THE 1041C Theater Reviews

I had almost forgotten how much the theatre in Baruch looks like a prison. But not even like a real prison. Like the one where Jumba is kept at the beginning of Lilo and Stitch, just not futuristic looking. More pirate-like. So if Lilo and Stitch was about pirates instead of aliens. This is completely unrelated to “A Doll’s House.”

First, let me say that i really hope we get to see at least one more play as a class before the semester ends. I rather enjoy these little trips. On the whole, I think this was a good production. I wonder how different it would have been if we were to see the full version, because, as we were warned, parts seemed kind of rushed. But that’s only because we had a short amount of time to watch the show. By the way, I just noticed that the upper right hand corner of this page says “Howdy, travis.” Howdy, theatre review blog website.

I think the actors all did a good job with their roles. I felt that everyone gave a believable performance, with the occasional over-acting of course. But as I’ve said in (I think) all my other reviews, that sometimes becomes part of live theatre. There were only four actors on the stage (and a narrator) and there were no double-roles. I think I prefer it that way. The plastic-like relationship between Nora and her husband was executed nicely, and then made more human once she made the decision to leave. Each of the character’s costumes complimented their characters well, especially Krogstad. Combined with his slicked back hair, his leather jacket made him look very sneaky and conniving.

One of the major things I noticed is how modern the play felt. For whatever reason, I went into the theatre thinking that it was going to be similarly styled to “Medea,” but I was pleasantly surprised. It felt relevant to today. I’m not sure if that was a directorial choice, or simply a part of the script.

The lighting was no different than the other performance we saw here. The space was, however. Instead of actually going backstage, the actors sat on a chair that was upstage. To be honest, it was kind of distracting. But all in all, I really did enjoy the show. I got to talk to the actors after the show and they all seemed like really nice people.

And again, if we have the chance, I would love to continue going to see shows for class. Maybe the next one can be a musical.

As I crept down the spiraling path to the stairs leading to the theater, I felt every step in the throbbing vein at the side of my head and behind both eyes. I hugged the walls for dear life, pressing slowly but steadily towards the seat that would hold my fate for the next hour and fifteen minutes. As I lowered myself slowly into the plush cushion, my vision blurred and pulses of pain shot through my entire head. I closed my eyes for a few minutes, unable to sleep as I gasped for air, stomach churning and head pounding. And that’s when the pain started; a fat man on stage asked for quiet and The Dollhouse began.

I’ve read The Dollhouse in high school before, so I already knew the outcome of the play before it began. The written version of the play is actually very good; I even chose it in AP English as the topic for a research paper I wrote. The theatrical play put on by Baruch was very good, although I felt that it was not up to snuff with what I previously had read. I don’t know if it was because I had a headache that felt like someone was hitting the back of my head constantly with a baseball bat or because of any other external factors that skewed my perception, but I did not enjoy this play as much as I could have.

To be fair, I’ll start with the most obvious thing that Baruch actually got right this time around; the actors. Besides the fact that Torvald Helmer looked like Jason Stratham from the Transporter movies, every one of the actors fit the character type they played. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actress who played Nora was actually some previously oppressed and now empowered woman, or if the actor who played Nils Krogstad was actually some spiteful and desperate creep. The casting crew must have looked through a neighborhood pedophile watch list for Krogstad; the man had the perfect look for the role. However, I do have an issue with Anne-Marie, the “nanny” of the play. She must have been the first female nanny in history to have male facial features, a male body structure, and a male voice; in fact I wouldn’t be shocked at all if “Anne-Marie” actually turned out to be a man. And it didn’t take much detective work to figure out that she was a man, which brings me to wonder how hard it could possibly have be to find someone without a penis to play the role of a female nanny if the time was taken to find someone to play Krogstad who looked like he had about twenty child molestation and sexual predatory charges on his criminal record.

As for the acting, Torvald Helmer was less domineering and fatherly than he should have been and had more of the childish aspects that Nora was supposed to have. Even when he got angry at or “reprimanded” Nora he seemed to do it out of some immature need to throw a tamper tantrum to maintain power, while it was clear from the very beginning that Nora was just pretending to be naive and childish. And seeing as the best choice for a female role was a man, I think that the “nanny” could have put much more emotion into his acting even if he had such an emasculating job. The only two good actors on the cast played Krogstad and Kristine, Kristine was clearly portrayed as a quiet but independent woman who knew what she wanted in life and Krogstad was obviously a broken hearted man who’s desperation led him to bring his pain upon others.

