Colombo Critic

This review has been left unfinished for a while now. I usually get a review of an event out the day after I attend but due to unavoidable circumstances couldn’t find time to give this the attention it deserved before now. Thankfully time hasn’t dulled my memory of the events, so here goes…

It’s been a couple of years since I last attended a Symphony Orchestra of Sri Lanka (SOSL) and over ten years since I’ve been on stage with them (though not as part of the orchestra). I’m glad to see that there has been some improvement. Before I start I have to state that I admire this orchestra and its members for what they achieve with what little they have. The orchestra is run by donations with no government support and all the musicians are volunteers. If they do get paid I don’t imagine it could be much. That in itself is commendable.

I will organize this review by its participants. The orchestra (and it’s conductor) first followed by the guest conductor and his composition and end with reviews of the three soloists.

The SOSL

I’ve stated before that this orchestra does a lot with what little it has. At the same time I’d also go as far as saying that there are a few things that it shouldn’t do, mainly because it doesn’t work for them. Most of the first half of this concert worked well simply because the music chosen suited the orchestra. This is primarily due to a few small but fundamental drawbacks of the orchestra.

The first and most important is that this orchestra performs as a group of individuals all following the conductor. While Ananda Dabare does a good job it just isn’t quite enough to keep things flowing smoothly. Instead of the first violins (for example) playing in sync with each other they try to play the music alone and this really doesn’t work. The discrepancies in the bowing is very visible, they may start on time but any subsequent note is usually out of sync. However, it should be said that their pizzicato passages are usually very good, though that only accounts for less than 1% of orchestral scoring.

The brass section is as I remember them. They can be good at times, but there’s too much Marching Band still flowing in their veins. Dynamics is still something they have trouble with. Starting out loud is fine, but starting out soft and building volume is still a little challenging for them. As for the woodwinds, well… they seem to lack confidence. They tend to sound like they’re perpetually late for the party. They arrive around the right time, dither around as if unsure if they’ve arrived at the right place and then just drift around oblivious to their surroundings. There’s a feeling like they’re uncared about, which is sad because I know they can be much better.

I remember RJD saying that the only way and orchestra sounds like an orchestra is if the individual sections take time to rehearse together so that they produce an uniform sound. Only then can they be brought into the whole context of the piece being played.

Then there’s the problem of the inconsistency in the overall quality of the instruments used, but sadly there really isn’t much that can be done about that, unless the SOSL wins the lottery, of course.

Overall, I was quite pleased with the LSO’s performance on the night with a few exceptions.

Eshantha J. Peiris - Guest Conductor and Composer

I can’t recall ever seeing a date used as the title for a piece of music, but 26/12/2004 does make a lot of sense. The music itself reminded me of many things, all of which escape me at this time. This was music of the moment, more an event than an artifact. You experience it and you walk away a changed person. Musically, apart from a general feeling of Ennio Morricone this music was contemporary and Asian, two things of which I know very little so I will comment no further.

The orchestra performed admirably. I’d go so far as to say that this was their best playing of the night. If this piece is ever recorded I do hope that the LSO should have the honour of sitting in front of the mikes.

Satish Casie Chetty - Violinist

My first impression of Satish’s playing was not good. The chap looks positively Vegan, and sounded just as weak. As he walked on stage I was worried he’d fall over from the exertion. The Beethoven Romance for Violin and Orchestra No. 2 was executed fairly competently, but weakly.

The Russian Dance from Swan Lake was much more enjoyable. It was here that Satish really shone. His technique, while still delicate was accurate and well executed. While he still needs to work on his stage presence and maybe get more protein in his diet I think this fellow shows good promise and can’t wait to hear him again.

Dhanushi Wijeyakulasuriya - Soprano

I was a little worried when I first saw Dhanushi. Her programmed music suggested a much larger person, not someone as tiny as she is. The chosen music is physically and vocally demanding and her slight frame puts her at a significant disadvantage. Thankfully, this didn’t seem to worry her too much. Her singing was generally good, though she was often at the limits of her ability. While I enjoyed her performance I do think more care should be taken in choosing her repertoire in future. Someone this young and small shouldn’t be straining her voice on music this demanding. Personally I’d quite like to hear her sing some Handel or Schubert. Overall, I think the Mozart was the best of the lot.

