THE 1041C Theater Reviews

Walking into the BPAC, once again, I prepared myself for nothing spectacular, maybe a little over-acting, and by some luck, an overall good show. I believe I got exactly what I was expecting.

Unlike the other staged reading we had seen, this one was a little different because each time the actor(s) had to speak their lines they would maneuver their way up to the front of the stage to speak into the microphones. At first, I found this slightly odd and a little distracting from the overall experience, but after a while (as with all staged readings), I got used to it. But with this “tactic” of sorts, not a lot of the stage was used, which actually made the entire performance slightly boring.

The acting was definitely not included with the boring set design. One thing I can always depend on from the actors of the BPAC is great expression. Whether it was through their delivery of lines, their actions, or their facial expressions, the emotions the actors meant to convey were delivered seamlessly. One actor this was specifically true of was the woman who played Nora, Antoinette LaVechhia. She managed the difficult task of showing the different shades of feelings that Nora felt towards her husband, Torvald. Also, the costumes, or lack thereof, made the play somewhat more relatable. The actors were all dressed in their own clothes, ordinary shirts and slacks for the men, and dresses and skirts for the women. This, for me, also made the play a little boring. When I go in for a staged production of the story, I like being taken in to the world of that story, not the story coming into my world. Unfortunately, this failed to happen, but maybe that was the director’s aim.

All in all, A Doll’s House, was an interesting story, but I definitely enjoyed reading it more than I enjoyed the performance in BPAC.

Walking into the Vivian Beaumont Theater at Lincoln Center, I couldn’t help but think “We are definitely not in the BPAC anymore [Toto].” I had no idea what to expect – out of the story, out of the performances…anything. Although, the play ended up being a little too long, I was pleasantly surprised that I actually liked it.

First of all, I think each actor performed extremely well. Besides the fact that Paul Dano, Mos Def, AND the butler from the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air were part of the cast, I enjoyed everyone’s performance. Even though we were sitting a little high up and couldn’t always tell what the actors’ facial expressions looked like, their emotions were conveyed through their voices, their costumes, and their actions. I liked that the play made an attempt to stay as close to history as possible. The setting of the story actually came at the perfect time because it was similar to what we were learning in history at the time, which probably helped me understand the play better.

I also thought the technique of freezing the actions of some characters on stage and having other character talk, as if in another room, or scene, etc. was very interesting. It was weird, but effective. Lighting was also very important throughout the play. To make those “frozen action” scenes even more effective, certain areas of the stage would be covered in dim lighting. Sometimes, in order to get from one scene to another without lowering the curtain, the lights would dim. I most liked the use of lighting towards the end when the entire stage was enveloped by white light to symbolize the blank, uncharted spaces on the map.

Overall, the play was, yes, a little too long, but definitely interesting and at times, entertaining. I think the author was trying to give us a sense of history at the time, sometimes by mocking it and sometimes by indirectly trying to show a parallel between then and now.

It had been months since I had entered or even seen my high school.  It was a cold chilly night, I sighed with relief as I entered the building escaping the cold. Memories from my high school years started flooding my mind as I entered the building, I realized that the best four years of my short life had occurred in this building.  I pictured my self as a freshman entering these doors, feeling the same emotions I had felt when I first walked in Baruch as a student.  I steered across the green and yellow hallways, past the horrifying bathroom and into the gym, to watch Boeing Boeing.  My friend Chastidy Roldan, an actor in the play, recommended me to watch the play.  As an incurring depth of our friendship I accepted her request and sat down in my seat to watch comedy, betrayal and decadent behavior unfold on the stage.

Boeing Boeing is one of the many famous plays that have been forgotten due to the trial of time.  My English teacher Mr Muradyan and his students, Patrick Jordan, Chastidy Roldan, Diya Vazirani, Paulina Zazafufuyan, Roosiel Agramonte and George Georgio decided to take on the challenge of putting on this play.  Boeing Boeing is a classic farce written by French playwright Marc Carmoletti.  The play heavily utilizes slapstick comedy and revolves around the lives of Bernard, a successful Parisian architect, who tries to juggle three flight attendant fiancées.

