Latest Comments
|
| Playwright’s Play Rights: "Any Famous Last Words?," at the Richmond Hill Barn Theatre thru July 20 |
 |
 |
 |
| Theatre - Reviews | |||
| Written by Mike Schulz | |||
| Wednesday, 16 July 2008 02:38 | |||
|
Nancy Pahl Gilsenan's Any Famous Last Words?, the new presentation at the Richmond Hill Barn Theatre, is a comedy that keeps threatening to say something significant, particularly in regard to the respect that a writer owes her or his subjects. But the piece proves to be so confused and unfocused that it might as well not be saying anything at all. Again and again, fundamentally important questions about an author's ethics are raised only to be immediately discarded, and legitimately dramatic recitations that seem designed to shame the play's protagonist - such as its Holocaust remembrance, and a later speech by a dumpster-scavenging octogenarian - are listened to and promptly ignored. Richmond Hill's latest isn't thought-provoking so much as positively baffling. The production finds playwright Lucy Sisson (Jackie Skiles) landing in the hospital after accidentally lodging a Cornish-hen bone in her throat. Her eccentric-poet friend, Sada (Barbara McAbee), is there to keep her company, but it's not long before this seemingly devoted pal begins hectoring Lucy for her questionable playwriting tactics: Has she, in fact, forged a theatrical career by usurping the life stories of others without their consent? And through Lucy's and Sada's conversations, and hospital encounters with a woman Lucy previously dramatized and a woman she might dramatize (both played by Sandy Stoltenberg), we get our answer: Yup. Despite the navel-gazing, masturbatory nature of much of the dialogue - Sada is given numerous lines describing how gifted and successful our playwright-heroine is - Gilsenan's setup isn't uninteresting, which makes her inept handling of it all the more maddening. Sada chides Lucy for her responsibility to those she writes about, while Lucy counters that she's actually doing her inspirations a service. Neither, though, appears all that invested in the debate; Sara continues to stroke her friend's ego, and Lucy appears impervious to any kind of self-examination - she listens to that harrowing concentration-camp account with a bemused look of, "Hmm ... how can I pilfer this ... ?"
Not that its playwright doesn't try. (And boy is she trying.) But what are we to make of the supposedly comic scenes with Lucy's ineffectual family (David Bailey, Elizabeth Buzard, and Bailey O'Neil), who are so tangential that they exist merely to show that this talented, successful playwright is also a wonderful, and unappreciated, wife and mother? (Gilsenan's implied narcissism knows no bounds.) Why give Sada a saucy flirtation with a friendly doctor (the invaluable Spiro Bruskas) when the character vanishes after his first scene? What's with Lucy's nurse (Cara DeMarlie), who seems perfectly sensible, yet has been saddled with the bizarre - and bizarrely inconsistent - character tic of entering and exiting rooms backwards? (God bless DeMarlie, though; her hilarious readings of "Good girl" when collecting Lucy's urine samples are fabulously condescending.) Any Famous Last Words? appears to be a comedy only because of these random throwaways and the punctuation mark in the title; even the leading ladies' repartee is less witty than generically bitchy, and the timing isn't sharp enough for the bitchiness to generate many laughs. Richmond Hill's latest features some nice elements. Angie Keeney, with her lovely down-turned smile, is a warm, agreeable presence as a kindly nun, and Stoltenberg delivers her Holocaust monologue with a pained, half-whispered directness that creates a deserving hush in the audience; she completely outclasses the play she's in. (Stoltenberg also earns bonus points for undertaking a second role with what I'm assuming was late notice, as the program lists an absent Tikesha Wiggins among its performers.) Yet Any Famous Last Words? is still a bummer. At one point in Act I, Sada discusses the underwhelmed reactions to her poetry, and opines, "Even critics - especially critics - do not understand art." The line gets a laugh, and despite the awkward grammar, should get a laugh. But speaking as a critic? I may not know art, but I sure know what I don't like.
For tickets, call (309) 944-2244.
