The Women of Lockerbie

a play by Deborah Brevoort

directed by Melora Marshall

presented by Theatricum Botanicum

review by Phillip Kelly

A bit of synchronicity occurred the night of my seeing The Women of Lockerbie. I had shown up to Theatricum to sit on their grounds and do a bit of writing before the production, as it's a lovely place to lose one's thoughts. Instead of working on something specific, I did just that, let my mind roam on the page. It mainly stuck to the ideas of art and love and what can happen if you don't make use of them. Lockerbie is a beautifully written piece of art about love and what happens when the aftermath of an evil action and the ensuing grief takes hold of it. It's a haunting piece, profound in it's simplicity and ultimately beautiful and touching. Brevoort's words are poetic and cut to the heart of the matter with wisdom and finesse.

The matter at hand is the terrorist attack on the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21st, 1988 and the grief that continues to follow the families and the inhabitants of Lockerbie seven years later. Bill Livingston (Thad Geer) has brought his wife Madeleine (Susan Angelo) back to Lockerbie on the anniversary of the crash. Their twenty year-old son died aboard the plane and Madeleine's grief carries her over the foggy hills looking for any sign of his remains. Meanwhile, an American Government official, George Jones (Blake Edwards) has come back to Lockerbie to burn the clothing of the deceased. The articles have been bagged and locked up in a hangar with the remains of the airplane crash for 7 years and his job is to tie up all loose ends, but the women of Lockerbie represented by Olive (Ellen Geer), Hattie (Katherine Griffith), Woman 1 (Elizabeth Tobias) and Woman 2 (Victoria Hilyard), many of whom lost family as the carnage rained down upon them and who saw the death first hand, won't allow it. They have something else in mind, and they'll be damned if they give up the fight so easily. All of these characters have been affected differently by the event.

It took a few minutes for the production to find its feet for me, only because I couldn't get a bead on how the character of Bill Livingston felt. He's the first on the stage and the first to set the tone. Mr. Geer has one of the more difficult characters to play in the show and is put into one of the more difficult situations an actor can be put in. To play a character that chooses not show his emotions. When do you show? When do you not show? How do you show what emotions you have so as not to confuse the audience? Because while you're hiding your true emotions, other ones might sneak out unexpectedly. How do you carry your body and interact with people having hidden how you truly feel about something for seven years? At what point do you show, so that the arch of the character feels natural and not forced? So that those eventual emotions are cathartic and not manipulative to the audience. There should always be something at work under the passivity, and I didn't always see it. The choices felt a little muddy at first, but soon found focus once he has Ms. Angelo to play off of. She grounds the show in a definite emotion, with a startling first act monologue, and brings out those things I was happy to see from Mr. Geer, and his performance flourishes.

Angelo, as the grieving Mother, is haunting and heartbreaking. She however faces a challenge on the opposite end of the spectrum, playing grief. Something female leads have faced from the Greek tragedies to Shakespeare. I can safely say nobody wants to hear a female character wail for an hour and a half. Marshall had the sense to not allow this, and I'm sure Angelo would have been opposed as well. But again, how long do you keep that going? Madeleine is crazy with grief. People don't change on a dime. They need something to incite the change. Brevroot hasn't given a specific moment for this to happen and the tendency for lesser actors would be to play these scenes at an emotional "ten" every time they step on stage. Just when you think the trajectory may head that way, it doesn't and quiet moments are found. This being said, I would have liked to have seen a few more of those intimate moments up front; a quiet intensity, which can be difficult in a space as big as Theatricum's. But when this group chose those moments, and they most assuredly did, it's a beautiful thing to watch.

The four women of Lockerbie are a hoot. Ms. Geer plays Olive with a fire and playfulness that wins you over immediately. Katherine Griffith is delightful as George Jones' cleverer-than-she-appears cleaning lady. Victoria and Elizabeth bring a wisdom, sadness and eventual hope to their characters - they almost feel like chorus, tying together many of the emotional themes through pieces of precise and perfectly timed bon mots. Blake Edwards is also thoroughly enjoyable and perfectly cast as the young American government official. His throw away lines are golden.

