work.  There were some great performances.  Kingsley Day’s performance as the wheelchair-bound invalid, Richard, was great.  As was his turn as Miss Inverness, a shop keeper from the town nearby.  Each time Day came on stage, the show improved exponentially.  John Blick’s turn as Essex was intriguing.  At moments he was despicable, at others he was the easiest to empathize with.  Blick gave dynamism to what he was able to dig out of the script.

TEN WORD SUMMARY: What’s going on? Why are they doing that? Good Question.

DICE RATING: d6- “Has Some Merit”

Chris’s Picks: Top 5 Shows of 2016

Every year is unique when you work in the theatre world.  For me, 2016 was a bittersweet year.  I saw fewer shows in the past 365 days than I have in any year since 2011.  I was only in the audience for 50 performances this year.  That’s down from 3 times that last year.  However, that was the result of working on more shows myself, and that’s a good thing.  My own theatre company is one of the many that closed up shop this year.  So, it’s on to new things with the new year.  But first, let’s take time to reflect, and celebrate the five best shows that I saw in 2016!

#1

Show: “Byhalia, Mississippi”

Company: The New Colony and Definition Theatre

Venue: The Den Theatre

TEN WORD SUMMARY: How, when, and why do you choose to forgive someone?

RATING: d20 — “One Of The Best”

My first top-rated show of 2016 never fell out of the top spot.  No matter what other crap went down in 2016, the year started out really strong and with a lot of promise.  I don’t have much new to say about this piece that I didn’t already say in my original review, so I’ll just quote a bit of that piece here: “Back when I was in grad school for playwriting, one of my professors maintained that no matter what else was true about your script, none of it mattered without the characters.  Well drawn characters can tell just about any story and make it moving.  Addressing issues makes something a platform, creating characters makes it a play.  Linder would have aced that professor’s class.  His characters are real people.  They have real problems.  They have real feelings.  They speak in very real cadences that bring the viewer into the world of the play.  This is a really well-crafted work.”  With this play, The New Colony and Definition Theatre tackled many of the issues that came to the fore in the political landscape of our presidential election.  He wrote a play about working class whites, upwardly mobile blacks, the tensions between races and classes, and how all societally held beliefs and attitudes are built and defined (and hopefully changed) at a personal level.  When we eventually look back on the career of Evan Linder, this play will be studied as his masterwork.

#2

Show: [Trans]formation”

Company: Nothing Without a Company & The Living Canvas

Venue: Collaboraction Studio

TEN WORD SUMMARY: Gender is not defined by genitalia despite actors being naked.

RATING: d20 — “One Of The Best”

I can safely say that not enough people saw this show.  Even had they sold out every night, that statement would still be true.  Nothing Without a Company and The Living Canvas put six completely naked transgendered and/or non-binary actors on stage and through powerfully emotional monologues, thoughtful songs, and intellectually challenging concept pieces, they led the audience to more or less ignore the genitalia bared in front of them.  The characters, the tales, the vibrantly colored projections all came together to create an evening of perception-altering art that changed those who saw it.  I came away enriched, informed, entertained, and fundamentally changed.  I can pin-point about five plays in my life that have shaken-up what I consider theatre to be.  Director Gaby Labotka has grabbed hold of my preconceptions and given them a good rattling.

#3

Show: “The Misanthrope”

Company: Piccolo Theatre

Venue: Piccolo Theatre

TEN WORD SUMMARY: A Moliere translation for a new generation. This play matters.

RATING: d20 — “One Of The Best”

If one had to pick a French playwright to be declared that language’s equivalent to Shakespeare, one would have to say Moliere.  And yet, in translation, his pieces often feel dated and less universal than the works of the Bard.  So, I was pleasantly surprised by Piccolo’s new translation of “The Misanthrope”.  This was an artfully executed piece that was updated to a modern setting.  The manners of the French court were swapped out for the proclivities of modern show business.  But, the essence of what was being said remained the same.  The script even remained in verse.  It was perfect for this time and place.  We all identified with the characters in a way that just isn’t possible to do when seeing an older translation still set in the 1600s.  One of my first professional jobs 20 years ago was on a production of “The Misanthrope”.  It wasn’t until Piccolo’s production of Martin Crimp’s literal and cultural translation that I truly felt I understood the work at its more basic level.  Ben Muller’s portrayal of Alceste was dynamic and director Michael D. Graham’s overall approach to the work focused on every single detail.  Each movement, each light or sound cue, every item placed on the set was important.  One strategically placed bowl of Skittles still makes me want to go to the lobby to buy a box right now.

#4

Show: “The Drawer Boy”

Company: Redtwist Theatre

Venue: Redtwist Theatre

TEN WORD SUMMARY: We each live in a myth of memory.  But whose?