Set as favorite
Email this
Hits: 3191 Trackback(0)
Comments (33)
  written by Theatre Fan, July 17, 2008
This is at least the 4th or 5th time Richmond Hill has chosen poor material in recent memory (even the QC Times agreed on this latest one). Maybe it's time for some fresh eyes in choosing their season?
written by Morgan, July 18, 2008
Looks like somebody wants to be on the Playreading committee....
written by Jennifer Kingry, July 18, 2008
It helps to know something about the process at different theaters. Richmond Hill's season is selected for the upcoming year entirely from plays submitted by potential directors (and no submitting director is allowed to serve on the playreading committee.) In Fat Years (my term only), many directors submit shows and the committee has lots to pick from, which almost always results in a better season. In Lean Years, only a few directors submit titles, giving the committee fewer choices to draw on. With the increase in gas prices, it's possible fewer directors are willing to commit themselves to directing a show in Geneseo if it entails a lot of travel for them. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with the eyes of the those who choose the season (and the makeup of that committee varies each year) - they just need more material to select from.
written by Chris White, July 19, 2008
No, Morgan. Of course Theatre Fan doesn't want to be on the play reading committee. That would mean they would have to pony up their identity as opposed to hiding behind a pseudonym to make their snide remarks. Theatre Fan would much rather stab people in the back from the privacy of their own home, than have the theatre community at large know who they are. Isn't that right Theatre Fan?
written by Tyson Danner, July 19, 2008
I don't really think TheatreFan's suggestion was out of line, at least not enough to merit such anger. Chris, perhaps you're not taking it in the helpful spirit it was intended? (Though, to be fair, maybe I'm not taking it in the snide spirit it was intended - you never know online.)
It's too bad that there have to be "Lean Years" at all! I would think there would be tons of people wanting a chance to direct. The price of gas and time spent in transit is certainly an issue though - at least for me. I wonder if Richmond Hill does any work to advertise their desire for more directors? Jennifer?
written by Chris White, July 19, 2008
My comment was not just about this posting by Theatre Fan. This is just one more in a long line of postings that Theatre Fan has made anonymously. My comments are not made in anger at all. I'm more just pointing out that someone who consistently criticizes Richmond Hill, and other theatres, should have the decency to admit who they are. I'm not saying that all of Theatre Fan's comments are snide. Some comments are well thought out, and make valid points. My contention is, if one wants to point out the flaws (as they see them) in a particular theatre organization, they should be doing something to change them, not hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet and judging them.
written by Jennifer Kingry, July 19, 2008
Tyson - does RHP do anything to advertise their desire for new directors? Sure...about as much as The Green Room does. ;) RHP does not run ads for directors (especially with publicity funding being cut each year), but info is posted on the website and in the programs. Director's applications are sent to anyone who requests one. But yeah, I think the organization sort of hopes to see someone who wants to direct there exhibit at least a modicum of interest in RHP first...like enough to actually come see a show. Some wildly unsuitable submissions have been made by directors who weren't even aware of RHP's in-the-round configuration.
I can't really explain the ebb and flow of directors within an organization, Tyson. Not too many years ago, RHP used to get twice as many applications as they had slots to fill. With each director submitting three titles, Playreading had lots to pick from. During the last few years, though, I know they've sometimes had difficulty getting enough applying directors to fill out the season (as a policy, RHP does not schedule any director more than one slot per season.) Some folks move, some stop doing theater or take a break for personal or professional reasons, some die. And new folks don't always step in immediately. Not to give an unrealistic impression, though - simply applying does not grant an automatic "in" at RHP. At the end of the day, Geneseo is still a small town, RHP's core audience is an older conservative crowd, and a lot of newer, "edgier" scripts (often laced with profanities) aren't gonna fly there. I have a shelfful of scripts that I'd like to do somewhere but also know aren't suitable for RHP. Also, RHP can have some slight reluctance to schedule directors who haven't shown enough interest to put in a little time/effort to learn how things work there. Some new directors that were given a shot in recent years had to have their hands held throughout the production because they didn't want to do the homework to learn even the basics - like where things are kept, what common procedures are, who's a good resource to go to for what, etc. Every theater space has its own peculiarities and it can take a little time to learn these. I believe RHP is every bit as willing as anywhere else to help newcomers become indoctrinated (heck, ten years ago, when I was getting back in theater after many years absence, they were the most welcoming place around!) However, I don't think there's such an abundance of volunteers that anyone wants to be saddled the job of "ghost directing" for new directors who don't want to "learn the ropes" at RHP...or at least learn where the rope is kept! I know of at least one new director in recent years who has worked out really well - Susan Simosky. To her credit, Susan did everything she possibly could to familiarize herself with the Barn before her first show came up there. Another new director is slated for the '09 season. Let's hope the trend continues. I should point out, any opinions I've expressed here are entirely my own. I do not speak for Richmond Hill Players. I'm not even on the board at this time. But I have been heavily involved with the organization for the last ten years and I guess I think of it as my "home base." I'm also very involved at Playcrafters, and I've done work for Music Guild, Prenzie Players, and Countryside Community Theater, among others. I'm supportive of all the new theater groups in town, at least as much as my personal schedule of working a dozen shows a year permits me the time to be. Any yep, Tyson, I totally hear you about the cost/travel time consideration of going to-and-from Geneseo. I deal with it every time do a show in the Cities, or even go to see one. It's always been a hurdle and, in the day of $4/gal gas, it gets harder all the time. Finally, can Theater Fan be absolutely certain "this is the 4th or 5th time RHP has chosen poor material in recent memory"...or is it merely the 4th or 5th negative review he's read? (And yeah, I'll dispose with the indefinite personal pronoun. Theater Fan's identity has been so widely leaked in the theater community it's hardly a worthwhile pseudonym anymore. Right, L.H.?) There is a difference. 'Cuz I'll tell you for a fact, I've gone to see some of the shows the Reader has turned handstands for, and I wouldn't have given them such a glowing report myself. But at least I've gone to see them myself. To each his own.