The plays comedy heavily relied on the confusion and reaction of Bernard trying to manage his three fiancées.  The cast of Boeing Boeing did a tremendous job of portraying emotions that captured the sense of confusion around the mainhousehold.  Chastidy Roldan, Diya Vazirani and Roosiel Agramonte did a great job of perfecting their reaction times, which is an important part of comedy, acting out the different personalities of the fiancées and enchanting the audience by making them fall in love with the characters. The main male actors Patrick Jordan and George Georgiou also perfected their own roles.  Their characters created the emotion of apprehension due to the fiancées who could uncover their plot, implementing great use of slapstick that was not cheesy in a sense but humorous and were in the most general sense amazing actors.

The school had also spent a great deal of time and money putting the set together.  The set was a beautiful art, simple yet sleek, that really captured the essence of the 60’s.  Little details like an oval fishbowl, green and yellow colors and an obtrude clock made the audience belief that this was what the 60’s were like.

Boeing Boeing is one of the few plays that I have seen and enjoyed.  My highschool peers had put in a great deal of effort in to the formation of the play, and any individual could prove it as a fact.  The time and effort put in to the play can be seen in the terrific acting, direction, presentation and set design.  It was a high school play that followed and accomplished the standards of recognized NYC theaters.

Like the Jew of Malta, the “Merchant of Venice” is a classic play rife with anti-Semitism and with various conflicts going on between the Renaissance Jews and the Christians of the era. In this particular play, Shylock is a money lender with questionable morals and Bassanio and Antonio make up the Christian side of the play. However all plays are a product of their time and it feels as if Shylock is forced to be the evil, ravening Jew who seeks to take a pound of flesh from Antonio at all costs. The social constraints of the period restrict him from exercising any mercy towards Antonio. Darko Tresnjak’s skillful direction of this timeless play allows for a more complicated layer of emotion and interpretation as we see in Shylock’s character a man who has been hounded by the Christian majority for his whole life and when his daughter runs away with a Christian, something finally snaps. And for all his hard work, he is forced to give up half his estate to Antonio, who lost his ships and wasn’t able to repay Shylock his original borrowed sum, as well being forced to convert to Christianity. So Shylock in the end, is forced to give even more money to Antonio, even though Antonio technically broke the law and the contract by not being able to repay the sum, just because Antonio is a Christian.
I must admit, when I first read this play in high school, I was rooted in firm support for the Christian gang and cheered with everyone else when Portia was able to save Antonio with her clever interpretation of the contract. All’s well that end well right? This production has forcefully opened my eyes to the other side of the issue as well as showing me the more hidden emotions and motives behind each character’s actions. F. Murray Abraham plays such a stunning Shylock with finely nuanced actions and speech that he really is the “perfect” villain for this production but in that sense, his perfect villain is a man who is not really a villain at all but just a man who in his relentless quest for his “pound of flesh” was brought to his own downfall by his own pride. There is a sense of pity and sympathy for Shylock as the Duke passes down the punishment of conversion.
Additionally, there are also certain comedice presences with Arnie Burton as Balthazar, providing a nice humorous reprieve from the more somber sequences of the play.
The Theater for New Audience’s production of Merchant has been made anew for modern times with a clean and simple set design with a three quarter stage set only with three Apple computers and three flat panel screens. The costume design was revamped for modern times as well as Shylock enters the room with an expresso and the Financial Times. Each Christian wears suits worthy of bankers and get more flamboyant with every act while by stark contrast, Shylock wears the simplest of attire.
This production succeeds in producing a successful enactment of one of Shakespeare’s classics and shows that the concepts and messages that are involved in Shakespeare’s plays are easily identifiable even in the modern day setting. This production for me at least, managed to capture the emotions and the main theme of the play and perhaps was able to add a bit more as well.

