THE 1041C Theater Reviews

I loathe musicals. I can think of a plethora of things I enjoy more than love stories. Shakespeare isn’t exactly an author I’d indulge in. Considering all of those preconceived notions, I am pleasantly surprised to reveal that I loved The Fantasticks. So many things went right in the performance that I couldn’t help but forget all the things that are wrong in the world.

The off Broadway is currently hosted by Snapple Theater, which is also referred to as the Jerry Orbach Theater as tribute to the original El Gallo. The entrance to the theater is easily missed due to the overshadowing Duane Reade. The venue takes place on the third floor of the theater, which requires a harrowing trudge up some very high steps. The floor is decorated with sheet music, posters and photos that tell a story regarding the production. Factors like the intricate part the piano plays, the longevity of the play, and the history are all made evident through these details.

I was startled at the size of the theater.  I’ve seen small theaters but this one takes the cake. The first thought that ran though my head when looking for my seat was that there are absolutely no bad seats.  There is a little elevation added to the last couple of rows (I counted six rows in the center). The stage consists of a hard wood floor and four poles at each corner. From these hangs the banner The Fantasticks. It’s utilized repeatedly in the performance.

If you haven’t guessed it yet, I might as well come out with it. There is no fourth wall in the performance. From the grand introduction to the moving conclusion the audience is front and center. I’d hate to ruin it for those who haven’t seen it yet, so I’ll just summarize that there’s loads of confetti and lots of laughs to go around as well. The absence of the fourth wall stays true throughout the play, as the Narrator continues to interact with the audience through questions and movement. The other cast members join here and there, but the tall, dark and suave Narrator definitely seals the deal.  That was the basic consensus of the wise ladies sitting behind me.

The set is created with a box filled with creative props. Confetti and streamers are used in a multitude of ways, especially in the direction of the audience.  I’ll leave rest of the secrets in the box alone. The four poles at each corner of the set are utilized through a multitude of physical activities such as leaping to and fro. The seats actually shake a little from all the action. This made the performance more interactive.

I was surprised at the intricacy of the lighting system. It accomplished emotion, scenery, and transition through intensity and color.  Transitions from moonlight to sunlight, from forest to backyard, and from fall to winter are established through lighting, El Gallo gets his own shade as well.  It showed how colorful the play is physically and emotionally.  It also contributed a spotlight here and there that delivered some laughs.

Now what is this emotional love story consist of? There are two acts that revolve around two different emotions. These emotions revolve around the sun and the moon. It starts off as the basic boy meets girl next door and they fall helplessly in love. It turns into a crime of passion, as the fathers get involved with the mysterious El Gallo.  The influence that Shakespeare had on the conceptualizing of the play is evident through whimsy. Though the story is basic at best, the combination of acting, set, stage and lighting made me give up predicting the ending and enjoy the play as it went. I wanted to be surprised. I wanted to be grasped and pulled into the performance.

Speaking of acting, it was fantastic! (Sorry, couldn’t hold it back) My personal favorite was the Mute, played by Matt Leisy. I couldn’t help but follow him wherever he went. Somehow the role with no lines could contribute not only props, but emotion as well. He was the master of the box, and the tamer of confetti. This is no representation of the acting potential of the rest of the cast. It’s just a personal preference. Edward Watts had the height, the voice, and the talent to make The Narrator/El Gallo the lady charmer he was meant to be. The boy of the story, Matt, is played by Erik Altemus. He was goofy at times which could be considered a perfect fit with a young man in love. I wasn’t too fond of it. Juliette Trafton played Luisa, the girl next door. She did justice to the sixteen year olds out there who are insane for love. I didn’t doubt for a second her insanity. Matt and Luisa are not the couple that stood out.  Bill Bateman and Gene Jones gave life to Bellomy and Hucklebee, respectively. They are the patriarchs that balanced each other from the color of their stripes the method of their gardening. There are no small actors, just small roles. I’m omitting two very colorful characters because I enjoyed being surprised at their entrance, and wouldn’t want to ruin it for others. I would like to express a grand bravo to MacIntyre Dixon and Michael Nostrand. They definitely owned my smile for the night.

The acting and the music flowed as one, with a live harp and piano complementing every leap, clap and stomp.  Robert Felstein reined the piano with elegance and sway.  Being in the same room with an actual harp was a new experience, and Jacqueline Kerrod made the experience a memorable one. I will wait patiently for the next opportunity to hear a live harp and think of her as my first.  I’ve also found a place in my heart for the song Try to Remember.

The one negative aspect came from the audience.  Maybe for a larger theater, eating and drinking can go by unnoticed. But everything is within hearing distance in a small theater. The amount of sick people didn’t help either. Common decency wouldn’t hurt once in a while

I left the theater with my red piece of confetti, a song in my head, and a smile. Musicals are not for everyone, but this one can tame even the harshest critic: my mom. It was her first time at this kind of a performance and I can tell you that I see more in our future.  So in the wise words of Hucklebee and Bellomy, “never say no!”

