Play Review:
Waiting For Godot
by Samuel Beckett
Company: Innovation Theatre Works
Venue: ITW Main Stage
Run: 3/5/12 - 3/22/12
While I don’t pretend I’m so old as to know everything about myself, I do know what kinds of plays and movies I am likely to enjoy. Upon reading the promotional material for Waiting For Godot at Innovation Theatre Works in Bend, Oregon, my gut reaction was of non-interest. Wikipedia and various essays described it as “absurdist” and “existentialist”, two words that characterize the genre of art for which I have the least appreciation.
However, for a handful of reasons I suppressed that initial reaction and decided to give it a go. For one, it was touted by multiple sources as a pivotal moment in modern theater. As a cinema enthusiast, I have known the trials of getting the uninitiated to understand why Citizen Kane is an essential cornerstone in the foundation of film history. So as a theater hobbyist, I felt I should at least give “the most important play of the modern theater” a chance to speak for itself.
For another, one of the cast members essentially dared me to see it. And third, a friend offered to enable my completion of the dare by purchasing my ticket at a time when I could not afford the ticket price.
Given the script’s lack of forward momentum through a traditional A-line narrative, the play defies a standard plot synopsis. It revolves around two men, Estragon and Vladimir (informally addressing each other as “Gogo” and “Didi”), who are waiting by a dead tree for someone named Godot (“GOD-oh”, not “g’DOH”). Apparently they have been requested by Godot to wait there for him, though neither of them can recall for certain what time Godot will arrive, or if they are by the correct tree, or even whether they will recognize Godot when they see him.
They pass a long and tedious day by talking, sometimes agreeably and sometimes less so. They ponder things like Gogo’s too-tight pair of boots, and whether the nearby tree would support them if they committed suicide by hanging, and other topics I cannot recall because I forgot my notepad. As the day rolls on, a man named Pozzo passes through, along with his tethered lackey Lucky. They stop and join the other two in conversation, pondering such things as why Pozzo keeps Lucky in slavish service to him, and what twilight looks like in that part of the country.
Eventually night falls, and a messenger boy arrives to inform Gogo and Didi that Godot will not be arriving that day after all, but will come tomorrow. The two men head off to find sleep, with the knowledge that they must return the next day and continue waiting.
That’s Act One.
Act Two is more of the same, though the tree has sprouted a few leaves, Pozzo shows up blind, and Gogo has a curious lack of memory regarding anything that happened the previous day. Eventually night falls, and a messenger boy arrives to inform Gogo and Didi that Godot will not be arriving that day after all, but will come tomorrow. Imagine Groundhog Day, only without Bill Murray’s ever finding a happy ending.
And at this point I am not sure how to proceed. Given the bizarre nature of the entire thing, it’s a bit tricky to critique any particular aspect of it. The performances were certainly capable – having worked with cast members Andrew Hickman, Liam Mykael O’Sruitheain, and Alastair Morley Jaques in the past, I expected no less. I can’t even really comment on Brad Hills’ work as the director because, knowing the caliber of three of the four main performers first-hand, I’m quite sure they all brought a great deal of collaboration to the table.
Tim Blough and Hickman, as Gogo and Didi respectively, are well-matched counterpoints. Blough brings out the dour skepticism of Gogo, who is far more ready to give up on ever meeting Godot than Didi is. Ailing from tight boots and foot lesions, Gogo makes many attempts to leave, only to be stopped by Didi; Blough’s deeply resonant voice and long face enhance Didi’s pessimism nicely without being so overtly depressing as to make us want to join him in hanging from the tree.
On the other side, Hickman makes Didi a fraternal twin of Stan Laurel: His hands constantly fidget with his short necktie, he deftly twiddles his hat, and he walks with feet turned way out in a bouncy waddle. Didi seems the more confident in the imminent arrival of Godot, and maintains the sunnier disposition throughout most of the play. Such optimism is brought out by Hickman’s lilting tenor tones and animated physical features.
Liam O’Sruitheain never fails to intrigue me. I have seen him on four occasions now, and he always manages to make his characters far richer than the scripts suggest. Though I cannot for the life of me figure out what Beckett’s script is even trying to suggest and therefore cannot decide whether his performance here was richer or not, O’Sruitheain is watchable as always, pretty much stealing Act One out from under everyone else with his wide range of emotional choices.