Mike Poulton’s adaptation of Henrik Ibsen’s Rosmersholm is one that is both dynamic and emotional. A compelling story of a former clergyman’s abandonment of religion and adoption of more progressive political thought, this tale of power and morality transcends the time in which it was set.

The keystone of the production’s success can be found in its excellent casting. Bradford Cover was able to deliver a compelling performance as title character Johannes Rosmer. Equally captivating was Margot White as the clever and manipulative Rebecca White. Though her mechanical performance during the first scene seemed to contradict the ideals of the naturalist playwright, her latter scenes were genuine and on the mark. The chemistry between the two leads was enthralling, and served as a very accurate portrayal of the emotional twists and turns the couple faces throughout the course of the play.

The unconventional seating employed by the theater, with seats in front and on two sides of the stage, allowed a good portion of the audience to view the actors from a unique vantage point, and read emotions and interactions between characters that would normally be hidden to traditionally-seated viewers. Director Elinor Renfield should be commended for her excellent choice of blocking in light of this complex setting. All three sections of the audience were done justice.

The set design was simple and resembled a sitting room for a great portion of the play. However, during the act in which Rosmer is digesting Rebecca’s shocking revelation, the set is changed to match the inside of Rosmer’s bedroom. The clever use of lighting to create the effect of light peeking through the blinds enhanced the magnitude of emotion in this penultimate scene.

The wardrobe employed by the actors complemented the color scheme of the set. Particularly note-worthy in the costume department was Ulrik Brendel’s (Dan Daily) attire as the vagabond, childhood tutor of Rosmer. The ripped clothing and strategic smearing of dirt on his overalls created a highly convincing impression of disheveled homelessness.

In addition, the content of the production was exceptionally true to the original script. Nevertheless, the production did not have to deal with overcoming time-barriers, as many of the play’s political discussions and debates are every bit as relevant in the late nineteenth century as they are today. The question of whether or not morality and ethics can survive one’s abandonment of religion is a recurring theme explored in the play, and is ultimately left up to the audience to decide.

A faithful adaptation of Ibsen’s naturalist masterpiece, The Pearl Theatre Company was successful in retelling this timeless tale.

A Dixon Place original, Megan Carney’s Let Them Eat Cake is a unique exposé of the varying and often conflicting political thought of LGBT community, with special regards to the issue of gay marriage.

Set under the premise of a wedding between two men, Juan and Steve, the attendees of the wedding each express their thoughts on matrimony as they wait for the grooms’ arrival.

The shattering of the fourth wall and the involvement of the audience is a prominent feature of the production- but perhaps that wall was never built. While audience members wait in the lobby to be seated, a tuxedo-clad actor approaches them, and after confirming that they are here for the wedding, directs them to a table with a nuptial guestbook. Once seated, actor Lea Robinson, who plays J.T (one-half of the play’s marriage-conflicted lesbian couple), floats around, asking theatergoers how they are acquainted with the grooms. This approach is successful in creating the atmosphere of an impending wedding, even before the play’s commencement.

Once the actors take the stage, they acknowledge to the audience and to each other that the wedding is taking place in the exact same venue in which play is occurring – the basement of the Dixon Place. The merging of the real and fictional settings provides for opportunities to take humorous jabs at the theater’s marginally run-down looking state.

Set designer Laura Mroczkowski employs a minimalist design – the only set elements being several movable pillars supporting an unadorned canopy, meant to serve as the alter. Several of the actors are seated in tables surrounding the canopy while others are seated in the audience, providing for an intimate, realistic setting.

The costume design is equally simplistic, with all actors in formal wedding attire. However, the plot-twist revealed at the end causes many to change into cardboard cut-outs of vegetables instead.

Throughout the play, different actors interact and discuss what marriage means to them, approaching the issue from different standpoints. Each member of the talented all-female cast is equally immersed in her character. From a Greek Orthodox aunt of Steve (Moe Angelos) to a quirky and impassioned lesbian friend of the couple (Carmelita Tropicana), each actor delivers a monologue that is just as opinionated as the next.