written by Tyson Danner, July 19, 2008
Chris - Fair enough. And I happen to agree. :)
Jennifer - I didn't realize that each director could submit three plays. I think that's a pretty clever way to do it. That way you aren't in a bind if you have a great director that submits an unrealistic play. We've yet to have an open call for guest directors at the Green Room, and I certainly don't envy RHP for the hours upon hours of work that must go into selecting plays. It's hard enough to select a season without factoring in the directors! When will the 09 season officially be announced?
written by Jennifer Kingry, July 19, 2008
Tyson - The '09 season has been slated since last January. It's been listed in the programs since last February's show and went up on the website more recently. Directors are currently being sought for 2010. Yeah, I know that can feel like light-years away, but there are publicity reasons and long-standing practice of getting the next year's season set so it can be listed in the current season's programs. It helps with season ticket sales.
written by Lou Hare, July 19, 2008
For the record, I have posted some comments under the name Theatre Fan, but I have not posted ALL of the comments that are attributed to that name. I won't take the time to point out which ones are mine and which ones aren't because I have always believed that on internet discussions, the point being made is more important than the person making it. Does knowing who I am make my points more or less valid now? Chris I am truly sorry if my comment caused such anger, but I was merely pointing out that this is yet another review that suggested the talent at Richmond Hill was not being supported by its material. I would be interested in being on any company's play selection committee if they would let me and my schedule permitted. In the past year I have been involved with productions at SAU, Harrison Hilltop and currently The Green Room, so rest assured that I am putting myself out there for criticism just as anyone else is. I will be curious to see if people will be gunning for me now, which will only prove my point that its hard to give constructive criticsm without people taking it personally. For the record, I love the QC and I love its theatre scene and community. My desire has always been to have thoughtful dialogue about what people are doing well and what we could be doing better.
written by Jennifer Kingry, July 19, 2008
Hey there, Lou! Welcome to the Land of the Open Posters!
Your comment points out exactly one of the best reasons to post under your own name - no one had any reason not to assume all of Theater Fan's posts weren't by the same person. How could anyone know someone else is using another person's pseudonym. Of course, I suppose this might not be me posting now. Kind of wish The Reader had some security in place to safeguard against this sort of thing, but I don't suppose that's really their job. I've never understood exactly the link between the Internet and anonymous postings. I mean, Mike's reviews are signed and so is everything else written for the Reader. I am personally inclined to think who's doing the talking does indeed have some bearing on the validity of the comment. It at least lends some credence to whether one believes this person's view holds the weight of some experience, or is simply a crackpot posting, or someone with a clearly vested interest. And I don't honestly argue with your original statement, that this is yet another review that would suggest RHP's shows haven't been up to snuff this year. But the flip side is also true - that I've read ecstatic reviews for shows this year which I've gone to see that weren't really "all that." So reviews alone aren't the whole picture. I'd be much more interested in what you personally thought of any show you saw at RHP. And, as Tyson has suggested in the past, I really wish sometimes that there were another and more "neutral" bulletin board where we could all conduct some of this theatrical cross-talk. (Frankly, this whole discussion has little bearing on the particular show being reviewed.) Again, I don't really like to get into these discussions online. I'd much prefer to deal face-to-face with people. Being a big Stephen Sondheim fan(atic), I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing "Assassins". Maybe we'll go out for a beer afterwards! Like you, I love the Quad Cities theater scene. And I extend that zone to include RHP out in Geneseo. A crappy season out of a 40-year history is no reason to throw the Barn out with the bathwater.
