THE 1041C Theater Reviews

Emotionally lackluster. All words and no emotion. Simply drab. It just was not that great. Having already seen one of BPAC’s productions, A Doll’s House was not as interesting as I thought.  Overall, I felt that the performance was just mediocre. It was definitely not like “A Free Man of Color” or even  “Medea” because it did not have the genuine gestures and actions that the actors spoke of. I did not truly believe their words. I did not feel any spark or any suspense like I did in Medea. This added to my boredom during the majority of the play.

Like the last BPAC production we went to, the auditorium was not crowded at all. There were only about five rows filled in with other classes just like us. When I arrived, there was a man talking about the play itself and what was going to occur during the play. As I took my seat in an empty row, I noticed that the stage was very sparse. There were no props on the stage besides four black chairs and one chair near the staircase for the stage manager/narrator. I quickly assumed that they were for the characters, Nora, Helmar, Christine, and Kragsted. There is not a lot I can say about the stage because there was nothing special about it.

During the play, the lighting did not change. It was not fixed on any specific character nor was it used to indicate any event. The actors also seem “normal” to me too. They wore their own clothes so it felt like an ordinary performance in the park not a college production. Overall, I think the director wanted to portray the trueness of the play’s conflict. Director Christopher Scott wanted the play to be relatable and he showed that by conveying a simple situation with little props and actors with normal day clothes. I applaud him for the simplicity despite the overall humdrum production.

Out of the four actors, the best character was Nora who played by Antoinette LaVechhia. She showed the most emotion with her words. I felt that she was the most believable because as the protagonist, she needed to show all the suppressed feelings she had for her husband. Similar to the last play, all the actors were also reading from a play. However, it was not as captivating to me this time. They did not use a lot of the space. Every time it was their turn to act, they would walk to the front where the podiums were. When they ended, they just sat right back down. Compared to “Medea”, there was no background action at all which furthered made it boring and insipid.

At times, I would stare blankly at the actors in the back and lose interest in what the main actors in the front were doing. Their costumes were not spectacular nor were their use of space. My imagination for the actor’s invisible props could only stretch so far. If Director Scott was aiming for the plain, boring and commonplace atmosphere, then he definitely accomplished it. Like I said, it was not a horrible play. It just did not have that alluring affect as when I saw “Medea”, another one of BPAC’s plays.

I went into the play only having read the play. I came out dissatisfied as if I was still hungry after going to an all-you-can-eat buffet.