Particularly notable performances are provided by Robinson and Holly Hughes, who plays herself. The chemistry between this couple who are conflicted on whether or not they should tie the knot is both charming and authentic.

After the last of the guests has her say, the audience is informed that due to a minor accident, but one that requires medical attention all the same, the grooms will not be able to arrive in time for the wedding. Remedying the guests’ disappointment, lesbian character Logan (Micia Mosely) expresses interest in using the existing wedding preparations for her own marriage ceremony – to take place that very day. A member of the audience is selected to perform a stand-in role as her wife, while two other members serve as bridesmaids, donning vegetable costumes in accordance with the bride’s strange affinity for produce. Contradictory to the structural importance of the preceding elements of the play, this odd wardrobe decision added little more than humor and color to a monochromatic set.

After the much-anticipated wedding ceremony, the actors open up the floor to the audience, asking them to reveal their own stories about life and love. After a few members make use of the opportunity, the few characters with reservations about LGBT marriage reveal that they have become a little more accepting.

But for those who still do not approve, the play’s closing message, issued in unison by the entire cast, is loud and clear: Let them eat cake!

To say that the performance of “Let Them Eat Cake” was an interesting experience would be an understatement. It certainly was an interesting performance but there was so much more to the play itself than that. When I first walked into the theater, known as Dixon Place, I was expecting a conventional play where there was a stage and the actors would perform their respective roles. As my fellow classmates and I sat in the lobby of Dixon Place waiting for the play to begin, a man in a suit and tie approached us and asked if we were here for the wedding. Confused, we replied no and the man was on his way. After asking the ticket broker about this, we were informed that it was all part of the experimental theater performance they were putting up. It seems that the play had began the moment we walked into the theater we were part of it.

When time came for the play to officially begin, we filed down to the basement theater with the other audience members and took our seats. A quick glance on stage and I notice that there is no real stage, only a small clearing with two tables and four chairs with white signs that read “Reserved.” I see a masculine looking woman walk around asking the audience members how they knew the grooms. All part of the act I suppose, I continue to observe the stage and notice a live DJ off the stage on the left. Looking around, I see that the audience is mostly settled and were waiting for the play to begin. In strolls a tall and formally dressed woman yelling “Is there a JT in here?” And the woman asking how people knew the grooms rises from within the audience and responds. The two exchange quick greetings and reveal that they are both gay. After discussing their views on gay marriage, JT leaves to look for her significant other, Sophie. What a beginning I thought to myself. But more importantly, what’s next?

The major theme of the play is the issue of gay marriage and, throughout the play, gay and straight people alike discuss it. The orthodox Russian Aunt Athena of one of the grooms serves as a representative of straight people on the issue. She makes it known that, even though she is there to witness the marriage between her gay nephew and his male lover, she opposes gay marriage. Aunt Athena serves mostly as comic relief through most of the play with her constantly referring to herself in the third person and willingness to speak even her most ridiculous thoughts. But she does help move the play along by urging the three gay women in the play to fight for their right to marry whoever they chose. Serving as representatives for gay people on the issue of marriage, the three gay women illustrate how there are differing opinions even among the gay population. The masculine JT and formal Leon argue for the freedom to marry whoever they so choose while Sophie, JT’s feminine significant other, argues for apathy.

As the three characters argue amongst themselves, with an occasional deferral to the audience members and remark from Aunt Athena, they force the audience to think about what marriage really is and what it means to get married. There is a lot of character development in terms of their emotional standing. But there is not so much development in terms of each character’s background save for a few mentions of a gay uncle. At the conclusion of the play, an improvised wedding involving hilarious costumes takes place between Leon and a stand in for her significant other.