Marshall starts and ends the show with some beautifully sung folk songs and the Theatricum space is perfect for the show, which Marshall has used to to its advantage. The cast wanders up and down the hillsides, shouting back and forth at each other. You get a real sense of space and depth and being lost with these characters on the hillsides of Scotland. Lost in their grief, sadness, anger and found again in their eventual cleansing. It's a journey that is as simple as a couple of steps, but feels like it's taken you miles by the end. It makes for a wonderful night at the theatre, that had me tearing up in the end.


The Women of Lockerbie written by Deborah Brevoort, Directed by Melora Marshall
June 30th-September 29th
Playing in rep with Measure for Measure, Heartbreak House and A Midsummer Night's Dream
Where: The Will Geer Theatricum Botanicum, 1419 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd, Topanga CA, 90290
(midway between the Pacific Coast Highway and the Ventura Freeway, on the West side of the street.)
For tickets and show: 310-455-3723, www.theatricum.com
Dress casually (warmly for evenings) and bring cushions for bench seating. Snacks are available at the Hamlet Hut and picknickers are welcome before and after the performance.

The Fool and the Red Queen

the world premiere production

written by Murray Mednick

direct by Murray Mednick and Guy Zimmerman

presented by Padua Playwrights Productions

review by Phillip Kelly

I want to hit this point right out of the gate - these actors are quite good, fully committed to the material at hand, and they sell it to the best of their ability, and at times elevate the material to something of insight. The material on the other hand and handling of the material...

The Fool and the Red Queen plays at performance art, stylized theatre, not often seen in LA. It doesn't hope to capture a story, but a tone, a visceral poem, something that effects your subconscious, hypnotizes you - much like a dream, it hopes to over stimulate you with its words and visuals, creating a sort of drug like or euphoric haze until you can see its meaning hidden within. 

There are a few problems here. First, it's self-indulgent in length. If you get it, you get it. It doesn't matter how many times you approach something from the same angle or how long you spend making sure it's gotten. You get it. Someone that doesn't, won't. It's as easy as that. If you're going to write a piece like this, write it and direct for the people that will get it. To be abstract and use a hammer to present those abstractions seems unnecessary. A show like this should flow like music, and putting something in iambic pentameter doesn't mean that the play as a whole will find its rhythm. 

The show gets off on the right foot as Gary (John Diehl) comes in to audition for a couple of writer/producers; already we're entering a sort of meta-verse. These producer/writers, Chauncey (Jack Kehler) and Rondell (Gary Palmer) are lively and watching the three of them verbally fence through this audition that becomes brainstorming that turns into a script writing session is enjoyable for awhile, then it continues and keeps going. And then it keeps going well beyond the period in which we get where it's going. Everything lingers too long and because of this, nothing is a surprise, which is a mistake for any story - even if there is none. We've been given this meta-verse in which, through the video monitors, we're shown a story we have yet to see.  We understand where the second act will go.

Back to the stylization, because I feel that this is the main focus of the show. It includes video (at points effective) - some of it live. Sound effects. Lighting that symbolizes a mood as opposed to creating a reality. Some fun costumes. It's all here to create an unseen presence. So when the actors speak you get the feeling that there's much more going on than there is within the words themselves. But because of its repetitive length, it didn't reach the level of stylization I felt was necessary nor, again, did it surprise.

It's not stylized enough. Or the stylization doesn't amount to much thematically. There are so many building blocks here and none of them feel like they're being used to create the same house. When things start going deeper into the rabbit hole, the actors are directed to hardly move a muscle. The Fool (Bill Celentano) and The Red Queen (Julia Prud'homme) stand or sit and vocalize and are merely continuously frustrated with each other. The Fool literally doing back flips for the Queen to please her. The Inkeeper/Chorus (Peggy A. Blow) seems to be in on the universal joke here, winking at the audience - enjoying herself! She's otherworldly in her presence and a well informed character. And for a show that hints at being otherworldly, by the end it feels awfully pedestrian. If you're going to give me performance art, bring in movement. This show needed a choreographer; dance, some physical embodiment of the stylization found in the dialogue, which would have only made the stillness in the second half that much more profound.

