I noticed that my new Blog Page had some OPERATOR ERRORS.
I had combined my first two blog comments on one page.
The Richard Christiansen Book(ATOOO) comments was attached to the Braid Tales review.
So if you wish to view my first comments on (ATOOO)
please feel free to open the comments on the bottom of the Braid tales review page.
Thank you for your patience, interest, and feel free to post comments.
I would like to hear if you like, dislike, or are indifferent, happy, sad, glad, whatever.
See you in the theaters.
Sincerely,
Lois Nemeth
loisnemeth.blogspot.com
ReplyDelete“Rapid Fire Dialogue”
(“The Birthday Party”)
By: Lois Nemeth
Chicagoland Theater GSU COMS/TAPS 4090-05 Spring 2013
Patrick Santoro
“Rapid Fire Dialogue”
“The Birthday Party,” by Harold Pinter, was with “Rapid Fire Dialogue.” Moments of silence included mind boggling dialogue. The “Slug of a Man”, Stanley, as viewed by a fellow theater goer at our talk back after the play, is sought after by two shady characters. This is where the “Rapid Fire Dialogue’ as I call it, comes in to the lives of Petey, Meg, Stanley, and LuLu at the serine “Seaside Boarding House.” The lives of everyone involved is about to change when two boarders show up to the party.
First, husband Petey, played by John Mahoney, comes home and greets his wife Meg, played by Moira Harris. Stanley, played by Ian Barford, coddled by Petey and Meg comes down his room after Meg seeks him out. The picture of a “slug of man” is about to have his life changed forever. Petey shares with Meg, who becomes very pleased, that new boarders are coming to stay. Later , Stanley however, seemed infuriated and nervous at the news. He tried to convince Meg not to let the men stay, but that is when it seemed something is amiss.
Meg seemingly living in a fantasy world, as if Stanley was her son, and the only thing that mattered to her were pleasing him. Meg tries to put LuLu, played by Sophia Sinise, and Stanley together, hopefully to cheer him up. But the instant love attraction in Stanley’s eyes for LuLu was very evident when he insisted they go away together. When Stanley found out about the birthday party being thrown for him, he was indifferent to the whole thing.
Now the play really got juicy. After LuLu escapes from Stanley’s advances, the two men, Goldberg, played by Francis Guinan, and McCann, played by Marc Grapey, enter the boarding house. Stanley is not hospitable at all. This scene really made me wonder what Stanley’s problem with the two men was. The “Rapid Fire Dialogue” is now about to begin. Stanley’s serine sanctuary is about to become a nightmarish, mind twisting, character changing battle of wits he is not going to win. The only indication of this is when Goldberg and McCann are speaking in a scene alone. I couldn’t quite figure out what was about to happen, but I only knew it wasn’t good for Stanley.
Stanley was thrown the party against his will, with Meg being driven all the way by Goldberg’s and McCann’s liquor adding fuel to the fire. Which in turn wasn’t his birthday after all and wasn’t for another month. Meg and LuLu become inebriated and were unaware that Stanley was being taken into his dreadful disfigured submission by Goldberg and McCann.
Stanley’s life was changing in an instant. The unmatched superiority of Goldberg got his way not only with Stanley, but with LuLu also. Turns out LuLu was taken advantage of while Stanley is being disfigured by McCann during the night. I thought perhaps that Goldberg and McCann portrayed a couple of mafia thugs, and because Stanley betrayed the “organisation” as it was stated in the playbill notes.
Overall, I was so taken in by the characters stories and the superior acting that I was in tears at the end. Taken in by Stanley’s disfigurement, and all this time, Petey wasn’t even at the party and was powerless to stop what was happening. Furthermore, the superior dialogues given by Francis and Marc were like bullets being fired out of a machine gun and unmatched to anything else I have experienced before. This is why I view it as to being “Rapid Fire Dialogue.” I was also privileged to meet with Moira, Sophia and Francis afterwards. Moreover, Moira insisted Francis walk me to my car. Even though I admit having an uneasy feeling walking to my car with Francis, I knew that was due to his superlative acting. I was safe getting home thanks to Moira, Sophia and Francis. That was the icing on the cake. Meeting the performers and getting autographs with a personal touch, could not be possibly matched.
"Julius Caesar" Shakespeare at the Shakespeare Theater on
ReplyDeleteNavy Pier, Chicago, Illinois. March 7, 2013.
Thrilling, Inspiring, outlandish, current age with a carnival feel during the ore-show program. Popcorn, street vendors, Country Line Dancing, Contemporary Music, Bustling Crowds swirling the streets chanting every 8th bar of the music. "Caesar" Caesar." Precise in every facet. Wait a minute! This is Shakespeare?
Yes it was the clothing and actions may have been 21St Century, but the dialogue was definitely Shakespeare.
No Togas needed here. The people about the Senate Steps colored grey and blue. Scenery that changed in an instant with wait a minute, the floor opened up and a pool appears.
While all the while the misty sights, thunderous sounds, shrills of the "Soothsayer" filling the air as if you where really and truly watching a movie not a play. As Caesar's death is plotted by his senators to no avail they lose their lives in the end as well. By the very knives they used kill due to their own ignorance, fear, and greed.