Nuwan Senaratne

I was looking forward to this, which is why I’m so disappointed. I’d say about 90% of the blame for this lies on the piano. I’ve heard an played a lot of pianos in my time. Some were sublime, some were passable, and some were bad. This inspired in me the urge to attack it with an axe, set the shards alight and dance on the ashes. It was really that bad. It was completely muddy and there were simply no perceptible dynamics. It was like listening to a piano underwater while stoned. It could have made Michelangeli sound bad.

And then there’s the orchestra. All those things I mentioned before… the timing, the general lack of coordination, the uncertainty all came into play in this final piece. Sadly, this is one of the pieces that the SOSL isn’t quite ready to play yet and shouldn’t attempt again for a very long time.

Nuwan, was… I don’t really know if he was any good or not. My instinct tells me he played well enough, but because of how distorted his performance came across on that piano it would be unfair for me to really comment on his playing. There were wrong notes played, but whether these were mistakes or simply due to sticky keys is still a mystery to me. I could deal with it if he was good, or if he was bad… but not knowing if he was either is a rather depressing place to be.

In conclusion

Overall I was quite happy with this performance. The SOSL is still soldiering on as best it can and doing a pretty good job of it. They do occasionally aim higher than they are able to achieve, but I’ll put that down to optimism. Hopefully they’ll hit the mark someday soon and I hope I’m there to see it.

Well, I’ll jump right to it, I’ve always considered Equus to be rather dull and tiresome. And a kid who has erotic fantasies about horses? Are we running out of mental illness and psychopaths that we would find that disturbing? What I’d really like to see is “Hannibal: The Musical!”.

Now there’s a piece of theater you could really sink your teeth into.

I’m not going to bother with a synopsis. If you really must know then read this one.

So, I was a little more pessimistic than usual about seeing this play. I assumed it would be boring. I knew it would be long and I knew I would be spending a lot of time sitting in a very uncomfortable seat. And the more hype I have to sit through before a play, the more critical I tend to become. And yes, just as I expected… on the surface Equus is a boring piece of theater. It’s just one guy talking incessantly for almost three hours about a kid with a horse fetish. Sure, there are other people on there, but they seldom can be considered anything more than a little garnish to the old man’s rant. It just goes on, and on, and on, and on and onandonandonandon…..

And I liked it. I thought it was great. This could have been a very excruciating ordeal, but the production pulled it off admirably. Rohan Ponniah’s interpretation of Dysart was natural and un-strained. And all the other components just fit right into Dysart’s narration with clockwork efficiency. It was like watching a very finely tuned machine chugging along. I half expected to see a German Midget with a baton scampering around onstage conducting the whole affair. It felt well rehearsed, but at the same time retained its soul. It was a very beautiful thing to watch.

I can’t really find anything wrong with this play. Oh, Hiran Abeyesekera was a little incomprehensible and shrill at times, Tracy Holsinger sounded a little American, and the horses moved as if they were drugged… but none of that really matters because the production as a whole just works and dwelling on the trivialities is just pointless. It’s like not buying a car because the indicator stalk is an inch too long.

You know what? I don’t really feel like reviewing this play more than I already have, which is not much anyway. It’s well put together, the acting is good to great, the whole thing flows nicely, is seldom boring and makes excellent use of everyone and everything it had at its disposal. And the lighting was fine and the stage dressing was very minimal and was used extremely well. Going on any further would just be silly when all I should be saying is “If you want to see how theater should be done, go and see this play”.

I should point out at this stage that there were no professional actors, no rotating casts, no amplification and I’m sure everyone involved was there because of their love of theater. In fact none of the excuses that people have put forward as to why we should just accept the poor state of Western theater in this country seems to hold true with this production. So, the next time someone whines about love of theater, or charity, or “this is not Broadway“… I’m just going to point at this production and say:

“Shut your incontinent monkey trap! This production did what you’ve said that we couldn’t do in this country and it did it with skill and grace using no more than was available to anyone else. Your whining has no substance anymore. If no other production is as good, it’s because they were too lazy, incompetant or just plain sucked and didn’t care and as theater patrons we should let them know that we do care!“

Now, can someone tell me where they hid the German midget?