By the end, I felt more drained than intrigued; more beaten than challenged. This kind of piece isn't by definition very risk-taking anymore and to truly believe that it is, you're not looking around you. This sort of meta, dream-like, poetic fantasy is part of pop culture now thanks to the likes of directors like David Lynch and Terry Gilliam and writers like Charlie Kaufman. The difference between those filmmakers and the creative talent behind The Fool and the Red Queen is that Lynch and Kaufman also set out to entertain or to show you a piece of humanity. Murray Mednick, the writer, and his co-director Guy Zimmerman, hide any level of humanity so deep within the production that we're never given a reason to truly care or be inspired through an emotional connection to really think about what's happening until the theme itself is quite literally given to us in a few lines of dialogue at the end. There will always be a need for art like this, but not just for art's sake and not just for the artist's sake. Hell, I want to be challenged! And I'm under the belief that most audience members do as well, intellectually and emotionally. For some it takes less to challenge them than others - seeing Optimus Prime being cut down might be an emotionally challenging day for someone. But to challenge people simply by making something difficult to understand or to swallow without also giving them an emotional base that connects with the intellectual design of the work, then you're really only pleasing yourself. 

The interesting thing about a show like this, while I see it needs a lot of work, someone else might see it and proclaim brilliance. And with a creator like Mednick, although I didn't connect with this piece, I may see his next show. He's out there experimenting and trying new things. You don't work in theatre for this long without having knocked it out of the park a few times and he may knock it out of the park for me. Keep experimenting!

This is a show in the Hollywood Fringe Festival. Show up early to find street parking.

Dates:

May 19-June 24 

Fri and Sat at 8pm, Sun at 7pm

Where: Lounge Theatre, 6201 Santa Monica Blvd, Hollywood, CA 90038

How: 323-960-7740 or www.plays411.com/RedQueen

The Seagull

by Anton Chekhov

directed by Andrew J. Traister

translated by Paul Schmidt

Presented by Antaeus

review by Phillip Kelly

I could summarize Chekhov's The Seagull for you, but by God just type it in your google search bar and you're bound to run into a few story and character breakdowns, or simply go see this magnificent production by Antaeus. Although they do mostly everything by the book, they do such an extraordinary job at it, it makes me wonder why people try to do it any differently.

A couple years ago I was involved in a production of a selection of Chekhov's short works, his comedies, and I read many of his essays. It was startling to me how intoxicating and incisive his sense of humor was; his pessimism gave an edge to his wisdom and understanding of human complexities. As a writer, he doesn't so much show us the world, but heightens aspects of it ever so slightly, allowing us to laugh at ourselves while feeling empathy for those we're watching. It's hard for me to understand when people overlook this element, especially when it's so essential to not only his work, but any tragedy you hope to produce, write, direct or act in. Comedy is essential to tragedy, because it allows us to see the characters as human. It gives them life as they approach death. Directed by Andrew J. Traister, this production of The Seagull is brimming with life and characters that simply don't know how to make it work in their favor. The ridiculous often meets the dry comment. It's really quite funny. The only way this comedy can be mined at the doors of tragedy to any degree is if the actors on stage embrace the imperfections of their characters, leave their egos at the door, and become as vulnerable as newborns; suffice to say the actors here are up to that challenge and Traister's fluid, subtle and natural direction allows us to be enveloped by the performances. There's nothing here to distract.