As I slowly descend the theater stairs, trying to keep my footsteps as quiet as possible, I notice something about stage. There was a person sitting on a stool off to the side of the stage; there were four music stands spread out across the front of the stage; and the actors are sitting in the back of the stage, waiting for their cues. This was different from any previous presentations our class has attended. This should be interesting, I thought. But first thing is first, time to find a vacant seat. I made my way to the seat, my footsteps clicking all the way.

Nora was the first one to stand up and walk forward to the music stands. Then it clicked to me, why the music stands were there. What a brilliant idea I thought, having the music stands act as hands to hold the script book as the actors read. But as the play went on, I realized that this was not as brilliant as it first appeared. Sure the music stands freed up the actors hands so that they can make gestures but there was a trade off. In exchange for being able to use both hands to make gestures, the actors gave up two things. First, the actors could not stray far from the music stand, if at all. Second, the music stands kept the actors at an arm’s length from the audience. Throughout the entire play, I simply could not fall entirely into the story because those stands were a constant reminder that there is a fourth wall between us and them.

Improvised fourth wall aside, I think the actors did a fairly good job in portraying the emotions of their characters. Nora, portrayed by Antoinette LaVecchia, came across as a kindhearted and somewhat naïve woman who was completely devoted to her husband and her family. The love she has for Torvald seemed genuine, as if she would do anything for him. Torvald, portrayed by Christopher Burns, came across as the masculine, sometimes to a fault, breadwinner of the family. Burns and LaVecchia’s actions matched up to accurately portray the dynamics of their relationship. Throughout the play Nora seemed very devoted to Torvald but I could see that this devotion was not entirely mutual. I could tell that Torvald did not place Nora in his primary concern. It was obvious to me that his primary value was his reputation. Burns did a good job portraying that duality that exists within Torvald, between being the strict manager and the loving husband.

I cannot even express how well the actor playing Kragstad fit the part. If ever there was a person born to act his part it was Mark Borkowski. His tone and his appearance matched up together to portray the understandably desperate antagonist. But I felt that he could have taken his part further had he been allowed to actually move about the stage. His tone and appearance did a good job at portraying his emotions but if he could move more it would have added that much more dimension to his character.

Overall, I like the performance A Doll’s House. The actors did a good job portraying the emotional aspect of their characters. I would have liked it more if the actors moved around more but that’s okay. It doesn’t hurt the performance.

Rife with the unmistakable elements of the naturalist and feminist movements, Eric Kreb’s production of A Doll’s House is able to successfully capture the plight of a disparaged, once “perfect” housewife.

Spellbinding from the play’s inception, Antoinette LaVecchia provides an endearingly authentic portrayal of protagonist Nora, and is able to transition her character from carefree to anxious to suicidal to defiant with surprising ease.

Equally adept is Christopher Burns as husband Helmar. His condescending delivery of dialogue when conversing with Nora, combined with his powerful, hair-raising performance in the third act are components the production couldn’t have done without.

What it could have done without however were the extraneous, between-the-acts solicitations made by Christopher Scott, the play’s narrator. It should be noted that his un-naturalistic role as narrator provided little benefit to the play to begin with, but Scott was able to take it a step further when twice he requested predictions from the audience on the events that would unfold in the play’s following act. It was very unfortunate that these fourth wall-shattering disturbances had to ruin an otherwise naturalistic atmosphere.

Though the play was heavily abridged to fit time constraints, the scene selection was done effectively, and was able to magnificently capture all the imperative emotions.

While the blocking was done effectively, due to the fact that the production was a staged-reading, the actors were burdened with carrying the script at all times. This impediment was especially evident in the scene in which Nora is attempting to recognize her old friend Christine (Dominique Plaisant), and between searching Plaisant’s face, LaVecchia is forced to frequently revert her eyes to the script. And as powerful as LaVecchia and Burns were in the final act, it is hard not to imagine how much better they could have been without this encumbrance.

The costumes, though subtle, were for the most part effective. This was particularly notable in Kragstad’s (Mark Borkowski) case, as his worn-out leather jacket enhanced his slime-ball character while simultaneously leaving the audience slightly sympathetic. However, Burns’s donning of what were clearly twenty-first century blue jeans was distracting and inharmonious.

At the end of the day, when the curtains close and the audience clears, it is evident that Kreb’s A Doll’s House was a success. However, it is equally apparent that this success could have been enhanced if the obvious edges – mainly in the form of an over-zealous narrator – were roughed out.

On the whole, the reading of Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House did a decent job of capturing the thematic elements of the play, despite its abridged nature. The two leads I thought were portrayed accurately, showing the development of the Nora character, while also portraying Torvald as a sympathetic figure, which is difficult in our time of evanescing patriarchy. However the function of Mrs. Lind in the reading was mitigated. The qualifying preface from the older gentlemen pertaining to the transformation of the four main forces in the play aided the audience’s understanding. By viewing the play through this interpretation one is able to observe the subtle, eventually interloping, contrasts between the two female roles and the two male roles.