I think what turned me off the most about this play was the opting out of several important characters and the “nanny’s” interaction with the audience. What was most blatantly missing was Dr. Rank, who was supposed to play a huge influence over Nora. I guess one can be understanding of this due to the lack of time, but seeing as the production cut out many important parts of the play I think it would have been possible to fit in the doctor, for whatever miniscule time allowed. And the nanny who also doubled as narrator was in my opinion, a bit of a clown. For someone watching from the audience with a pounding headache, the last thing you want to hear is a cynical fat man playing the role of a female complaining to you about the lack of “audience participation” and about the people falling asleep. I of course, was wide-awake the whole time, something I regret after hearing his sardonic drivel.

When the play ended, I stood up slowly. The ground shook once more, and I reached over to lean on a friend’s shoulder. I turned to take one last fleeting glimpse of Kristine Linde’s voluptuous breasts, imprinted them into my memory, and turned to the task of conquering the steps to the outside world. I had survived the pain. I had survived.

I am afraid that this post may not be as critical as it probably should be, because I had a wonderful time watching the play and went in there with relatively low expectations. Once again, my expectations were shattered as the play really drew me in and kept me engaged throughout. I got the privilege to sit next to Professor Berkin during the whole play, and although I am usually distracted or bothered by such things, her colorful commentary added to the experience as a whole. I felt she brought up a bunch of really good and thought-provoking points.

One point she brought up that I must disagree with was that the addition of contemporary references into the play was unnecessary and tacky. I felt as though they added to the relevance and overall meaning of the play. The underlying themes such as race and change are prevalent in today’s society. I always feel that the main problems in most theater performances come from a disconnect or misinterpretation of the audience. There are never any real world or tangible problems and ideologies that we can relate to when we see older plays, and I find it hard to get as involved or interested. This wasn’t a problem at all in ‘A Free Man of Color’. The incorporation of modern forms of humor and issues that we have experienced really helped me get engaged. Keeping a young crowd so deeply entranced is quite an accomplishment.

Of course, the excellent acting itself helped as well. The convincing performance given by the actors was very well done. What really stood out to me was how dynamic the play itself was, and this required a great deal of awareness and skill from the actors. They were funny when they needed to be, and serious when it was required as well. Anyone can do this, but the fact that they made it overwhelmingly convincing and natural helped contribute to the characters and the play as a whole.

Overall, this play was not only enjoyable and informative, but provocative as well. Even though they do not exist to the extent that they did in the era of the play, race relations and the dynamism of society is an issue that still exists, and will most likely remain a timeless discussion and topic of dissent.

The first thing I noticed once I sat down was how much more leg space I had in the Baruch Performing Arts Center than in the Vivian Beaumont Theater at Lincoln Center. I was able to sit semi-comfortably and not lose circulation in my legs throughout the entire performance. Aside from not losing blood circulation, I also did not lose my interest during the play.

For a production that had very little to work with the performance was extraordinary. I would have to admit that it put the staged reading of Medea to shame. Almost everything was of better quality, from the actors’ skills to the play itself.

The actors all presented themselves at a professional level. They made certain that their skills were known. Every actor played their part believably and together they made the play come to life. I did not feel like I was watching a staged production, I felt as if I was sitting in on a person’s life. Each actor stuck to the personality of their character throughout the performance: Antoinette LaVecchia who played Nora channeled a silly and ditzy housewife while Christopher Burns who played Helmar channeled a manly bacon-bringing husband. The actors were very convincing of the realness of their characters.

In terms of stage space and technique, the actors used stands to hold their scripts. This made it easier for them to flip pages but it rooted them to a single spot. This caused the actors to make up for a lack of stage use with their emotions. There were moments where the actors seemed to overreact but those moments did not ruin the flow of the play. Also, to make up for a lack of props and actors the narrator played odd-job rolls such as filling in for the role of a maid or dictating when a doorbell had rung.

Speaking of the narrator, there were breaks in between scenes of the play and during this time the narrator turned to the audience and engaged us. He asked us what we thought would happen next and made comments about the play himself. I don’t know if this was intentional but it certainly kept the audience interested and woke up a few sleeping members.

Aside from the actors, the play itself was interesting and well written. The play showed the distinct differences between a man and woman in society. The women in the play fussed over little things like the household and their clothes while the men went to work, negotiated deals and brought home money to spoil their wives with. The play also played up a woman’s use of her feminine charms. There are countless times where a woman in the play bats her eyelids and manipulates a man.

Towards the end of the play when Nora has an epiphany about her marriage and role in the household I noticed something. The play suddenly seemed choppy and too sudden. Her realization seemed to have come randomly. While I understood what led up to it, it seemed as if a chunk of the play had gone missing. It was probably because the director and cast had to cut out parts of the play to make it fit into about an hour. Although it seemed somewhat unbelievably random, the message that Nora was trying to convey was touching enough to make me dismiss the peculiarities of the scene. The “most wonderful thing of all” that Nora was hoping for stood out to me and if there is one thing in the play to remember it would be that “most wonderful thing,” to sacrifice one’s honor for love.