Antaeus makes it well known they double cast their shows and revolve the actors in and out, mixing and matching them. I love the concept, not only as a way to get more people in the doors, but as a way to keep the performers on their toes. I was blessed to get this cast (and would love to see the other!), not only because the fanboy in me ate up Kurtwood Smith's perfectly balanced Doctor Dorn, or because each actor found a corner of this world to inhabit all their own, from Bonnie Snyder as the Maid, who with her two lines cracks up the audience, to Joe Delafield's portrayal of the tortured writer Konstantin, so driven to break free of the world's mediocrity and discover something new that he can never relax into his own voice as an artist or a person, to Abby Wilde's portrayal of the innocent and naive Nina, so wanting to embrace life that she confuses fame for the joy of creating art and has to suffer from the consequences of this confusion the rest of her life. Yes, everyone that graces this stage proves that they are more than just capable performers, but no one more so than Laura Wernette who embodied completely the matriarch, Arkadina.

From Arkadina's carnal seduction of Trigorin (an excellent Bo Foxworth), to her dismissive assumptions about her son Treplev, and her sudden realizations of her abhorrent behavior which bring a tenderness to her face, Laura brings a divine light to the stage like I imagine the great actors of Broadway and London did in the Golden era of theatre, when actors were treated less like faces for marketing campaigns, and more like Gods, as well they should have been. Ms. Wernette breathes, as they did, altitudes of complexity into one of the most complex female creations written and literally brings words on the page to life in the form of a living breathing human being. Chekhov as Dr. Frankenstein and Arkadina as his Monster can only work with someone like Ms. Wernette bringing beauty, grace and a willingness to embrace every imperfection of this tragically unaware and sad creature. I liken her to a Monster, but what might be more apt is Cleopatra:

Age cannot wither her,
nor custom stale Her infinite variety.

This makes her wondrous and treacherous. Arkadina in Ms. Wernette hands is Nature herself. Bravo to her and everyone else for bringing such vulnerability to the stage, it makes it hard to look away. Rarely do I gush, but this is well deserved for everyone in the production I saw.

Another round of applause for the scenic design team Lechetti Design, for which my only constructive criticism would have been to force the road and river's perspectives ever so slightly. Though in the 2nd half they create a haunting, ghost like interior, which is elevated by the very subtle, yet effective sound design by Jeff Gardner. Combined with the lighting (Jeremy Pivnick), costume (A. Jeffrey Schoenberg) and prop (Heather Ho) designers, it truly feels like you've taken a step into their world. One I'm tempted to see a second time only to rediscover the story again with a whole new selection of actors!

In the end Chekhov's The Seagull, isn't about our dying elderly, but our dying youth. We have the potential to destroy them with the emptiness we feel inside ourselves, that we're too afraid to deal with, and like a weapon when we choose to do so, that emptiness can lash out and needlessly shoot them out of the air.

The Seagull presented by the Antaeus Company. March 1st - April 15th. Thurs.-Sat. 8pm, Sun. 2pm. Tickets $30-$34. The Deaf West Theatre, 5112 Lankershim Blvd. North Hollywood. 818-506-1983. www.anteaus.org for tickets and cast dates.

The cast I saw:

Arkadina.........Laura Wernette
Sorin................Gregory Itzin
Treplev...........Joe Delafield
Nina.................Abby Wilde
Shamrayev.....John Achorn
Paulina............Reba Waters
Masha.............Avery Clyde
Trigorin..........Bo Foxworth
Dorn................Kurtwood Smith
Medvedenko..Patrick Wenk-Wolf
Yakov..............Brian Abraham
The maid.........Bonnie Snyder

Feedback

a new play by Jane Miller

directed by Craig Jessen

presented by the Lyric Theatre Foundation

review by Phillip Kelly

Feedback, a new play by Jane Miller, was a delight. I'm truly glad I was able to see this show in it's first live incarnation, because I feel with a little more work it has a bright future, and I can say, I was there when ...

Our heroine, Holly (April Grace Lowe) signs up for a new self improvement process from a company called Perception, in which they assess your personality and re-brand you, so you can better fit into society and move ahead in life. From your boyfriend to your hobbies and career, they will adjust your personality and make you the best brand of "you" that you can be, so the consumers, your friends, coworkers, etc, will want to metaphorically purchase you. Kinda creepy, but really interesting.