Overall, I had a great time watching the performance of “Let Them Eat Cake.” Most of the comedy was relevant to the theme of gay marriage and the lack of background development did not detract from the play itself. The choice on the actors’ part to break the fourth wall kept the audience involved and interested. After the conclusion of the marriage, the actors came forward and shared their personal stories about gay marriage and some audience members even shared their own stories about gay marriage. This allowed the audience a rare instance to actually get to know the actors themselves instead of simply seeing the play and that being the end of it.

As I walk to my designated seat of 108, I sigh as I notice how far off the center I will be sitting. As I got settled I realize that I have no idea of what the play “Rosmersholm” will be about. I pick up the playbill and flip to the second page where there is an imposing body of words under the title “From the Director.” After reading through the highly compacted and somewhat confusing setting description and plot synopsis, I feel that I will probably understand more when the play begins. I look across stage and notice that this play will make use of several props including, three tables, three chairs, books placed in various places on stage, an open chest holding more books, a curtained window door upstage, and a very short flight of stairs leading upstage. The lights begin to dim; the play is about to begin.

Within the first scene, five out of the six characters are introduced to the audience. The first character to appear is Rebecca West played by Margot White. Margot White was portrayed her character as a well-educated and intelligent woman living in a world plagued by male chauvinism. In her conversation with the sexist and elitist Doctor Kroll, she proved articulate and more importantly, restrained. She met each one of Doctor Kroll’s insults, both direct and indirect, with a smile, never allowing even a tint of anger to show. Doctor Kroll, who is played by Austin Pendleton, came across as an old, conservative, elitist. Austin Pendleton portrayed Doctor Kroll as a politician who was constantly trying to push his ideals on to other people. He attempts several times, in his conversation with Rebecca West and Johannes Rosmer, to sway Rosmer to work for his political party and even threatens to libel Rosmer in a newspaper that recently fell under his political party’s control. Johannes Rosmer, played by Bradford Cover, ignores Doctor Kroll’s threat, asserting that he has nothing to hide. Rosmer comes across as an idealist man who values honor and integrity above all else. He relinquished his job as a church pastor in hopes of entering the field of politics and reforming the age-old political system of the town. Rebecca West and Ulrik Brendel both support his views while Doctor Kroll calls them radical and naïve. Ulrik Brendel, played by Dan Daily, possesses a very strong stage presence and the moment he entered the stage, all attention shifts to him. Dan Daily did a wonderful job portraying Brendel as an idealistic but highly unreliable vagabond. Without even seeing the play further, I knew, just from his first appearance that Brendel was going to fail. The wise if somewhat superstitious housekeeper Mrs. Helseth, played by Robin Leslie Brown, delivers the closing remark at the end of the first scene.

While the first scene of act one provides a basic introduction of the characters, the rest of the play deals more with each character’s emotional side. As Johannes Rosmer and Rebecca West succumb to their respective feelings for each other, Doctor Kroll and Peder Mortensgaard, a minor character, reveal shocking information about the Rosmer’s late wife Beata. When all is said and done, Rebecca West is revealed to have been an ambitious and immoral character that manipulated various characters as well as engineered Beata Rosmer’s suicide all to fit her own ends. Rebecca West succumbs to an emotional breakdown when she realizes her love for Rosmer. She resolves to leave Rosmer and never return to allow Rosmer to recover from the emotional maelstrom she has caused. Before she is able to take her leave, Rosmer confronts her and the two admit their love for each other. They consummate their love for one another in a single embrace and resolve to commit suicide together in the same fashion as Beata Rosmer. Mrs. Helseth enters at the conclusion of the second act, witnessing the suicide and delivering the closing remarks.

Overall, I found the play fairly entertaining and enjoyable. Margot White’s character really stood out to me because her character was the most underestimated character in the entire play. Margot White did an excellent job playing her part because she managed to convey that subtle sense of power in her character throughout the entire play. I found the conclusion a bit irrational and overly dramatic. In my opinion, there was no real reason for them to commit suicide. But the suicide did serve the purpose of highlighting the fact that happiness cannot be found in the ancestral home of the Rosmer family.