written by Chris White, July 19, 2008
Lou,
Any comment made on this board has never "caused such anger" for me. That's the problem with posting on boards (and posting anonymously). It leads to interpretation by other readers. My point is that in making comments, one shouldn't be afraid to leave one's name. Unless of course the comments left, and leaving one's name would open one up to major criticism for not attempting to make a positive impact in person, and just hiding out on the internet.
written by Molly, July 19, 2008
Hi Lou! Not all of RH's plays are sub-par. I performed in 'Light Up the Sky' earlier this year & that had good reviews; as did most (if not all) the shows last year. I agree that some scripts are less superior than others, but what theater doesn't have that? You have to work with what you have & what you can afford. People like comedies more than anything else; so that is what the theaters here try to do. There are only so many to go around.
Thanks for supporting local theater! I hope to see you at future productions! :)
written by Derek, July 19, 2008
Change of subject:
The RHP website calls "Any Famous Last Words" a dramedy. Mike calls the show a comedy. Ruby Nancy just posted her review today, says the show is billed as a comedy and calls that a "lie". SO...what is the show? I checked the Dramatic Publishing website and they call the show a comedy. Where do you draw the line on comedy/dramedy/drama/tragedy?
written by Tyson Danner, July 19, 2008
As always, it's so easy to misunderstand each other. The misunderstandings are certainly being resolved quicker, though!
Jennifer - I totally missed out on seeing what RH's plays are. I've yet to attend a show there (I know, shameful), so I definitely missed them. To think, I actually have to do all the work of going to the website and reading it!!! :P I did already know a few of them, but it's good to see the rest. For those who don't want to visit the website, allow me to put in a plug: February: Almost, Maine April: Laughing Stock June: The Last Mass at St. Casimir’s July: Busy Body August: Rabbit Hole October: Around the World in 80 Days
written by Lou Hare, July 19, 2008
I think there is a fine line between commenting on a show and the article written about it. I certainly think no one should talk about a show they haven't seen, but they have every right to comment on the article written about it (assuming of course that they read it). While I haven't had the chance to see any of the shows put on by RHP, if one is a regular reader of Mike's reviews, it's easy to see that they get criticised far more often for producing weak scripts than any other company. Now this is certainly Mike's opinion, but as someone who respects Mike (but does not always agree with him), it's fair to suggest that maybe they are more hit-and-miss with their scripts than other companies.
Regarding anonymous postings, as someone who until recently chose to do so, I felt that being anonymous lent a certain amount of freedom to be critical without fear. Anyone who has ever done a show in the QC knows that each group is very proud of their own work, which they should be. However, this pride can sometimes allow us to put blinders on to our flaws and take any criticism as a personal attack. It would be a shame if someone was denied the use of their talents merely because they expressed an opinion. On a side note, I do think it's an absolute hoot that my identity was a genuine topic of discussion. In my attempt to go with the flow on this and future postings, I will only post using my real name. Derek- I think that question speaks to the playwright & directors intent. What do they hope the audience gets out of the play and what manner to they carry it out? In modern times, the lines are getting blurred in interesting ways. Drama can be funny, comedy can be serious, etc. The trick is to know what you're trying to do and commit to that execution. Hopefully the audience responds the way you want them too.
written by Jennifer Kingry, July 20, 2008
Hi, guys. To answer Derek's question first: the designation of Famous Last Words as a "dramedy" on the RHP website is an error...and I'm the one who goofed. (Bummer.)