The emotional center of the play occurs between Holly, played with a grounded vulnerability and sincere likeability by Ms. Grace Lowe and her agent at Perception, Elizabeth, whom Angela Ryskiewicz fashions to be a by the books observer but is too easily swayed to empathy by Holly's struggle and outgoing personality. Both women find themselves reaching out to one another for a sincere connection in the hopes to rediscover who they truly are. It's a touching, funny and ultimately moving relationship that works because both actors are so good at just barely containing their burdensome emotions. They come from the school of less is more. Ms. Grace Lowe gives us the pleasure of seeing Holly's transformation on stage and, Miller has crafted the character's arch beautifully. There's nothing overtly clever about Miller's dialogue, it's real, awkward, and a testimony to her ear for the natural rhythms of regular people. She's given each character a distinct voice - refreshing.

The other voices that add to Holly's struggle for strength and direction in her life, and may or may not be holding her back, are her kind-of ex-boyfriend, Ian (Cody Roberts) and Claudia (Karen DeThomas), who both do a respectable job here. The 5th member of the cast is Judith (Dorrie Braun, equally as solid as her cast mates) the creator of Perception who has taken up the cause, as one of the panel members for the deconstruction of Holly's life.

I laughed out loud often and was moved, because I understand what it feels like to question my own identity based on others' assessments and that sense of loneliness that can come from being uncertain if you matter or are liked at all. I think these are fairly Universal feelings and thoughts people have at all points in their lives. Am I really worth it? Is what I'm doing worth it? Every day, especially in the environment of Hollywood, we're assessed and judged by all around us. It's a city of glances, ogling and glares, and it has the ability to beat down your self esteem. There's a very telling line in which Holly calls herself aware, then back peddles to self-aware, and then that further curtails to self-conscious; the very funny part is she's so anxious at that moment to please she doesn't seem completely aware of the differences. The show is elevated by these small truths; which means it was most likely written by someone who is aware of their faults as a person and not afraid to explore them. That could make this a very personal play. The Director, Craig Jessen, then, knows how to keep those faults grounded and enjoyable to watch. He guided these actresses and actor with a smooth hand.

The show however isn't without it's flaws, most of which will hopefully be ironed out as Ms. Miller is allowed to see the show through the eyes of her audience's reactions and really just to see the show performed over and over again, and of course a little critical appraisal doesn't hurt. My only problem comes nearing the end of the show: we're allowed to see and hear about Holly in her most vulnerable moments, yet we aren't allowed to see the climax of Holly's journey in a way that is cathartic before the different stories come to a conclusion. Usually when something is missing in the end, you need to go back and look at your beginning.

***Some spoilers, as this is intended mainly for the writer.***

I don't like simply writing reviews for certain shows--what's there to learn for the audience or author? I like, I don't like - kind of boring and unhelpful, and my years of developing original work in a theatre company won't let me leave the conversation without giving some constructive criticism, especially when the show is so close to being great (and easily sold in the film market! I'd option and direct it myself.) So, I ask the writer, what is the overriding relationship in this show? Holly and Ian? Holly and Elizabeth? Holly and Claudia? Holly and Holly? It's not Holly and Claudia. I never felt it was Holly and Ian, it could be if their relationship is at least as strong as Holly and Elizabeth, but it's not. So, right now it's Holly and Elizabeth, who share a final scene together, but the falling action hasn't been earned yet. Between Holly's final assessment and that final scene there has to be something else. My first thought would be, we need to see Holly try and play out the personality she was given and realize through the act of it just how unnatural and unlike her it is, so the audience can live with her through that awkward moment. This can add another layer to the Holly and Ian arch before it's complete. I felt it would have helped to see Elizabeth try harder to get her assessment to Holly before Elizabeth is forced to leave the room, so when she finally gives it to her, we're waiting to hear what it was, why it didn't work when she tried to be that way with Ian and just couldn't be. Right now these last moments come and go before Holly can reach bottom, yes, we see her become empowered throughout the show, but we miss the final moment of struggle before she rears her head and proudly says, no. She's decided while the lights are down. What might also strengthen this is allowing the audience to see a little more of the unhealthy side of the Holly and Ian relationship story in the beginning. Yes, they argue, but it's brought on by Holly's paranoia - he's actually there to do something kind. And aside from what's said about the relationship before the show started, that's all we're allowed to see, the two of them being really good to one another. We need to see what's talked about, some of that interaction that we only hear referred to as it happened before the show's start. I do like the paranoia aspect as well. I wonder if there's a way to hold onto that until Elizabeth reveals it and then Holly goes back to Ian, but that doesn't seem as detrimental.