The souvenir for this production was packed with references to past glories, and I’m sure many would think that past achievements mean something… that if a person (or group of people) has a history of producing good work then any work produced by them is good (regardless of the actual quality of the work in question). This is a rather simplistic approach that I refuse to have any part of. I personally don’t care what you’ve done before if you can’t do as good or better now and, quite frankly that’s the only way things should be.

So, with last year’s Oliver! The Workshop Players set themselves an impressive benchmark with which to rate the current run of Blood Brothers. Did they succeed… or did they die a regrettable death like Marilyn Monroe? Let’s see.

The Set

This could have been the most elaborate set I’ve seen in this country so far. A massive construction that consumed the entire back and sides of the stage. Impressive by itself, this set truly comes alive through the use of some very skillful lighting work, credited to Gihan Jayatilleke. It should be noted that while the wealthy Lyons have a rather modest living room set to serve as their townhouse in the early stages of the story, they have to make do with bare scaffolding as a stand in for their house in the country. Curious.

The Other Superficialities

Costumes were mostly excellent, though maybe a little more effort at hiding cleavage might have been appropriate in the Kids Game Scene. Everything just worked, looked good and best of all didn’t seem to restrict the performance in any way.

Unfortunately the sound wasn’t quite so good, not by a long way. All the primary actors were using amplification (at least while they sang), and all it seemed to do was amplify the worst aspect of each actors voice. Every quiver, off-key note and vocal stumble was amplified for all to hear. The fact that the music wasn’t correctly balanced and tended to drown out the actors didn’t help much either.

The Acting

Another rotating cast. Who you see depends on which night you attend. I saw it last night on the 17^th of September, and the acting was mostly quite good. Special mention should be made of Mario de Soyza and Jithendra Seneviratne in the title roles of Mickey and Eddie. Jithendra gives another solid performance, but the true star here was Mario. Extremely good dynamic range from pre-schooler to psychopath. And I quite enjoyed the Kids Game scene for its energy, which was only sporadically present through the rest of the evening. But, as this production uses a rotating cast the actual performance may vary. And in there lies the true failure of this production.

Blood Brothers is a musical, and as such you would expect that the primary cast is able, at the very least, to carry a tune. So, when you have two excellent singers in the form of Shanuki De Alwis and Dilrukshi Fonseka in the most vocal role, why would you add Kisholi de Mel who, going by last night’s performance, can’t sing? It doesn’t matter that she’s a former Merry Anne Singer, her vocal performance last night was dreadful and it turned a fairly decent production into three hours of drudgery. If, like Anushka Periera, she only had a little solo singing to tackle then her performance could be overlooked. When she’s got the largest singing part in the entire production (of an Oliver Award winning Broadway musical no less) then there is simply no excuse for staging an actor who cannot sing. Prasad Perera, who is not a trained singer ends up delivering the best vocal performance of the night, which says a lot about the rest of the cast.

Which brings me back to the rotating cast. Why have one? The usual arguments are as follows:

1. To give the cast an easier time over the long schedule: Well, if they’re rotating parts then that means more lines to learn, and more marks to hit which equates to more work… hm…
2. To help the cast save their voices over an eleven day schedule: They’re using amplification. Are they asthmatic?
3. To let more people have a go: Why? If someone isn’t capable of handling the role, why are they given a go? Why does the audience have to pay the price. It should be the audience first, the production second and the actors last.

With a rotating cast like this what you end up with is one night’s audience treated to a good production while the next night’s audience treated to a sub-standard one. It would be okay if the ticket price changed accordingly but it doesn’t so you can be damn sure that the paying audience deserves a consistent performance.

So, at the end of all this it doesn’t really matter that the sets, acting and lighting was good or that the sound was bad because this is a musical without singers. It doesn’t matter that the other cast has them, because this one doesn’t. Choices were made at the expense of the audience that should not have been made. In the end this production, unlike Marilyn Monroe, was extremely disappointing.