Alastair Morley Jaques plays Lucky, who carries around Pozzo’s belongings, and spends every waking moment on stage looking utterly fatigued by the load. Apart from one excessive outburst akin to the Monty Python skit where Eric Idle drove Michael Palin to insanity by complaining about travel agency package deals, Lucky is silent, a character of pure physicality, and Jaques handles it ably.
I started with the performances because I want to differentiate them from the play itself: It is possible to deliver a flawless and expert performance of a script, at the same time that the script itself is not even worth performing. And that is the situation we have here.
The easiest way I can think of to describe what I saw is “doodling”. A person sits and doodles to entertain himself. (I might add that’s why I blog about the theatrical arts, though I do appreciate anyone who stops to read.) It matters not if he doodles anything resembling a decent picture; it’s not really meant for anyone else to look at. And this is the impression I am left with: A play full of doodles.
Samuel Beckett’s script jumps from topic to topic, with or without rational motivation in the dialogue. What portion of page ten requires it to come before page eleven? Would the audience notice if the two pages had been switched? Doubtful. Apart from one hint at an attempt to be deliberately philosophical about the brevity of life (which Beckett also covered in his play Breath), none of the dialogue carries any significant weight or lasting resonance. Some humorous lines are good for a chuckle for their own sake, but they are just chuckles adrift, not serving any larger purpose. There is physical schtick reminiscent of a Mel Brooks film, but it comes and goes with stark inconsistency. Like a child doodling on page after page of blank paper and then throwing them all in a meaningless pile, Beckett doodles out a few dozen theatrical sequences that add up to nothing intriguing whatsoever.
The actors inhabit these doodles consistently and even creatively. O’Sruitheain’s brief discourse on the difficulty of sitting on his stool a second time is delivered with a sly twinkle. Blough and Hickman have volleys of patter that develop a nice rhythm. The list of such individual doodles is long, but doodles they remain: Even when all bundled together, they are still just doodles.
I am told that all this doodling is actually a play wherein Beckett uses the absurd setting to toss out to the audience several thought-provoking questions about the human condition. Indeed, this is the reason cited for the play’s standing as a landmark in modern theater: Never before had a play asked the questions and assigned the audience to ponder their own answers. From everything I have read, it is safe to say existentialism in theatrical form was born right here in Waiting For Godot.
And that is certainly a plausible explanation for my complete lack of enjoyment. I disagree with existentialist philosophy, and with existentialist art. Every play I consider a favorite was written before Waiting For Godot, back when playwrights actually had, you know, something to say. Back before modern art disguised Western culture’s growing relativism and skepticism in a cloak of pseudo-intellectualism.
The director’s program notes invite us to open our minds to the questions being asked. But even disregarding my belief in the presence of absolute truths and the rejection of existential thinking, I still did not even get the impression I was being asked any questions at all, let alone thought-provoking ones I was being burdened to answer. I cannot, a mere two hours after leaving the theater, name for you a single issue about the human condition I am now supposed to be mulling over. If I did not know better, I would say the whole experience felt like a big practical joke by Beckett, who went to his grave laughing quietly about how he duped every producer, director, actor, and receptive audience member into thinking that the play was actually significant. I have no idea what it is about this play that would intrigue any director into staging it, or any actor into auditioning for it. I’m not trying to be snarky, I’m just being honest.
And it’s not that I’m hopelessly shallow: I don’t mind a play or movie that gives me something to think about. But I want to know that the author had a specific assertion in mind, even if I have to dig for it, and even if I disagree with it. Waiting For Godot is none of these. Beckett refused to assign meaning to the play, which makes sense given its existential purpose, but in doing so he completely alienates me.
I think by now I’m beating a dead horse. Waiting For Godot is, for my taste, the worst theater script I have ever seen performed. I would hire any of the performers I saw, who all proved themselves skilled in creating and delivering consistent characters. But the play itself is useless. The fact that Innovation Theatre Works is having a hard time filling the seats for this production suggests I’m not the only one completely put off by its incomprehensible inanity.