***Spoiler done.***

All in all an original and intelligent idea that drew me in with it's sincerity, humor and insight. I recommend it be seen.

Feedback an original play by Jane Miller. Directed by Craig Jessen. March 30-April 28. Friday & Saturday at 8pm; additional matinee performances on Sundays, April 15 & 22 at 2pm. $20.
The Lyric Theatre, 520 N. La Brea Avenue, in Los Angeles, 90036. Street parking available.
Tickets available online at www.plays411.com/feedback, www.Goldstar.com,
www.LAStageAlliance.com, or by calling (323) 960-1055.

Unplug Grandma

I love the tagline for this new political satire by Jeremy Kehoe: "If you don't want to die, don't get old." It's a nice witticism from a show that's still searching for solid ground to stand on. As the director Amy Tofte, who is also a founder of the producing company Fierce Backbone and also its President, told the audience before the house lights went down, this is a workshop - somewhere between 99-seat theatre and Broadway, which she made of point of noting is the reason for the minimalist set. My first thought is, never apologize for a minimalist set before a show. Embrace it. I happened to like it. Since this was a workshop "so the writer could hear his words", and no doubt the reaction from the audience, most of the remainder of my thoughts will be directed at the script itself in hopes to help along his creative process with some of my own observations.

It's the future, a few Presidential elections down the line, Palin...Bristol Palin has become president, and a new law, "Fahrenheit 451" style, has been put into place. If you are too old to be of use, a member of a death unit gets your name and puts you out of everyone elses misery. It saves the country money and everyone else the hassle. Writing this brief synopsis, I imagine loads of opportunities for witty, biting and dark comedy, which the script in it's current form doesn't take full advantage of. Yes, the country saves money on Medicare, etc, but in what other ways are the elderly a pain? Much of this humor can come directly from Chase, as he has some major issues with those older than he is and for good reason. It's an absurd idea, so allow it to become a little more absurd; like a political cartoon.

Instead the tone of the show leans more towards a very austere, apathetic future, which could also be great, but this route makes the subject matter far too serious to call it a comedy. It currently feels more like a bedroom drama with an allegorical slant, in which the two sides of the coin are argued back and forth for most of the show (the writer preferring the side of not killing old people). It mainly takes place in one location, the apartment of a married couple MUFFY and CHASE. Muffy is the wife who has become disenchanted with the country and her marriage with Chase, as he has found employment as one of the death squad members. He claims this is so he can provide for Muffy, but he has deep seated parental issues of his own and a power trip from all the killing. A lot of the turmoil comes from Muffy having to take care of her two elderly parents Poppy and Mommy while Chase carries around a long, thin baton for beating people of their age to death with.

