I want to tell you everything I can about this. But I'll try to be brief, and I think you'll thank me for it. It's taken me a week to get the stink of this play out of my hair and only now can I bare to conjure up the memory of this abortion of a piece of theater.
Highlights: a small fistful of competent actors. The female lead NOT one of them (one "Lily Sauvage". Must be her real name, no?). A really interesting space in Santa Monica, where the set was placed on the floor of the house rather than on the stage. Good use of that space (despite being able to hear the people in the park outside)! Some good music cues at the top and bottom of the acts.
Lowlights. I don't have time nor energy to list them all. For starters, this "script" by one Nancy Beverly was a complete insult to an audience. In brief: young film maker sets his life and career on making a documentary about a man he has been lead to believe is a Chechen doctor who lived through the atrocities of their war with Russia. The mans ends up to be a fraud and in the process of dealing with this the film maker gets his life back on track. The first act (an hour, which should have run about 40 minutes...the time added on by the aforementioned Ms. Sauvage's need...to...pause...and...sigh...a...lot) was mostly in flashback as the characters try to find out why the young film maker has disappeared mysteriously. Act II: oh...he had hit his head while swimming. He's fine. Seriously--you dragged us through an hour with flashbacks to tell us it was NOTHING?! HOW DARE YOU????!!
Next: the script really ends up dealing with the "relationship" between the film maker and his girlfriend, who was so desperate to find him in Act I. Yet the title is the name of the non-Chechen our film maker wastes his time on--the most interesting part of this train wreck, to be sure. It's accidentally a perfect title for this play, as we have been conned into thinking that this play is going to be about something real and substantial, like war in Chechnya. Instead, it's all a fake and we have to settle for over 2 hours about these people whom we could care less about. Why don't we care about them? For starters, we can not buy them as a couple for two seconds. The actress spent more time on her fashionable hair than the role, it seemed, and comes off like a just-over-the-hill goth. The guy--"West Wing"'s really quite good Peter James Smith--comes off really effeminate. On top of the fact that they behave, as a result, more like room mates than lovers, they *never once* in this less-than-two-year relationship of theirs actually utter the phrase "I love you". Or anything close to it. Forgive me my life experience, but my memory is such that into only two years if you aren't still using terms of affection you ain't together no mo'. Yet here we are being told we need to care about this couple's love even though they clearly don't, and inform us of this in every moment on stage. in this I blame the writer for being clueless, the director, Susan Lee, for not forcing the issue, and the actors for not knowing better. Ugh.
Next: everyone in this play talks exactly the same. No one has a unique voice. And it's all on-the-nose and dry and deadly.
Next: the Chechen sounded Irish.
Last: there were four themes in the play. FOUR. Any one of them you could have written an engaging play about: parents and children, lovers who lie or hide, the war in Chechnya, refinding your dreams. Sadly, Mz. Beverly tried to cram them all into one script. Actually, considering how dully any of these was handled in "Godislav", maybe it's just as well. I have seen other work from the producing group of Playwright 6--it's why I came. They're usually quite good. But after this I'm crossing them off my to-do list. I want my two hours back. With interest, if possible, for mental cruelty. F.
Til next time!
--HDSQ, Jr.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Sunday, August 5, 2007
"Power" at Theatre Banshee
Let me say up front: I have seen a number of Theatre Banshee's productions and I feel them simply to be the most under-rated theater company in LA. Period. I would rather see one of their lesser shows then almost anything at the giant Ahmenson. They are that good, even if relegated to life in Burbank.
This said, I have to admit that their production -- the west coast premiere -- of Nick Dear's play "Power" is not one of my favorite offerings from this company. Again: still very damn good, but with some problems.
First strike: the script. It's a great concept--basically, it's about the personal politics surrounding the maturation of Louis IV. Louis is handed a lot of power at a young age and tries to figure out what to do with it. Ultimately he figures that what he needs to do is take it away from everyone else and truly set himself up as the ultimate power in France--forget this parliament crap. So, it's a political play, and as with many plays about the nature of politics, it's very talky. Which I don't have a problem with so much as it's talky AND not heavy on plot. Yes, things happen, but it takes a long time for them to do so, and mostly the characters talk about things they want to do rather than doing them. The wheel of The System, it would appear, moves slowly. Also, Louis--while a vital element to the story--is almost a supporting player, as the story really focuses more on his various advisors shucking and jiving to get what they want from either him or Anne, the powerful Queen Mother. Still the point the play makes is interesting: power is a two way street--you can take it, yes, but it must also be given. A universal truth, to be sure. (And watching the disturbing breadth the administration of George W. Bush has gobbled one has to wonder--in light of this play, possibly the point of producing it?--when exactly the American people and the Congress are going to stop these megalomaniacs from taking power away from us, the people? But I digress.)
Second strike: Steve Coombs, who plays Louis is a solid enough actor (there are no even *average* actors at Banshee, it seems), but he feels a little at sea throughout the play, even as his character is growing into his role as king. Not helping him is this annoying actor habit of putting one or both of his hands behind his back in every scene. "See--I'm royal! And casual!" he seems to be saying. What it really says, of course, is "I'm an actor who has no freakin' idea what to do with my hands". I wonder why the director didn't jump on him for this.