The last time I saw Marsh Dodanwela on stage he was wearing a monk’s habit and doing what to the un-trained eye appeared to be an impersonation of Eric Cartman from South Park. It was a completely incomprehensible, inane and surreal performance and the only thing that kept me from walking out of Elizabeth: Almost by chance a woman. It’s a pity he spent two-thirds of the play jammed up a horse’s arse, which incidentally is what the rest of the play felt like.

But, back to this play… The Devil & Billy Markham by some guy named Shel Silverstein.

The Synopsis

I shall resort to thievery for the convenience of my readers. From SL&M:

In this classic rendition of a tall tale told in rhyming couplets, Billy Markham an out-of-luck songwriter with an addiction for gambling takes on the Devil in an ultimate battle. Billy outwits the devil only to find that the Devil doesn’t play by the rules. From rolling a 13 on the dice to selling not only his soul but that of his mother, his daughter and his wife Billy is sent through hell. He finds a way to outwit the Devil.

Sounds a little simple, like a random Keanu Reeves movie but instead turns out to be the good kind of simple. This is a masterful play that rests entirely on the shoulders of one person. If you don’t mind a spoiler and would like a benchmark, check out this rendition of the play.

The Conclusion

Again, I’m not going to ramble on. I’m just going to say that this was the most perfect piece of theater I have ever witnessed, or ever dreamed I would witness. It would be absolutely criminal for you to miss this play. This performance made the torture that was The Lesson completely worth the anguish. Once you see this you will not remember the other five plays in the festival. They were as insignificant as candles placed next to a nuclear explosion.

This play saddens me because I believe Marsh to be completely wasted in this country. I sincerely hope, for his sake, that he leaves Sri Lanka and seeks his fortunes elsewhere instead of languishing in mediocrity in a country where he cannot reach his full potential. There are thousands of people who could do his day job just as well as him, but none of them would have been able to stand on stage as Marsh did last night and fill his shoes.

So, who cheated the Devil and won? Marsh did.

And it was a very humbling experience.

A lawyer and his interogator sitting in hell. Sounds fairly plausible. According to the SL&M website:

Interview is an oblique, mystifying interrogation. A sleazy lawyer is forced to answer difficult questions and to admit the truth about his life and career. The why and where of the interrogation provide a surprise ending to this brilliant twenty minute comedy.

This is standard Mamet and quite entertaining. I’d go as far as to say that it was more entertaining than the first Mamet in the festival, despite the fact that it’s half the length.

The Conclusion

I don’t see the need for a full-fledged review with this one so will skip right to the end… Overall, this play was very well executed. Refined and subtle, Feroz Kamardeen has thrown his usual formula out the window and delivered a minimalist play without any bells and whistles and should be commended for a job well done. Hence I will continue my “personal mudslinging campaign” and recommend that you see this play if at all possible.

However, there is one small problem…

I left the theater with an unusual revulsion of the female sex, which I attribute to Niluka Silva’s apathetic, wooden and unpalatable performance in The Other Side. When considering her for her next role I recommend that a monkey of some description be used for comparison. An untrained chimpanzee hurling its own feces at the audience would have been a step up for this production. Thankfully, that was the only thing really wrong with it so I’ll keep this review uncharacteristically brief.

The Synopsis

Copied from the StageLight&Magic synopsis for your convenience:

From the provocative author of Death & the Maiden this is a timely new play about a country at war and a couple caught in the crossfire. The play is set in the midst of a war between the countries of Tomas and Constanza. Husband and wife Atom and Levana live in a cottage in the countryside, where they recover and bury dead bodies from ongoing bombings. Suddenly, the war ends: after decades, peace is finally announced. As the pair contemplates life without corpses, a crash destroys their house’s wall and a guard enters, making a new border right through the middle of their home. Since Atom is from Tomas and Levana from Constanza, they must now be separated from each other–neither can cross the border without special permission, even if they need to use the bathroom or make soup. This moving and strangely comic work raises potent questions about war, identity and love in our times.

Not quite up to Dorfman’s usual standards but reasonably enjoyable all the same.