When I was a kid who would grimace at some new dish placed before me at the dinner table, my mother would ask, “How do you know you don’t like it? You haven’t even tried it.” Whatever else you may think of my opinion of Waiting For Godot, you cannot say I didn’t even try it.
Basic Ticket Price: $15-$20
Value for Money: Not worth it
Showing posts with label Review: Play. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Review: Play. Show all posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Learning to Fly
Play Review:
Peter Pan
by J.M. Barrie
Musical Adaptation by Mark Charlap and Carolyn Leigh
Company: Redmond High School
Venue: Redmond High School
Run: 5/18/2010 – 5/22/2010
There is a certain appropriateness in having a high school stage a production of Peter Pan, as it is a story about the necessity of growing up, of overcoming one’s fears about adulthood and admitting that eternal youth in Neverland is not an enviable lifestyle. This week Redmond High School, along with select performers from local junior high and elementary schools, brings J.M. Barrie’s story to life in the musical incarnation by Mark Charlap and Carolyn Leigh.
The story, of course, is the familiar tale of Wendy, John, and Michael Darling, and their encounter one night with Peter Pan, the spritely boy in green who can fly and who has sat outside their bedroom window, more evenings than they know, listening to Wendy tell her younger brothers their bedtime stories. Now Peter offers to take Wendy back to his home of Neverland, where you never grow up, so she can be “Mother” to all the Lost Boys there and tell them stories forever.
Peter’s constant enemy in Neverland is Captain Hook, who wants to kill the Lost Boys. And when he discovers a “Mother” on the island, his plan is to keep her on board to tell stories to his pirates forever. This leads to the grand swordfight finale between Pan and Hook aboard the pirate ship, and a happy ending that becomes a slightly bittersweet ending and then we all go home. If that felt rushed, it’s because I’ve written it before in a film review.
Frankly, it would be easy to attack this latest production on many levels. For one, I’m just not crazy about the Charlap & Leigh musical version. Apart from the iconic “I Won’t Grow Up”, the songs strike me as not really striking me, and in some places feel desperately tacked on to no good purpose. It is possible, if I ever make myself watch the classic Mary Martin performance, that the songs may feel more integrated and catchy when performed by professionals, but I doubt it – amateur delivery does not seem to be the problem here. If you like the musical version, you may ignore this old codger’s opinion with abandon.
In this run, Peter Pan is played by two students. At my showing, Una Wagner was the featured performer; the other is Billy Brandt, and I might see if I can catch a snatch of his performance Friday by buttering up the right school administrators. Miss Wagner has a lot of the necessary charm and energy for the part, though I am partial to having actual males in male roles, as when Jeremy Sumpter played the role in the 2003 film. Wagner has an enthusiastic smile as well as a delightful singing voice, and does a fine job skipping, jumping, and crowing about the stage.
As can be expected from a school production, the talent level covers a wide spectrum. The performance that surprised me the most was Jeffrey Richards, a cute little speck of a thing I am assuming was recruited from an elementary school. As Michael, Richards shows more confidence and personality than some of the high schoolers, and has the advantage of being totally adorable in his white night shirt.
And naturally, as a school production, there is a disjointed blend of strong and weak elements. Some characters had microphones and were clearly audible, others went unaided in their projection and were lost completely under the ruckus of Indian chases and sword fights and the orchestra. At times the orchestra was simply too loud, though when the piano had the melody, the pianist seemed reticent to actually speak up.
Costuming was surprisingly extensive, and included a vibrant pirate costume for Captain Hook, and full-body dog and crocodile outfits as well. And though I’ve seen better sets at previous RHS productions, the large cut-outs and the “coloring book” look are very fitting for a children’s story. The school also managed to secure the services of Flying By Foy, so that they do indeed fly through the air as gracefully as any professional company. They even managed to do one better than the high school production I saw in Utah, where either John or Michael had to make repeated efforts to get off the ground while a banging sound backstage suggested some trouble with the wires.
I will also point out that the playbills are very professional. I mention this because six or seven years ago the RHS playbills were flimsy, poorly laid out, and riddled with typos. A good playbill should present a professional welcome to audience members, and the one for Peter Pan achieves this.