Third strike: David Pavao as Louis' brother, Philippe. From the first scene in the play we are told in no uncertain terms this guy is really, REALLY gay. This is an important plot point, but Pavao can't seem to get past playing the role as little more than a big ol' queen (as it were). He just doesn't find any more depth to this guy than the fact that he's gay, he minces and he's very uncomfortable around the women he has to deal with who aren't his mother. Somehow the fact that he's still required to put up the front of a marriage and family doesn't bring any extra levels to the performace. OK--he's gay AND unhappy much of the time because he HAS to hang out with his wife in court, as much as he'd rather not bother. To be fair, it's a funny caricature, but a caricature nonetheless.
Forth strike: the set changes were a little on the long side, and there were lots of them. The set was very effective, and they certainly did a LOT in a small space, but with every scene requiring either a cart to spin or a background to be unfolded, it didn't help the otherwise fine pace.
Fifth strike: even though the production was well-paced and McKerrin Kelly's direction was certainly solid, the play itself could stand to lose about 20 minutes.
On the other hand: the rest of the cast is terrific, the cherry on top being the awe-inspiring Matt Foyer as super-rich finance advisor Fouquet, the man who built Versailles. Foyer is in my mind one of the very best actors I've ever seen--in or out of LA. Why he's not a household name is nothing short of criminal. He's one of those actors who just makes everything seem so effortless. Also, in typical Banshee style the set is lovely, elegant, efficient and relatively simple, while never looking even a little cheap (this despite the length of the changes). Laura Brody's costumes were also lovely and effective--never upstaging the actors, but giving lots of that wacky zazz that made the British Court make fun the French Court. The sound design by Mark McClain Wilson was also solid, smart and note-worthy.
So: worth seeing? You bet! Great? Not quite. Although I would love every producer in LA to go to it, if for no other reason to see how a play is *supposed* to be produced. B+
Til next time!
--HDSQ, Jr.
This said, I have to admit that their production -- the west coast premiere -- of Nick Dear's play "Power" is not one of my favorite offerings from this company. Again: still very damn good, but with some problems.
First strike: the script. It's a great concept--basically, it's about the personal politics surrounding the maturation of Louis IV. Louis is handed a lot of power at a young age and tries to figure out what to do with it. Ultimately he figures that what he needs to do is take it away from everyone else and truly set himself up as the ultimate power in France--forget this parliament crap. So, it's a political play, and as with many plays about the nature of politics, it's very talky. Which I don't have a problem with so much as it's talky AND not heavy on plot. Yes, things happen, but it takes a long time for them to do so, and mostly the characters talk about things they want to do rather than doing them. The wheel of The System, it would appear, moves slowly. Also, Louis--while a vital element to the story--is almost a supporting player, as the story really focuses more on his various advisors shucking and jiving to get what they want from either him or Anne, the powerful Queen Mother. Still the point the play makes is interesting: power is a two way street--you can take it, yes, but it must also be given. A universal truth, to be sure. (And watching the disturbing breadth the administration of George W. Bush has gobbled one has to wonder--in light of this play, possibly the point of producing it?--when exactly the American people and the Congress are going to stop these megalomaniacs from taking power away from us, the people? But I digress.)
Second strike: Steve Coombs, who plays Louis is a solid enough actor (there are no even *average* actors at Banshee, it seems), but he feels a little at sea throughout the play, even as his character is growing into his role as king. Not helping him is this annoying actor habit of putting one or both of his hands behind his back in every scene. "See--I'm royal! And casual!" he seems to be saying. What it really says, of course, is "I'm an actor who has no freakin' idea what to do with my hands". I wonder why the director didn't jump on him for this.
Third strike: David Pavao as Louis' brother, Philippe. From the first scene in the play we are told in no uncertain terms this guy is really, REALLY gay. This is an important plot point, but Pavao can't seem to get past playing the role as little more than a big ol' queen (as it were). He just doesn't find any more depth to this guy than the fact that he's gay, he minces and he's very uncomfortable around the women he has to deal with who aren't his mother. Somehow the fact that he's still required to put up the front of a marriage and family doesn't bring any extra levels to the performace. OK--he's gay AND unhappy much of the time because he HAS to hang out with his wife in court, as much as he'd rather not bother. To be fair, it's a funny caricature, but a caricature nonetheless.
Forth strike: the set changes were a little on the long side, and there were lots of them. The set was very effective, and they certainly did a LOT in a small space, but with every scene requiring either a cart to spin or a background to be unfolded, it didn't help the otherwise fine pace.
Fifth strike: even though the production was well-paced and McKerrin Kelly's direction was certainly solid, the play itself could stand to lose about 20 minutes.
On the other hand: the rest of the cast is terrific, the cherry on top being the awe-inspiring Matt Foyer as super-rich finance advisor Fouquet, the man who built Versailles. Foyer is in my mind one of the very best actors I've ever seen--in or out of LA. Why he's not a household name is nothing short of criminal. He's one of those actors who just makes everything seem so effortless. Also, in typical Banshee style the set is lovely, elegant, efficient and relatively simple, while never looking even a little cheap (this despite the length of the changes). Laura Brody's costumes were also lovely and effective--never upstaging the actors, but giving lots of that wacky zazz that made the British Court make fun the French Court. The sound design by Mark McClain Wilson was also solid, smart and note-worthy.
So: worth seeing? You bet! Great? Not quite. Although I would love every producer in LA to go to it, if for no other reason to see how a play is *supposed* to be produced. B+
Til next time!
--HDSQ, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)