The Cast/Acting

Apart from my earlier comments the rest of the acting was pretty solid and enjoyable. Even the corpse was suspiciously lively considering the fact that he was supposed to be dead. The three male members (no pun intended, honest) of the cast were fairly competent in their roles though I feel that “Josef” could have used a little more contrast between his different personas.

The Stage, Light and BangFizzlePop

This was the most elaborate stage dressing yet for the Noir festival. Overall, quite well done though a little more blood would have been nice. Also, the actors were awfully fumbly with the props, which was a little distracting at times.

In Conclusion

The first play in the festival that was actually enjoyable to watch. I wish I didn’t have to go through the other three and two tickets before I actually got some entertainment, but feces happens, eh?

Centrestage Productions’ “Pyramus and Thisby”, directed by Jehan Aloysius, from the 12^th – 15^th July, 2007, at the British Council Garden

The magic of the internet and social networking succeeded in getting me caught up in the hype that preceded the opening night of Centrestage Productions’ “Pyramus and Thisby”. I awaited opening night with high expectations because the few acquaintances that had seen it during its initial run were very generous in their praise.  Even the rain gods must have been feeling particularly benevolent because the rain eased up early enough to allow the performance to go on in its outdoor venue.

The performance started at a Sri Lankan 7:30 pm with the startling appearance of a cast member whose intention, I believe, was to familiarize the audience with the play and a few common rules of theatre etiquette. The actor’s rambling was, at best, humorous, and helped set the tone for what was to come.  

The actual performance began with the entrance of a sequence of fairy dancers performing some very elaborate dance routines. The dance sequences were well choreographed, although at times overambitious and demanded a little too much of the performers. The dancers were talented and well rehearsed, but their movements sometimes seemed forced which led me to wonder whether they would have performed better had the dances not been so demanding. I also wondered why the initial dialogue between Titania and Oberon was so stylized. The exaggerated movements that accompanied almost every word were distracting, and took away from the delivery of the dialogue.

The music was mostly pleasant and appropriate, except for a few jarringly loud moments. The drumming that was interspersed throughout the play provided a refreshing injection of the local culture into a Shakespearean play and was a positive enhancement to the overall spectacle. I was, however, rather distracted by a gentle (for want of a better word) purring sound produced by some of the fairies and wondered why that was necessary. Although the set was minimalistic, the costumes and props added much of the glitz and glamour to the production. The elaborate costumes and masks were unique and the lighting was very well designed and executed. However, at times, all the glitz and glamour was simply a little too overwhelming and I wished that there would be a little less spectacle and a little more cohesion and structure to the performance.

The director’s depiction of Shakespeare’s much loved “mechanicals” was interesting, to say the least. Much of the dialogue was reworked into Sinhalese and coupled with popular songs and drunken revelry. The incongruity of Sinhalese slang and pop-culture in a Shakespearean setting worked the audience into fits of laughter. As a Sinhala-speaking audience member, I too, was amused, but the blank looks on the faces of the foreign and non-Sinhala-speaking patrons in the audience made me question the director’s decision to depend so heavily on the Sinhalese dialogue. The drunken ramblings of Nick Bottom and his group of workers initially simply seemed chaotic, but with each passing scene the actors settled into their characters and provided several memorable performances. Bottom provided many laughs while teetering between drunkard and ass. The supporting cast of Flute, Snout and Snug too were humorous and effective. Some of the humor bordered on slapstick and was a little inappropriate considering that there was a bevy of children in the audience, but most of the audience seemed thoroughly amused. My only major complaint came in form of the homosexual twist on Peter Quince. Although he did manage to generate quite a few laughs, his speech and mannerisms were over-exaggerated and grew quite tiresome towards the end.  

The performance was generally smooth and moved at a rapid pace. The transitions between the fairies and the mechanicals were swift and worked well. The overall spectacle was heightened through the introduction of a fire dancer and a masked devil dancer, which I presume was fascinating for the children and foreign patrons, but I failed to see how this interlude was in any way connected to the rest of the performance. My only inference is that the cast needed time for a costume change and used this as filler, which I thought was a poor move. There were two gymnasts used who were very talented and performed very well, but their inclusion, too, seemed out of place with the rest of the play.