Overall, the performance was superb from the ushers,to the stage hands. The performers passion flowed like a set of rapids with poignant accuracy. Enthralling filled fire and fury at the end. The senators fought a fight that non one would win. Only to find what they killed never really died in the nephew who would carry the torch onward. I give this production a FIVE Star bravo.
See you on the next post.
Lois NemethMarch 8, 2013 at 1:57 PM
ReplyDelete"Julius Caesar" Shakespeare at the Shakespeare Theater on
Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois. March 7, 2013.
Thrilling, Inspiring, outlandish, current age with a carnival feel during the pre-show program. Popcorn, street vendors, Country Line Dancing, Contemporary Music, Bustling Crowds swirling the streets chanting every 8th bar of the music. "Caesar" Caesar." Precise in every facet. Wait a minute! This is Shakespeare?
Yes it was. The clothing and actions may have been 21St Century, but the dialogue was definitely Shakespeare.
No Togas needed here. The people about and the Senate Steps colored grey and blue marble. Scenery that changed in an instant with wait a minute, the floor opened up and a pool appears.
While all the while the misty sights, thunderous sounds, shrills of the "Soothsayer" filling the air as if you where really and truly watching a movie not a play. As Caesar's death is plotted by his senators to no avail they lose their lives in the end as well. By the very knives they used kill with, due to their own ignorance, fear, and greed.
Overall, the performance were superb from the ushers,to the stage hands. The performers passion flowed like a set of rapids with poignant accuracy. Enthralling, filled with fire and fury at the end. The senators fought a fight that no one would win. Only to find what they killed never really died in the nephew who would carry the torch onward. I give this production a FIVE Star bravo.
See you on the next post.
"Proof" was not as I thought it would be. Very aloof, yet personal, simple, yet complicated.
ReplyDeleteThe indications of a death in the family did not come easily or that the person was crazy or just so highly educated was hard to decipher. The entire story surrounded a father and his two daughters who seemed to live very different lives.
Details to the storyline were hard to decipher at first because the younger daughter was the main character and in every scene. Very athletic yet boisterously withdrawn at times. Who knew that this simple play of two acts at the Chicago Court Theater would be so difficult to interpret.
Details to follow. See the next comment for more details.
Commonalities between all three plays brought old to new, somewhat disturbing language, and skin flicks were added for flavor. Grand and minimal costuming, sets, lighting, and sound each including play provoked thought in their own ways. Julius Caesar, Proof, and Concerning Strange Devices from the Distant West each added a little bit of all the above. Cast and crew were to be applauded for their performances, yet there was something left to be desired.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Julius Caesar at the very least was a fad interpretation of Shakespeare. The street fair, popcorn and carnival vendors, skate boarder, a boxer, signage carried, people chanting, and then country line dancing during the preshow introduction was confusing? What? This is Shakespeare? Then 21st century clothing and mannerisms suddenly became intertwined with dialogue from the late 15th century.
Unusually clear was Shakespeare’s dialogue.
The soothsayer, played by McKinley Carter, and brought a great deal of drama to each turn of events along as they were happening. But, Marc Antony, played by Dion Johnstone, portrayed as a boxer in the beginning of the play and did not seem to make any sense. But when the dialogue began between Marc Antony and Julius Cesar, played by David Darlow, suddenly the political story started to make sense.
So, the initial pre-show and boxer interpretation was not clear and seemed to miss the flavor of a true interpretation of Shakespeare’s play. But overall, the 20 cast members, crew, directors, producers, sounds and lighting, blended smoothly. Director Jonathan Munby and Movement Director Harrison McEldowney should be commended for the creativity.
The precise movements of all cast/crew, costumes, scenery, lights, and sound effects that brought the play together like a neat package. The play’s scene changes and cast flowed smoothly and precisely and quickly like a well oiled machine.
Proof included a minimal cast of four utilized unwelcomed foul language added from Catherine, played by Chaon Cross, a woman who’s mind was tortured with evidence of a very over educated personality. It wasn’t clear until the end of the play that Robert, Catherine’s eccentric father played by Kevin Gudahlg, literally left ghostly memories seen only in Catherine’s eyes throughout the entire play. The somewhat awkward scene between Catherine’s sister Claire, played by Megan Kohl and student Hal, played by Erik Hellman, and didn’t quite work well when they were speaking as shadows behind the scenes. Catherine’s presence during the dialogue seemed unnecessary. The strained relationships between each character were believable, yet the porch-swing and chair used as part of the props other than the clothing felt as if there was something missing.
ReplyDeleteOverall, Proof lacked clarity. The only connection for the relationships, props used, and use of Catherine in every scene was given during the talkback after the play hosted by Charles Newell Artistic Director. It became clear that the main focus of the play was the proof surrounding Catherine’s adaptation of her mathematical struggles.
Strange Devices from the Distant West was an igneous thought provoking skin flick. Photographer Adolfo Farsari, portrayed by Michael McKeogh, brought 1895 to the 21st century from ingenious cameras, use of colors, and light used during the 18th century to the 21st century 007 spy ring camera.