Muffy gets the idea that if she can bring Chase's long lost Mother into the picture, she can change his mind about the elderly and turn him back into the man she was once in love with. Love this idea. However, the entirety of the first act is a lead up to this, which is a problem. Not much happens in the first act. It takes a very long time to even begin to figure out the premise of the show. I'm all for building a little mystery into a story, but the sooner we get this out, the sooner we can play with the idea with the audience, as opposed to keeping them at arms length...it's one of the few helpful things I learned going through The Groundlings school of Improv. So, the first half is all mainly set up. There's a strange opening scene in which Muffy is taking notes from a taped recording, which makes a little more sense later, but is too oblique and strange especially since the device is never used again. We meet her parents. We meet Chase. We learn that while Chase does truly love Muffy, Muffy is unhappy. We circle this unhappy marriage for awhile, the back and forth doesn't dig too deep for the length of time spent on it; it can be made more concise. Or I'd love to see Muffy appear to actually still love Chase. I never understood why she ever did. This is something else to take note of, since the characters begin the show already firmly planted in their ideals, there's no inner conflict with any of the characters. There's no chance that they will change. There's nothing pushing them during the show towards who they decide to become. This deflates some of the potential for drama. Let us perhaps see doubt, on both sides. Let us see why she loves him in the beginning. This will also help balance out the arguments - right now it's very one-sided. I'd love as an audience member to really be put in a place to think that killing the elderly could be good for our society. But those arguments have to be really keen observations.

In the first act, there's a nice visit from Chase's sleazy boss ANDERSON, which, aside from the premise, provides the only real palpable bit of satire we see in the show. Then a mysterious woman arrives.

The second act opens with more of the same, only we get to see Chase interact with Muffy's parents. Poppy and Mommy provide light touches of humor, but nowhere near where the writer could take the satire and comedy. There's a nice moment between Mommy and Chase before Poppy drags her out. Then the mysterious woman arrives and the script elevates. The characters are drawn out of their selves and forced to face who they are and why they might be who they are. Or at least Chase is; outside of being depressed, Muffy is perfect. Yes, that was a little snarky. Thsi sequence with Chase's Mother, Ruth, was for me the best part of the script. Secrets are uncovered, a plot twist that bordered on the very convenient occurred. Does Ruth have to be the Mother Sarah of the elderly - it was a little too out of left field for me, but if we got to spend a little more time with Muffy and Ruth in the first act...well, maybe there are ways to make this work better.

The biggest problem for me with the script was the final scene, which seemed unnecessary from a storytelling stand point and a dramatic one as well. Everything that needed to be said, was already said - and sometimes repeated from argument to argument. It was quite literally like watching the first 3/4 of Act 2 repeated, just with a set change and a lack of heightened conflict. It's 10 minutes that can be excised and nothing will be lost. You don't need to put a bow on everything. And with that, I'm going to put a bow on this rather informal review. I wish the writer good luck with this project, I see lots of potential and I hope he's able to get good enough notes to help him continue in the right direction.

As a final thought, if we look this far into the future, acronyms like LOL and OMG probably won't be at the cutting edge of how youths communicate. I'm 33 and there are already acronyms that I don't understand that people 5 years younger than me are using. It makes me feel old and out of the loop. These are areas the writer can have a little more fun in.

Unplug Grandma. February 17th-26th at Studio Stage. 520 North Western Ave, LA, CA 90004.
Fri and Sat 8pm, Sun at 7pm.
For tickets go to: www.fiercebackbone.com

Alfred Hitchcock's The 39 Steps

A Review

To me, of all the genres, suspense and comedy share the most qualities. How they take similar approaches in their mechanics to storytelling and interacting with the audience to incite, although very different, but very specific reactions would make it seem like turning one of Hitchcock’s classic thrillers into a comedy make near perfect sense.

In a thriller you build anticipation toward a catharsis. In a comedy you do the same. In a thriller you surprise people with a twist or keep them off guard by staying a step ahead of them. In comedy you make people laugh by surprising them and staying a step ahead as well. If someone knows the joke is coming, or twist – you’re dead in the water. In a thriller you keep the stakes high so you never know if the main character will make it out alive. In a comedy the stakes need to be even higher so when something happens to the characters and they respond accordingly, you laugh. But you have to believe in those stakes!