The latter part of the performance consisted of several moments of audience participation. The first instance was during the actual performance and although humorous, seemed unnecessary. The second instance was much better placed as it was after the curtain call where the audience was invited to join the cast in some music and dance.

Overall, I felt that the one major flaw of the production was that the director tried to do a little too much with the play. The production as a whole was a bit too grandiose for my liking, and I felt that a little less spectacle would have helped it function as a more cohesive unit. However, all the members of the cast, crew and production team must be commended for the many pains they took to bring to life an evening of solid entertainment. Despite a few, forgettable flaws, it was an enjoyable evening – and certainly a very humorous one.

The Specialist

So, a hippie in a shirt and tie sitting in a chair, or at least that was my first impression anyway. Turns out he’s there to give a lecture on the finer points of torture…

Smashing.

At ten minutes long this little playlet doesn’t really warrant a full review, which is why I’ll be tacking it on with the review of the night’s other play. All that needs to be said is that it is just okay… nothing special. Could have been better, the delivery just didn’t quite hit the mark but it’s over quickly enough that it just doesn’t matter much. By itself this play scores a 3 out of 5. The average score for both plays shown above is what happened because of the second play, and would actually be lower if the plugin I use for ratings supported less than 1 out of 5 (I’ll get around to fixing that). The second play is a fitting tribute to the first’s subject. It was the most arduous and excruciating 70 minutes of pure torture I have ever experienced.

The Lesson

I try and approach each new review subject with a clean slate and set aside any pre-conceived notions or expectations. When the night’s plays were introduced and Michael Holsinger’s name was announced my first impulse was to dash for the exit, but I resisted despite the numerous and quite disturbing flashbacks that poured in from my suppressed subconscious. I was there to watch, analyze and be as objective as possible and I was prepared to give him another chance.

And so I waited for him to appear, and appear he did… looking like a normal, middle-aged, straight male… which is what he is in real life if you think about it. And it was an amazing transformation, and one that I thought I’d never see.

It still sucked, though this time it was a different kind of suck.

While it appeared that things were off to a good start they soon ground down and started getting tedious, then repetitive, then repetitively tedious, then laborious, then it just became painful. I moaned out loud twice, the first at 52 minutes and the second time at 59 minutes. I was praying for it to end, and I’m an atheist so it doesn’t come easy to me.

This specific play should have come easy to Michael because it is pure nonsense wrapped up in gibberish and the only way it really works is if it’s overacted to the extreme, as it usually is whenever he walks on stage… but this time it just didn’t seem to work for him. It just kept spiraling downwards, getting more unbearable with each passing moment. Even the ending, which should have cheered things up a little came too late to save the evening. It’s a pity because Shehara’s student was quite funny and entertaining and completely wasted for want of a better partner.

While I sat there watching The Lesson and contemplating this review I asked myself if I was being too harsh in my judgement. A quick look around me allayed my concerns as it was plainly obvious that most of the audience was not enjoying it. Most of the play was received with dull silence and there was a lot less laughter than there should have been had the primary character been acted properly.

I almost never recommend that people not experience something firsthand, but in this case I will make an exception: Do not see this play. It is bloody awful. It’s not worth paying to watch. It’s not worth being paid to watch. If you’ve already bought your tickets give them away to someone you don’t like. This production was a complete waste of time and money and there’s still no chocolate.

Oh, and the best part of the evening? Tom Lehrer. A whole three minutes of him… and the speakers were still overdriven and distorted.

I’ve heard of starting things with a bang… but starting things with a fag? Most theater productions wait at least a half-hour before parading the stereotypical fruitcake in front of the audience, a cheap laugh as a last resort when things are slipping downhill. Last nights’ rendition of Pyramus and Thisbe chose instead to hand the role of narrator to the most overly overacted gay character since Michael Holsinger pranced around onstage in last years Elizabeth. It was unfunny, unforgivably over the top, jarring, abrasive and definitely not worth the price of admission.

Do I believe in fairies? Yes, I do. I saw one last night. And I ain’t clapping for it.