I came into the BPAC with somewhat of a lack of excitement, expecting to see a production similar to Medea. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the acting and the conviction of the actors. I felt that what set this play apart for me was the strong, but not overbearing or seemingly fake, emotion portrayed by the characters, particularly Nora. The talent of the actors really made it seem as if they were acting more than they were reading, which is an incredibly difficult thing to do when you don’t have the text memorized. At certain points it was almost like watching a movie, I was really absorbed into the content of the play. Perhaps I also favored this play just in terms of its content and it being more modern and relatable than Medea. I could better understand the themes it portrayed and was more familiar with its language.

Like I previously stated, Nora, played by Antoinette LaVecchia, was portrayed in an incredibly convincing manner. Her speech was well projected and emotion was placed in all the right places. It appeared as if she did not even need the text to refer back to because she was so smooth and graceful in terms of bringing the text from the page onto the stage.

The other characters of Helmar and Kragstead were equally convincing. Kragstead also portrayed emotion well; his body language and tone of voice always matched the content of the text.

One criticism I have is with the character of Christine, played by Dominique Plaisant, which I found to be somewhat timid and expressing less emotion when compared to the other characters. There were times when I could barely hear what she was saying. While the acting seemed to be good, I still found the character of Nora more appropriately portrayed and generally more believable.

I have another criticism in terms of setting and use of space. I found the movements on stage to be a little awkward, as the characters walked through pretend doors and into pretend rooms. They would make these confusing walks on the stage that were meant to portray them leaving the room, but they were still on stage. Also, some of the announcements of the narrator seemed a little choppy and brought me back from being absorbed in the play, to just being an observer in a theatre. It’s understandable that this is not a large-scale production, but I feel the space could’ve been used a little better. Maybe if the narrator was offstage and said, “The doorbell rang” or made a ringing sound, it would have been less intrusive and choppy. Nevertheless, although there were no fancy sets or costumes, which I’ve made clear that I’m a fan of, I still enjoyed this play due to the overall quality of the acting.

It was my third time in the Engelman Recital Hall, and as I went in, I felt a rush of expectation. I expected something similar to what I had experienced the other times I had been there- something formal, cold and one-sided, something, in a way, stiff. However, what I ended up getting was completely different. The BPAC’s production of Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, was refreshing, and entertaining to watch but, being a staged reading, it had its limitations on resources and that certain “wow-factor”.

Upon entering the Recital Hall, we were greeted by the stage manager and director, Christopher Scott, who cut the cold mood of the recital hall by addressing us, the audience, directly and even cracking jokes. I appreciated this demolition of the Fourth Wall that was also evident in other parts of the play. However, I did not think he made a good narrator. I felt that he could have given more interest to his lines and “acted” them more. I understand that his lines were simple and mildly significant, however, the apathy with which he said lines such as “the doorbell rings” made me shockingly aware of the lack of the doorbell, if that makes sense.

The acting was very good. The actors were believable. None of them overacted, or lost the character at any point of the play. I especially admired the skill of Antoinette LaVecchia, who played the main character, Nora. From beginning to end, she radiated a certain air of sincerity and honesty — it was not hard to imagine that she really was the character she played. I think it would have been very easy to fall into the trap of exaggerating the character of Nora, but Antoinette LaVecchia carried through the play with ease, and with grace.

On the stage and props, I must say that I was not impressed. Actually, I may even say that I was disappointed. The previous play that I had seen in the BPAC, Medea, had made good use of the stage and of props. In Medea, the characters came in and out of the two side doors, and the actors made use of props like the masks, the hairpin and different colored sashes. I was so intrigued by this creative, and strategic, use of simple props, that I expected a similar resourcefulness in the production of A Doll’s House. Unfortunately, it failed to be at par with Medea. It was disillusioning to see the actors sitting down, as the actors, within plain view. They would exit the scene happening in the center of the stage, turn 90 degrees, and sit down at the back. That made it difficult to concentrate on what was happening in the center of the stage, the main scene.

Overall, I was pleased with the production. I liked that I did not feel like a part of an audience watching actors act, but a part of the scene and of the play itself. A Doll’s House was not able to transcend the fact that it was a staged reading. It certainly could have been helped by some strategic use of resources available around the stage, but as it was, it was good.

When first hearing about the play A Doll’s House, I immediately associated it with The Stepford Wives. So yes, I was pretty amused to see how different the two were. Going down the stairs to the auditorium for the second round of readings, I was apprehensive that it was to be the same actors/actresses that were in Medea. I was prepared to struggle to believe all the characters and follow along with the story.