Characters Kiku, servant girl, and a woman in a Kimono, was portrayed by Tiffany Villarin; and Hiro, Blind Monk, a tattooed a man played by Kroydell Galima were quite brave characters. But the background of Japanese lifestyles got a bad rap with portrayals of prostitution with a little cloak and dagger added for flavor. Also the bar scene seemed to lack realism without the assumed music or sounds of conversations that would be surrounding patrons. But the entire 90 minute play ran straight through and flowed reasonably well. The lobby mad you feel as if you were in a museum with period mechanics and photos displayed. The usage of colors, film clips, photos, scientific explanations, period costumes, mannerisms, lighting were impressive. But the sexual suggestions, foul language, and bit of pornography could have been left out.
In conclusion, these three plays have something in common. Each brought the centuries together, some disturbing language, provocative human traits, and stimulated the senses while bringing characters to life. Julius Caesar, Proof, and Concerning Strange Devices from the Distant West added a little bit of all the above. Cast and crew are to be applauded for their performances, yet there was a lack of clarity. From costumes, props, technology, and environment used, all three plays are still worth seeing.
Lois Nemeth
loisnemeth@gmail.com
Still Alice A Tear Jerker
ReplyDeleteBy Lois Nemeth
Still Alice, first time production seen at the Lookingglass Theater in the Historic Water Tower in Chicago, April 11, 2013.
To Begin, Eva Barr was a intensely emotional in her performance as Alice. The characters, Thomas (Alice's husband, played by Cliff Chamberlain), John (Alice's son, played by Christopher Donahue), Lydia( Alice's Daughter, played by Joanne Dubach, and Herself ( Alice's inner voice, played by Marlann Mayberry), truly may the entire production a must see.
The props and costumes were systematical utilized. The intelligent screenings of color, light, and Microsoft Power Point was a pleasant surprise. Initially, not knowing what to expect, learning the inner workings of the neurons that make up the signals connecting the dots to the brain and mindful thoughts, Barr and Mayberry made it clear.
Barr (Alice) and Mayberry's (Herself) relationship in the beginning of the performance was a bit confusing, until it was obvious that the character of Alice was talking to herself. The entire performance visibly brought tears to the audience's eyes as the emotions flew like a roller coaster ride throughout the play. Each realism in what life is like to live with Alzheimer's Disease, from the symptoms to the timeline starting from March 2010 to Fall 2012 were displayed on the towering screen behind the actors. Even line painted on the bottom of the screen, by Mayberry, became an integral piece to the last scene of the play.
Smartly enhancing the performance, each actor moved the props swiftly through each scene. The systematic use of costume changes were also impressive. The rack of clothing, off to the side of the stage being utilized by Alice, slowly disappeared as did the props of the home, until the end of the performance. Thomas and Alice were peacefully left sitting in beach chairs at the lakeside cottage. Tears in the eyes pooled up while wondering what was in store for their future.
Barr and Mayberry's poignant depiction of a person's decline in health, due to Alzheimer's Disease, brought the facts, figures, movements, and emotions to light. The performers enhanced their movements as they moved props throughout to stage to conform to each scene.The full use of the Microsoft technology and the line painted on the bottom of the screen enhanced the realism and last scene's lake side view. Leaving Alice and Thomas in their beach chairs peacefully at the end. A tear jerker and a must see.
Late Night Catechism
ReplyDeleteReview by Lois Nemeth
A one woman show, in an upstairs L shaped theatre, filled with about 20 audience members, 60 common chairs, a back wall bar, and a raised stage in the far corner, was unexpected and hilariously engaging. Late Night Catechism, story by Vicki Quade and Maripat Donovan, was led by Liz Cloud as the Sister (NUN) in charge of the class. The piped in spiritual music, class room setting, and the Sister’s entrance, during the first half of the show, was very educational.
Liz Cloud was a truly believable nun, dressed in a habit, very much in control of the class, and was engaging from the time she walked into the room. While encouraging participation from everyone in attendance, the Sister (Cloud) educated the class in what it is to be a catholic. The use of the blackboards, lining the walls behind the sister’s desk, helped engage the audience into her lessons on Catholicism.
Cloud’s uses of the game of charades, helped students (audience members) receive rewards of glow in the dark plastic rosaries and small saint statues for answering her questions correctly.
The second half of the show, after a 10 minute intermission, seemed to lose its energy. Some of the students (audience) decided to change seats before the sister came back to confuse her. Cloud’s reaction to the maneuver was well played as she questioned why some students changed seats. However, there was a sense of confusion in her reactions and that is when the energy seemed to fade. But Cloud intelligently continued to entertain the audience until the end of the performance.
Even though the unexpected classroom setting and overall interpretation of Late Night Catechism lacked energy toward the end, Cloud’s performance utilizing the entire space was intelligent and believable. While engaging and entertaining, after a 10 minute intermission, the show’s energy seemed to fade as if in a classroom filled with students ready to leave. The performance and audience may have been more energized if another simple element was added to keep the energy high throughout, but the lessons taught through Cloud’s willingness to except unruly students in her classroom could be a great show to recommend students of all ages to attend.
Class dismissed………..