The introduction was followed by dancers who were a delight to watch and almost made up for the bad start. And then came Nick Bottom and his merry band of drunkards. To be honest, if I wanted to see drunkards I’d head over to the junction down the road at one in the morning and watch some for free. Having to pay for the ‘privilege’ of watching this bunch of nitwits borders on abysmal bad taste.

Or so I thought at first…

A Synopsis

Well, this is an adaptation of Pyramus and Thisbe and one that does take more than a few unorthodox twists and turns. Wikipedia’s article would be a good starting point and reading up on A Midsummer Night’s Dream might help too. Still, prepare to be surprised.

The Cast

Again, don’t know and don’t care. Lots of actors acting, dancers dancing, actors dancing, dancers acting, drummers drumming and gymnasts…. jumping around and doing what gymnasts do best. All very busy, very colorful and very over-the-top. All of them very good at what they do for the most part.

The Stage, Sound and Lights

The British Council garden makes a surprisingly good stage for this kind of production. The performers have a lot more space to play with than most theaters. The best seats in the house are probably in the fourth row where you should also be safe from the rain and the audience participation segment. Lighting was elaborate and well done. Sound included canned music and a lot of drumming. All of it was very dramatic and very good. My only gripe was that some of the speakers were overdriven, though it seems that that’s a fairly common problem not limited to this production alone.

In Summary

My first impressions of this play were bad… very bad. But things got better. While we saw less and less of the dancers, the drunken ‘actors’ got better, more cohesive and were joined by other performers that more than made up for the earlier shock to the system. A lot of the humor was too crass for my taste but went down well with the audience. Just be prepared for the repercussions if you take your kids along.

This is a complex, daring and exuberant performance and while I feel it wasn’t as focused and coherent as it could have been, I found it enjoyable despite its flaws. A definite must see.

I believe that this is the second time in two years that this play has been performed. While I’m glad that I got a chance to experience it my comments for Chatroom apply here too.

Next time, get a better fairy.

I’ve wanted to see a play by David Mamet for quite a while now. I’ve heard that they can be disturbing and thought-provoking and I wanted to see for myself. This play was those things… it was multi-layered, scary and deeply disturbing. I could see quite clearly the devious mind behind it. The delivery was not quite so clear…

The Synopsis

I won’t say much here… apart from pointing out that the play starts off with a discussion between a professor and his student regarding a grade. Things soon spiral downward from there.

You can read the Wikipedia entry here.

The Superficialities

The stage was dressed minimally but adequately. Mostly just a table, two chairs and a bookshelf if the scene required it. Lighting was used to good effect in the later scenes and did enhance their brooding psychotic quality. I did enjoy the Arvo Pärt sound-alike soundtrack used between scenes, though a couple of the speakers near the stage was overdriven and the sound was quite distorted.

Oh, and the ticket was really a slab of chocolate. A little too literal for my tastes but value-added it certainly is.

EDIT:WTF?! It’s not really chocolate? That explains the furious swearing when the person seated next to me tried to eat his. While I like the design, the disappointment when I opened it up expecting a sweet treat was a little distasteful. It should carry a large disclaimer proclaiming “Do Not Eat!” Or “Un-digestable!“.

The Acting

The student was enthralling, though a few times it seemed like she was smiling when she shouldn’t have been. Still, her character was portrayed believably and at no time did it feel like we really understood the depths of her being, which is a good thing in this context. Very scary, very dynamic and very good.

The professor was not quite so… anything. Unfortunately his acting was very wooden and the only dynamics were the variation of the volume of his voice. There were times when it seemed he was loosening up and getting comfortable with his character but then he’d jump back in his shell. There was an impression that what he needed was a shot of whisky or a back-rub before the play began because he was much too tense. I was expecting a lot more here, but hopefully he’ll loosen up for the last two nights of this play.

In Conclusion

Enjoyable, but not quite believable. It had all the ingredients but falls short on the delivery. However, I’ll put it down to opening night jitters this time and recommend that you see this play. It should be better on its last two nights but if it isn’t at least you got chocolate…

Oh, wait…. you don’t.