And now I have to be cruelly honest: The quality of the production does not justify the $10 ($12 at the door) ticket price. Certainly as a former drama teacher I am aware that a school play is mounted as an experience for the students. At the educational level, the audience is not there to be entertained; they are there to provide an audience for the young performers learning what it is to memorize lines, create characters, and go out on a stage and face down a paying crowd. The audience becomes another facet of the students’ dramatic education.
And I have happily paid between four and seven bucks in the past for some very good shows at Redmond High, including A Midsummer Night’s Dream and even that depressing Woody Allen drama with the title I cannot recall that was very well acted despite its dreary message of hopelessness. So I am not just being a mean old critic who does not know how to view school plays for the educational value they present to the students. I simply did not receive a twelve-dollar show last night.
I think any and all troubles can be summed up as the director Phil Neely biting off a bigger project than the school was ready to chew. One of the first signs is that almost every Lost Boy and pirate is played by a female (much like the female Russian soldiers in my junior high adventure through Fiddler on the Roof). And I could be wrong but the presence of students borrowed from other schools would suggest that there was not enough in-house student interest to pull the play off.
Were I to list all my thoughts, they would largely revolve around little things that could have spiced up the production a notch. One example: Despite having a choreographer on the crew, some moments were a little bland. While Peter Pan sings “I Gotta Crow” the character pretty much just stands there. I so wanted to see him bound about the room like the cocky and vibrant imp that he is. I’m surprised no one on the creative staff found anything interesting to do with that scene.
I could go on, but I will retreat and remind myself that it is for the students that a school play is put on. And as such, several dozen kids are getting a good experience putting on a massive production. They are learning what it is to get into costume, enter on cue, act and react. In the wings, the crew are learning about timing of curtain, lights, music. And certainly they are learning that when cast members are flying fifteen to twenty feet off the stage, there is no room for getting distracted. I was not satisfied as an audience member, but I would not have the students involved miss out on this facet of their education no matter what the crusty old critics say.
Despite the play’s rough edges – of which there were plenty – as I sat there with my five-year-old son and heard again the play’s message about growing up, I did have to hold back a tear or two. They grow up so fast, don’t they? But the alternative of remaining a petulant child forever would not truly be as wonderful as it sometimes sounds.
I certainly hope that if you are a family member or friend of cast or crew that you will go see what they have achieved. For all others, I leave it up to you.
Lowest ticket price: $10
Value for money: Very hard to justify the expense
Peter Pan
by J.M. Barrie
Musical Adaptation by Mark Charlap and Carolyn Leigh
Company: Redmond High School
Venue: Redmond High School
Run: 5/18/2010 – 5/22/2010
There is a certain appropriateness in having a high school stage a production of Peter Pan, as it is a story about the necessity of growing up, of overcoming one’s fears about adulthood and admitting that eternal youth in Neverland is not an enviable lifestyle. This week Redmond High School, along with select performers from local junior high and elementary schools, brings J.M. Barrie’s story to life in the musical incarnation by Mark Charlap and Carolyn Leigh.
The story, of course, is the familiar tale of Wendy, John, and Michael Darling, and their encounter one night with Peter Pan, the spritely boy in green who can fly and who has sat outside their bedroom window, more evenings than they know, listening to Wendy tell her younger brothers their bedtime stories. Now Peter offers to take Wendy back to his home of Neverland, where you never grow up, so she can be “Mother” to all the Lost Boys there and tell them stories forever.
Peter’s constant enemy in Neverland is Captain Hook, who wants to kill the Lost Boys. And when he discovers a “Mother” on the island, his plan is to keep her on board to tell stories to his pirates forever. This leads to the grand swordfight finale between Pan and Hook aboard the pirate ship, and a happy ending that becomes a slightly bittersweet ending and then we all go home. If that felt rushed, it’s because I’ve written it before in a film review.
Frankly, it would be easy to attack this latest production on many levels. For one, I’m just not crazy about the Charlap & Leigh musical version. Apart from the iconic “I Won’t Grow Up”, the songs strike me as not really striking me, and in some places feel desperately tacked on to no good purpose. It is possible, if I ever make myself watch the classic Mary Martin performance, that the songs may feel more integrated and catchy when performed by professionals, but I doubt it – amateur delivery does not seem to be the problem here. If you like the musical version, you may ignore this old codger’s opinion with abandon.