As publicity chair for RHP, I send show info to the webmaster, who also designs our logos. Based on what I'd heard in the playreading committee's presentation on Famous Words and my quick read of the script, I interpreted it as a comedy/drama. (It does seem to be struggling to say something serious about art, and there's a long sequence about the Holocaust, so it didn't seem far-fetched to me to think of it as comedy-drama.) I failed to go to Dramatic Publishing's website to confirm the show's designation before sending material to the graphic designer/webmaster nearly a year ago (heck, I didn't even think to check, there was so little doubt in my mind.) Consequently, he incorporated the phrase "dramedy" in with the logo. It was only a matter of about a month ago that someone else in the organization caught the error and drew my attention to it. Where I could still change the logo design in ads that had not already been placed, I did so, but, unfortunately, it wasn't possible in some cases. Lou - I partially get the concept of "being critical without fear" but, seriously, who would you have to be afraid of...the reviewers? Other actors or directors? Again, if the criticism offered is as fair-minded and constructive as you suggest, what's to be afraid of? By "denying someone the use of their talents", are you suggeting fear that someone mightn't cast you because you expressed a negative opinion about a show? As you say, we're all proud of our different groups, but I can't imagine being so short-sighted as not to cast someone who was good because they ticked you off by not liking another show (unless they really flamed you, I suppose.) Look - I worked in L.A. in the film industry for several years and, even in the behind-the-scenes world, we had an expression: you'll never work in this town again...until they need you. I'd be surprised to think local theater here is much different - no one's going to be denied a role if you're what they need. But, in borderline cases or where there are options, I suppose you might be right. I can't claim never to have posted anonymously in my life. To the best of my recollection, I've done it twice. And both times, it was to offer up sarcasm that I didn't want to be held accountable for (in one case, it was only a single whimsical word, but the intention was still sarcastic.) I guess I could call that "freedom", but, honestly, it was more about cowardice. If I wasn't comfortable putting my name to my words, I had no business saying them. So I avoid that now. What I dislike most about these online boards is that we wind up squabbling endlessly over semantics. Things that would be dispensed with in two seconds in a direct conversation, with a smile or a quirk of the eyebrows, become long, drawn-out debates. I become weary of it and wind up not reading the online reviews for several weeks. I'm probably due to take another long breather again after this thread! As to RHP's quality of shows - as I suggested earlier, I'm of the opinion that we did not put together a terrifically strong slate this year. I can't say more than that (and hey, I disagreed vehemently with Mike about the script quality of my show in April, as you might expect. But I've registered that viewpoint elsewhere.) The last two shows of the year hold great promise - the August show looks to be a really funny comedy and the October show is the classic thriller "Angel Street." So I hope we finish well. And I hope you come out to see one of them, Lou. But these things do fluctuate - not terribly long ago, RHP was noted for having a season that was the overall best of any area theater group. Things change, people come and go. The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
written by Molly, July 21, 2008
Like I stated above Jennifer, there are only so many scripts to go around. I like the variety of shows we offer, but maybe the local theaters should stick more to the classics. At least we know that will draw an audience.... ;D
written by Tyson Danner, July 22, 2008
Molly - Your comment makes me want to go into a lengthy, probably very boring speech. :P But instead I'll just say this:
One of the great things about the variety of theatres in the area is that some theatres can stick to the classics, and make a very good go of it. Thankfully (for my tastes, anyway), there are other theatres that have the freedom to produce material from the HUGE abundance of newer plays and musicals that are out there in the world. There are classic plays I love, and no theatre community would be complete without at least one theatre regularly producing Rodgers & Hammerstein. But is that all we want or all we can live with? Not for me! We should be proud that, in this community, we regularly see everything from Greek tragedies to world premieres. Well, that was long enough already! I'll get out of here now. :)
written by Molly, July 22, 2008
Hi Tyson. You make a good point, & I did not say that I don't want RH & Playcrafters to not do these plays; I'm all for it. I'm suggesting maybe as a backup, or have one classic yearly. That way, if another show is panned & people don't go, there are five others who can make people smile.
Plus, everyone has a different definition of 'classic.' What is classic to me might not be to my neighbor. I love the idea that we have so much variety in the QC. I did not mean to sound that other way. :)
written by Tyson Danner, July 22, 2008
Molly - I misunderstood - I thought you meant the theatres should ONLY produce classics or material that is guaranteed to get a good audience response.
I agree that having one sure-fire crowd pleaser in each season is a good way to go. I think it gives theatres more freedom to take a chance on material that their audience won't like.
written by Jennifer Kingry, July 22, 2008
What you've described, Tyson, has always pretty much been RHP's strategy, as long as I've been around--to try to get a couple of crowd-pleasers or shows with strong name recognition on the slate each season. Then there are usually two to three "lesser-known" shows and one to two "riskier" ventures. Hey, that's how I got Dancing at Lughnasa and Arcadia in there! They were the "risky" draws of those seasons.