RATING: d20 — “One Of The Best”

I’m pretty sure I could watch Adam Bitterman and Brian Parry act together all year long and be happy.  To see those two bring to life the older gentleman farmers in “The Drawer Boy” was a special treat.  Now, this play isn’t new, and it is a solid part of the contemporary canon, but I’d never seen the play prior to this production.  It is a touching piece that delves into the issues of creating memories, about what is truth, and what damage we do to ourselves and others.  It pack an emotional wallop.  But, it clearly only rises to the level of brilliant when treated appropriately.  Redtwist could not have treated this script better.  The play wasn’t something to be viewed, but experienced.  The total incorporation of all the design elements and a clear directorial vision brought everything together in a way that immersed the audience in a theatrical event, not a play.  There is no way I could have spent an hour and a half on a Canadian farm a year prior to my birth, but earlier this year I did just that.  I’m glad that I did.

#5

Show: “Naperville”

Company: Theater Wit

Venue: Theater Wit

TEN WORD SUMMARY: If Hell is other people, then so might be Heaven.

RATING: d20 — “One Of The Best”

I spent my formative years in an exceptionally affluent suburb of the Twin Cities.  Naperville (the city) has much in common with my childhood stomping grounds.  So it was that I attended this show expecting something that lampooned the nonsense of a society that places far too much value upon material wealth and the attitudes of entitlement that accompany evident affluenza.  Mat Smart’s script is one part character study, one part slice-of-life comedy, mixed with a dash of philosophic nostalgia.  That’s a recipe that results in a play that touches on the pride of those who come from a certain place, but also the doubt that comes from feeling out of place in one’s own community.  At its core, the play doesn’t make fun of anyone.  The humor comes from the very real situations and the human need for identity and companionship in both good times and bad.  Joe Schermoly’s set still amazes me in its complexity, utility, and beauty: not something I’d expect to say about what is really a realistic interior.  With this work, Abby Pierce reinforced her place at the top of my list of my favorite actors in town.  She didn’t carry this show, because she didn’t have to.  The whole cast was stellar.  But, she did bring unexpected depth to a character that had to be done just right in order to make this play work.  All in all, this play was far better and far more than I was expecting.

HONORABLE MENTIONS: “Good Person of Szechwan” (COR Theatre); “Rent” (Theo Ubique Productions); “Firebringer” (StarKid Productions); “Dream Girls” (Porchlight Music Theatre); and “The Lion in Winter” (Promethean Theatre Ensemble).

Review: “[Trans]formation” (Nothing Without A Company & The Living Canvas)

Cast of [Trans]formation/Photo by Pete Guither
Cast of [Trans]formation/Photo by Pete Guither
Show: [Trans]formation

Company: Nothing Without A Company & The Living Canvas

Venue: Collaboraction Studios

Every once in a while I see a show that redefines a part of the art of theatre.  Once in a great while.  Over the years I’ve pretty much solidified what I see as a good show.  And the guideposts that have been set along the way are the ideals that I use when writing for this outlet or any other about what I’ve seen.  But, then something like “[Trans]formation” comes along.  The show, which is now playing at Collaboraction Studios under the dual flag of Nothing Without a Company and The Living Canvas, takes on the heavy task of redefining language and interpersonal relationships, self-identity and how we look at others.

This production has clearly been carefully crafted by director Gaby Labotka and her collaborators.  It is a devised work that stems from a series of submissions from trans individuals from around the country.  The source material is available in a zine that is offered up at the performance. I highly recommend getting a copy as part of the experience.

Cast of [Trans]formation/Photo by Pete Guither
So, I’ve said that this thing shifted my idea of theatre.  Why is that?  Well, for one, the piece is essentially what I would have called performance art in the past.  Much of the show has no plot, nor characters. Yet it is clearly theatrical. It is constructed around a theme and presented by way of images.  Sometimes these are literal images projected upon a screen, but more often the images are created through a brilliant collage of stage-wide projected textures that are caught upon the myriad surfaces of the stage, and more importantly upon the varied shape of the bodies of the performers.

Part of any production by The Living Canvas involves the actors performing nude, and this is performance is no different.  The images and their interplay upon the bodies of the actors is like a vibrant and vital painting that is constantly shifting before your eyes.  Though the performers don no clothing, this is not a bit of gimmick for attracting more eyes and titillating the senses.  This is a literal baring of one’s body and metaphorically the soul as well.

I have never been to a production of The Living Canvas before, so I can’t comment on how appropriate it seems in other productions, but with the topic of gender identity, the human body seems perfectly suited as the tool to tell tales.  As I sat and watched the six performers on stage, there were often times that their nudity was completely lost among the rest of the presentation.

Through short monologues and songs, physical pieces and proclamations, this piece finds a way to speak to each viewer and touch them deeply.  There are multiple levels of truth constantly being put forth and taken in.  You’ll note that I don’t make special mention of any specific performer in this review.  The reason for this is two-fold.  First, I don’t believe that any one individual within this work can be held separate from the others.  I’ve never seen another show in which the meaning of ensemble is better represented.  Second, nothing I saw can be subject to the standard criticisms I might address in a review.  I can’t honestly tell you if these performers are good actors when it comes to a regular play.  But, I can tell you that they are perfect for this piece.  The sum total of their work here is something brilliant and wonderful.  It challenges the audience.  It informs the audience.  It changes the audience.  That’s what this art is supposed to do, and they do it better than I’ve seen in a long, long time.

TEN WORD SUMMARY:  Gender is not defined by genitalia despite actors being naked.

RATING: d20 – “One of the Best”