In this run, Peter Pan is played by two students. At my showing, Una Wagner was the featured performer; the other is Billy Brandt, and I might see if I can catch a snatch of his performance Friday by buttering up the right school administrators. Miss Wagner has a lot of the necessary charm and energy for the part, though I am partial to having actual males in male roles, as when Jeremy Sumpter played the role in the 2003 film. Wagner has an enthusiastic smile as well as a delightful singing voice, and does a fine job skipping, jumping, and crowing about the stage.
As can be expected from a school production, the talent level covers a wide spectrum. The performance that surprised me the most was Jeffrey Richards, a cute little speck of a thing I am assuming was recruited from an elementary school. As Michael, Richards shows more confidence and personality than some of the high schoolers, and has the advantage of being totally adorable in his white night shirt.
And naturally, as a school production, there is a disjointed blend of strong and weak elements. Some characters had microphones and were clearly audible, others went unaided in their projection and were lost completely under the ruckus of Indian chases and sword fights and the orchestra. At times the orchestra was simply too loud, though when the piano had the melody, the pianist seemed reticent to actually speak up.
Costuming was surprisingly extensive, and included a vibrant pirate costume for Captain Hook, and full-body dog and crocodile outfits as well. And though I’ve seen better sets at previous RHS productions, the large cut-outs and the “coloring book” look are very fitting for a children’s story. The school also managed to secure the services of Flying By Foy, so that they do indeed fly through the air as gracefully as any professional company. They even managed to do one better than the high school production I saw in Utah, where either John or Michael had to make repeated efforts to get off the ground while a banging sound backstage suggested some trouble with the wires.
I will also point out that the playbills are very professional. I mention this because six or seven years ago the RHS playbills were flimsy, poorly laid out, and riddled with typos. A good playbill should present a professional welcome to audience members, and the one for Peter Pan achieves this.
And now I have to be cruelly honest: The quality of the production does not justify the $10 ($12 at the door) ticket price. Certainly as a former drama teacher I am aware that a school play is mounted as an experience for the students. At the educational level, the audience is not there to be entertained; they are there to provide an audience for the young performers learning what it is to memorize lines, create characters, and go out on a stage and face down a paying crowd. The audience becomes another facet of the students’ dramatic education.
And I have happily paid between four and seven bucks in the past for some very good shows at Redmond High, including A Midsummer Night’s Dream and even that depressing Woody Allen drama with the title I cannot recall that was very well acted despite its dreary message of hopelessness. So I am not just being a mean old critic who does not know how to view school plays for the educational value they present to the students. I simply did not receive a twelve-dollar show last night.
I think any and all troubles can be summed up as the director Phil Neely biting off a bigger project than the school was ready to chew. One of the first signs is that almost every Lost Boy and pirate is played by a female (much like the female Russian soldiers in my junior high adventure through Fiddler on the Roof). And I could be wrong but the presence of students borrowed from other schools would suggest that there was not enough in-house student interest to pull the play off.
Were I to list all my thoughts, they would largely revolve around little things that could have spiced up the production a notch. One example: Despite having a choreographer on the crew, some moments were a little bland. While Peter Pan sings “I Gotta Crow” the character pretty much just stands there. I so wanted to see him bound about the room like the cocky and vibrant imp that he is. I’m surprised no one on the creative staff found anything interesting to do with that scene.
I could go on, but I will retreat and remind myself that it is for the students that a school play is put on. And as such, several dozen kids are getting a good experience putting on a massive production. They are learning what it is to get into costume, enter on cue, act and react. In the wings, the crew are learning about timing of curtain, lights, music. And certainly they are learning that when cast members are flying fifteen to twenty feet off the stage, there is no room for getting distracted. I was not satisfied as an audience member, but I would not have the students involved miss out on this facet of their education no matter what the crusty old critics say.
Despite the play’s rough edges – of which there were plenty – as I sat there with my five-year-old son and heard again the play’s message about growing up, I did have to hold back a tear or two. They grow up so fast, don’t they? But the alternative of remaining a petulant child forever would not truly be as wonderful as it sometimes sounds.
I certainly hope that if you are a family member or friend of cast or crew that you will go see what they have achieved. For all others, I leave it up to you.
Lowest ticket price: $10
Value for money: Very hard to justify the expense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)