Thankfully, it was an improvement from the last showing. The orchestrator of the whole shebang had some quirky little jokes about how short the play was, as well as the motives of its audience, although it felt a bit contrived if you were one of the earlier to arrive, since he repeated his jokes. The play began pretty suddenly, but its simplicity helped me to stay focus, and follow it well. I think in this case the style of the play helped the lack of setting and resources these actors had to deal with.

The quality of these actors were also far greater. They embodied the characters more believably, and had somewhat more subtle actions than the previous performance. Each actor also seemed to fit their role better physically as well as “emotionally.” I felt the ignorant oppression of the husband, the oblivious flitty love of the wife, and the depression and hatred from the villain of the play. I have to say, however, he sometimes played too hard on the ratlike mafioso accent when he got into the character. It was a little bothersome.

Although the play was shortened, I almost feel like it was appropriate for its audience. Many of us, unfortunately, have extremely short attention spans. I found the abridged version to be an adequate summary of the play.

I would not say this reading was perfect, but it was by far much better than its preceding counterpart. At times, actions and dialogues were a bit overdramatic, but the simplicity of the play and its built in subtleties downplayed the overacting. The actors had pretty good chemistry, and I enjoyed the twist at the end.

The BPAC once again. I set my goal while walking down the steps to stay alert for the small details of body language and the flow of the play without props. Before the A Doll’s House began, there were 4 actors on stage with Script Holders. The audience were told that the original play runs for two and a half hours, and the BPAC team has successfully decreased the action to 55 minutes. With this in mind, the invisible curtains rose and the performance began.

The first thing that caught my eye was the facial expressions of Nora and Torvold. Both actors were successful in adding their own personal emotion to the expressions based on the script. The addition of the script holders being on a stand and the actors reading from the script was surprisingly pleasing. The way the actors moved on the stage and used the little room to add feeling and emotion helped the audience feel that the stands were not there. In my opinion, the actors successfully brought in human emotion onto the plain stage.

The beginning of the play included Nora’s character, played by Antoinette LaVechhia, who had to pull off a childish woman who is in a fantasy world packed with money. I loved LaVechbia’s use of body language and sporadic jumps and yelps to express her character’s flaws. I give props to the director who had to work with such a dull stage, I mean the plain light wood color alone makes the audience automatically sleep. A character I did not relate to was Christine. A woman who did not put her heart into the role of the character played Christine. Also, many times it was difficult to actually hear her! I found this very aggravating. I liked how the director sat on a stool on the right side of the stage (stage-right), and acted as multiple minor characters (including the sitter, messenger, and other characters).

As the play was reaching to an end, I was happy because at one point I was feeling the mixed vibes of the audience regarding the lackluster mood and at another point I felt part of the action between Nora’s dilemma. It was influential upon the audience to see how the 19th century mindset infused itself in a home. With the difficult task of getting the audience’s attention at the BPAC and the lack of props, I think A Doll’s House was successful in revealing Ibsen’s points about 19th century culture.

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.

A Doll’s House airs the dirty laundry of the traditional roles in a 19^th century marriage through dialect, dialect, and more dialect. The subject doesn’t hold to the shock value in our modern time (not because it’s good and gone) because we’ve found ways to let it escape us.

It all comes down to money.  The same antagonist in modern marriage is a catalyst in the Helmer relationship.  Of course, modern money dramatics revolve around settling divorces, trying to survive in the economy, and debating over the next vacation spot.  Because it’s from another century, A Doll’s House gives a different side to an issue that will last beyond the beyond this reviewer’s life span.

I will have to contradict my previous review and compromise with the fact that there are just some things beyond the acting potential in a play that are necessary for enjoyable theater. Reading stands are just not part of the equation.  They can’t count as set, and they definitely don’t work towards a successful performance.  They are distractions that a simple, “just ignore them,” won’t diffuse.

Just as a disclaimer I know that I would be nowhere near the caliber of the actors in the performance even with the text and stand in front of me. I appreciate their effort and boldness but I wasn’t captured by it.  Having them sit in the back didn’t work either. The tiny stage, the light that exposes all, and the MC in the corner serve as constant reminders that yes, I am watching a play. I can see a similar setup working in a larger stage and with someone to tamper with the lights. Alas, that was not the case.

The MC is a source of comedic relief and a reminder that the play is shortened.  To interact with an audience is to hold their attention. A pleasant addition to the theater mandates. To be warned that the transitions are rushed isn’t.  To start a play off with an apologetic manner doesn’t inspire confidence that the spectacle to be seen will be grand.  Even though the play is shortened, it establishes the Helmer relationship and retains the original ending.

A Doll’s House generates pleasant surprises in the script that take form of comedy and daunting ending. These factors are sadly overshadowed by the performance of the actors as well as the set up for the play. I left the theater hating the arrangement, not loving the performance