Colombo Critic

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.

So, 350 bucks bought me a ticket to watch six people seated in chairs yapping continuously for just over an hour. Sounds like my Monday morning progress meetings, only this bunch weren’t dressed as smartly and I didn’t get paid to be there. Superficially, the most value for money I got from the entire evening was a souvenir for twenty bucks which felt a damn site classier and better designed than stuff I’ve bought for fifty times as much, even though the writeup of Enda Walsh was ripped off from this page and it tries to convince me that someone actually wants credit for Set Design and Make Up. Frickin’ brilliant.

You might notice that I started the previous sentence with “superficially” because, quite frankly, this play isn’t about superficialities. Anyone who walked in there looking for classy costumes and flashy set-dressing would have walked out severely disappointed, unless their idea of flashy costumery is whatever the actors could find crumpled up under their beds come showtime. This play was about exposing the audience to six very different personalities while they interact and revolve around each other to the ultimate conclusion, which I’ll get to later on. It should be noted that lighting, audio or video were used sparingly and enhanced the performance considerably.

But first…

The Cast/Characters

Don’t know who they are and don’t care. All I care about is how they handled themselves on stage and in this respect they performed admirably. This was a cast of stereotypes, because that’s the only way this play works. You’ve got the stereotypical cynic (Will) who believes the world is out to get him, the angry teen aged girl (Eva) who feels betrayed by society, the timid, disillusioned conformist (Emily), the easy going nice guy (Jack) and the runt (Jim) who’s been picked on his entire life and feels trapped with no way out. They are familiar to us because we can relate to and understand their pain.

The parts were acted with impeccable timing and humour, and emotions were conveyed to the audience clearly and believably. One thing I did have a problem with was the actor playing Jim. While he was very convincing in his role as a depressive, possibly suicidal teen, he wasn’t convincing as a heterosexual depressive, possibly suicidal teen. This was mildly distracting and I believe that either the character should have been acted appropriately or changed to accommodate the actor. I should also point out, that I have nothing against heterosexuals and believe that they play a very important part in society.

The Synopsis

There’s a guy named Jim. He’s depressed. He’s had a horrible life and jumps from online chatroom to chatroom looking for an answer, a way out. There’s another bunch of people who are looking for a cause and Jim drops by and they adopt him as their pet project and try to figure out just how far they can take him towards offing himself. If you want a better explanation I’m sure you’ll find something in the quite enthusiastic, profuse and tiresome hype and praise that was floating around before and after each of this production’s incarnations.

The Issue

A theater production shouldn’t be lauded just because it deals with serious issues such as suicide. It doesn’t matter if it brings some attention to an issue that people should take more notice of, though it should be noted that this production is hardly targeted at the section of society that needs it the most. It’s a good thing that this particular play isn’t about suicide.

Even though Jim’s toying with the idea, Laura’s been through it (unsuccessfully, of course), and Will and Eva have taken it on themselves to push Jim over the edge this play is ultimately about the road to self-discovery and the obstacles people face along the way. Each character deals with this journey in their own way, or excludes themselves entirely, for their own reasons. William is too focussed on his cynical views on the world and looking outside himself for answers, or at the very least someone to blame. Eva is bitter over a perceived loss of innocence and is looking to get even. Emily is still clinging to her innocence and just wants to be accepted by everyone. Jack’s too content and doesn’t need to go looking for himself. Laura’s stood on the edge and returned, though she still feels it calling her back which is why she listens… partly to help others like herself, but mostly to remind herself where she’s been. And Jim… well he wants to be a cowboy and for people to tell him that it’s okay for him to be a cowboy. He wants to be himself.

To look at this work and label it as a play that deals with suicide is to simply not get it. Suicide is only the surface, It’s the metaphorical carrot used by the playright to make his characters show their true colors. Look beneath it and you find a whole lot more to digest.

The End…?

The ending was handled with a quaint awkwardness which, in this case, worked for the better. This was 70 minutes of solid theater followed by one of the most satisfying endings I’ve witnessed on stage. Now that it’s over I hope this theater group moves on to other, better things… because the hype’s got old, and also because after the second rerun they may be accused of turning into a One Trick Pony that’s resting on its laurels. This would be a shame considering the strength of this performance.