As a filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock knew how to deal with these things extremely well. He also knew how to build suspense, create 3-Dimensional characters you cared about, had pitch perfect timing, delved into wit and irony, shocked you while staying true to the story and characters, he knew how to tell a coherent story that involved you from beginning to end…all crucial elements when approaching comedy and all elements that La Mirada’s misguided Alfred Hitchcock’s the 39 Steps lacks.

Real quick, the synopsis is – well, the same as the film. Watch it, you’ll enjoy it more and it’ll cost you less. As with any film noir, the main character Richard Hannay, played by Andrew Borba, is your common man, who becomes entangled in something much bigger than he’s ready for, but rises to the occasion. Because of his penchant for falling in love with any woman he lays eyes on, he brings a German dame (Dana Green, who plays the menagerie of love interests throughout the show) back to his house. This mysterious woman tells him she is in danger, and fills him in on a secret plot to steal something out of the country called the 39 Steps. She needs his help to get to the people who are behind this, only she’s murdered in the middle of the night and Hannay is accused of it. So in order to clear his name he has to go through the dangerous process of uncovering the mystery and bringing down the bad guys.

Sounds intriguing, right? However, the problem with this first scene is the problem that never goes away. The comedy undercuts any level of reality, or sense of story, so the stakes and the conflict are yanked out from underneath the actors before anything of interest can happen. And I was excited to come see the show. To tell you the truth, I’m excited to go see any live theatre. I want it to be good and succeed. I am also a theatre artist. But I will not kiss ass (as I saw so many people in the lobby doing after the production) when something is simply not good.

This production is filled from beginning to end with such an unnecessary amount of gags and actors mugging and repetitive chase scenes that you cannot watch a scene play out from beginning to end without someone throwing their hands in the air, trying to force a laugh out of nothing and sucking out all opportunity to build dramatic tension. And yes, even in a comedy, you need dramatic tension. Everyone from Monty Python to Bugs Bunny to Mel Brooks knows this. But the director, Jessica Kubzansky seems to have no idea how to build one off of the other; silliness for the sheer sake of it and silliness without wit – perhaps an even bigger problem. You might argue, but “The Producers” was silly for the sake of being silly. Not quite. Max and Leo feel fear, pain, love, regret – all of the things that make them human and worth watching. You want them to succeed (or in their case not succeed.) In “39 Steps” Hannay is played as a cypher – you never believe that he won’t make it out of any given situation alive. He seems almost completely unaffected by a woman who has been murdered in his flat that incites the story in the first place. And they use what could have been a human moment to build comedy from, even in that moment, into a thankless gag - give us some meat! With the barrage of meaningless, meandering jokes that follow, there are simply no surprises. You can time out when someone is going to introduce a gag and usually be correct.

This is unfortunate as I saw Matt Walker (playing multiple roles as Clown #1) in Fleetwood Macbeth not long ago at La Mirada and he was hilarious. Here he grabs a few chuckles, mainly with throw away lines, of which there are few. Also, Green seems like a capable actress who makes the best of the proceedings, sometimes having been given the most bewildering things to do. Borba, has little opportunity to portray any depth or fear as the lead character and mostly runs around like a pinball in a video game. It isn’t until he meets the main and final woman in his life that some of the scenes with Ms. Green play out with a sense of playful subtlety and wit and life (three words lacking the rest of the show.) Alas, when those moments come around – it’s too late. David McBean, as CLOWN #2 brings energy, but the jokes are flat.

The 39 Steps is labeled a farce; it was nominated for several Tony Awards in 2008 and won lighting and sound, so I can only imagine that this show can be good – a scrappy homage with a big budget coming on the heels of other like minded comedy homages. Although here, even the set and lighting design feels like a disarray of ideas lazily pieced together, influenced by someone who had a film noir movie on in the background.

Alfred Hitchcock’s The 39 Steps

Adapted by Patrick Barlow
Directed by Jessica Kubzansky
La Mirada Theatre for the Performing Arts
Continues through Sunday February 12th.