The philosophy I've heard at stated at RHP often is (I'm paraphrasing), we do the standards and the crowd-pleasers to enable us to risk the shows that we do for us--the actors, the directors, the tech people--the shows that challenge us and feed our souls. Even if they don't necessarily feed the bank balance. If the ratio of "standards"-to-"risky shows" sounds too high, bear in mind that RHP (like Playcrafters, like Music Guild) operates with a fair amount of overhead. Paying off a $370,000 renovation completed at RHP a few years ago translates into needing to fill a lot of seats. That's just the price of doing business when you want to install an elevator to make your second-floor wheelchair accessible or put in new seating (both at RHP) or replace your seats, your heating/air conditioning, and repave parts of your parking lot (Playcrafters). To my mind, the real trouble with the current RHP season is that it lacked any real "meat", and the show with the best name recognition will be the thriller Angel Street, a title a lot of the general public won't recognize. It all comes back to how many directors submitted for the year, what shows they submitted, and what the committee had to choose from. No one's to blame; no one has to be shot. We just have to try to do better.
written by Lou Hare, July 24, 2008
Hey I have power again! Speaking of script selection, why hasn't any local theatre company tried to encourage diversity by including the great works of playwrights like August Wilson, Athol Fugard, Suzan Lori-Parks, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of talented African-American actors in the area and just think how many more great scripts theatres would have to choose from by diversifying their talent pool.
written by Molly, July 24, 2008
Hi Lou! I believe Playcrafters is considering or has decided on doing 'A Raisin in the Sun' next year. I would love to see that!
written by Jennifer Kingry, July 28, 2008
Yes, "Raisin in the Sun" is on the Playcrafters slate for summer '09 as part of a diversity intiative aimed at servicing new segment of both talent and audience.
written by Tyson Danner, July 28, 2008
As wonderful as it would be to see such shows and to have more diversity in the local pool of actors, it's understandable why many theatres avoid those scripts.
When I worked on "Ragtime" (an incredible show that absolutely requires black actors), a main challenge (perhaps THE main challenge) of the show was finding the right actors for some key roles. Luckily, we were blessed with some very talented actors - of many races. When we selected Angels in America for fall slots at The Green Room, we had the same worry. Music Guild chose to produce "Aida" a couple years ago - also a very bold choice (and significant risk), as the title character and many others are written as "Nubians". But it worked. Again, they had good folks turn out (plus - I would imagine - the directing staff must have worked to make sure they had choices at auditions). I almost wrote that this is one area where the more established theatres with a more significant returning talent base have less risk and more of a likelihood to succeed, but I'm not sure of that. I think it has more to do with outreach, and more than a little luck. (Then again, isn't casting always that way?)
written by the salty pretzel, July 29, 2008
Why are we talking about this here? Does this have anything to do with "Any Famous Last Words?"
written by Lou Hare, July 29, 2008
Actually, it does. The main point of the article (if you took the time to read it) was that talent was wasted on a poor script. Someone brought up the fact that it's hard to find good scripts and I said that one way of finding more good scripts is to broaden one's talent pool. These are how discussions usually go. One point leads to another and so on. Sorry if that was hard to follow.
written by nutter butter, July 30, 2008
Oh, I read the article and for the life of me I can't find the passage that laments the lack of diversity in the cast and this area. Is it too much to ask that we stay on topic?
written by Lou Hare, July 30, 2008
If you so desire us to "stay on topic" than maybe you should post something that you think is relevant to the article. Or better yet, maybe you could post us your special rules for posting comments so we would know what we should and should not write in our comments.
Tyson- I agree that it's not easy to diversify one's talent pool and it certainly can't happen overnight. But I do think that a steady progression of diverse shows coupled with some outreach in areas that have yet to be tapped (local churches, organizations, etc.) could go a long way in opening up the possibilities.
written by Tyson Danner, July 30, 2008
"On topic" discussion is great, but hey, I'll take any theatre talk I can get! Perhaps, though, we've wandered outside the realm of the article.
I am at the Blue Cat in Rock Island nearly every Friday night, and anyone is welcome to join me to chat about theatre or anything! If you don't know what I look like - just look for the scrawny guy with a short little ponytail. I doubt you'll have much trouble! :)
Write comment
|
You know a comedy is in trouble when its most engaging scene features an elderly woman's description of her escape from a German concentration camp. You know a comedy is in serious trouble when it uses that description merely to goose its tinny excuse for a plot.
Any Famous Last Words? could be played for ironic dark comedy, I guess, with its heroine who steadfastly refuses to better herself. But nothing about Joseph R. DePauw's direction or Skiles' amiable performance suggests that we're meant to find Lucy anything but endearing, and Gilsenan doesn't exactly display an inventive comedic mind; her idea of a running gag is to have Lucy mutter "Damn it, Sada" more than a dozen times, and the sound of an off-stage toilet flushing really hasn't been amusing since the heyday of All in the Family. (Though several of Friday night's audience members would likely disagree). Gilsenan is the co-author of the stage versions of A Separate Peace and Ordinary People, and Any Famous Last Words? is just a little less funny than A Separate Peace and Ordinary People.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Tags