I felt the eventual revealing of Torvald’s world and status as one of deception was abrupt. I can imagine that the downplaying of Nora’s perceptual transformation did serve one function for an audience that has not observed the work before, the heightening of suspense. However I feel it is both Torvald’s realization of Nora’s dissidence, and Nora’s realization of his guise of bourgeois social status that make the tome one of the best narratives casted after the well-made play template. It has a double realization, to which both characters try to moralize their actions. These scenes were well recapitulated, which I found important. The sense of melodrama, which validates Nora’s final decision to abandon her family, was put across but more in an aesthetic way than a narrative one. Her situation is more relatable to a modern audience however and perhaps urges less cogency in its outcome. The claustrophobic single set of the play transferred well to the unadorned stage, which came across as cluttered with five people, chairs, and script stands, but in a good suffocating way.

This staged reading of A Doll House was a fairly entertaining experience. Like they warned us before the show began, the plot seemed a bit choppy and rushed at points, but I felt the acting made up for the abridged story development.

First off, I would like to commend the actors for playing their roles perfectly. Nora played the part of a childish woman forced into that mentality by a domineering husband well, even managing to make it convincing that this was not her true self but a staged facade she puts on to be more accepted in society. There were many moments where it can be sensed that deep down, Nora was not this naive, easily pleased child, especially with her past actions in saving her husband, it can be seen that everything she has done in the play was a result of her trying to retain her husband’s approval.

As for Torvald, his role as a chauvinistic man who speaks condescendingly to his wife as if she were still a child was also well played. At first, I was not very fond of the actor chosen, his voice sounded pompous and overdone, giving me bad memories of Jason from Medea, but as the play continued, Torvald’s mannerisms grew on me. I actually grew to like Torvald’s voice, it seemed very powerful and characteristic of an authoritative father figure that tries to keep control. I was convinced that this Torvald actually deeply cared for Nora and was completely honest with everything he said, which made their separation at the end all the more emotional. He seemed to truly love her and I was actually torn between his side and Nora’s side. On Torvald’s side, he seemed to sincerely want Nora back and willing to change for her sake, but on Nora’s side, she had a point about the two not really knowing each other and that she needed to be on her own to understand herself. I think it’s a real testament to their acting ability when they can make an audience sympathize with two conflicting ideas.

As others have noted, Krogstad looked and acted the part of a conniving villain expertly, with his dark clothes and slouching posture adding to his malicious intent. However, I did note that at some moments, particularly in the earlier ones, his idle pose seemed a bit overly villainous. I can’t quite describe it, but the way he slouched and his apathetic, yet wily gaze at Nora made him seem a lot like an evil-for-the-sake of evil character. Honestly, it kind of made it seem like he was making up the whole suffering family story to manipulate Nora, since he does not give off the aura of a downtrodden family man trying to do what he must to keep them alive. I also found it rather unnerving that he so easily falls back in love with Christine despite his marital status. After that scene, I was far more concerned with what would result from this rekindled relationship than what would happen to Nora and Torvald, but more on that later.

Christine, I felt was the weakest of the four characters, she just seemed to be the extra character who provided someone to talk with Nora and a convenient relation to the villain to help move the story along. Still, she was not a bad actor and she did her job. However, I found myself confused over her attempt to convince Krogstad to repeal his letter. Was she sincere with her pity on Krogstad for breaking his heart, or was she just appealing to his emotions to get him to do what she wanted? It seemed like the former was intended, but the suddenness of the plot point and how it was just so convenient for her to reveal at such a prime moment in the play that she had relations with him makes the latter seem likely too. This new relationship, as I mentioned earlier, seems more interesting than the main plot now. As I was writing this, I checked a plot summary of the play to refresh my mind and apparently Krogstad’s wife died. I’m not sure if this was mentioned in the one we saw, but either way, it doesn’t make Krogstad look any better. On one hand, he may be cheating on his wife and leaving her for an old flame, on the other he just drops his dead wife’s memory for an old flame. Both of these situations lend more to my belief that he wasn’t that sincere when talking to Nora about his suffering family.

As for the last actor, the narrator, he was alright. All he did was say what happened and be the nanny. His nanny role was at first a bit distracting, but then I just kept imagining him as a male butler with an effeminate name.

The theater production of A Doll’s House by Baruch is an astonishing feat that overcomes budget, set design, and time constraints.  In a mere 45 minutes the cast of A Doll’s House effectively delivered a revolutionary message encrypted behind the lines written by Erik Ibsen.  I was a little hesitant to watching this play because I was always attracted to big name actors, dazzling set designs and costumes, expensive lighting and mythical tales.  The production put by Baruch ignore all these aspects and dives in to a much more conservative play that deals with everyday social issues.  The context might seem a little plain because the play revolves around the lives of regular people but the cast and director accomplish the task of churning boring text in to an enjoyable performance.  After each scene I was more concerned with the characters problems and desperately wanted to know what would happen next.  The actors had a large part in fulfilling this aspect.  Each performer did a wonderful job of portraying their characters and emotions, and I could feel the sorrow and anger of some of the characters.  The meaningless conversations taken by Nora and Torvald portrayed the failures of their marriage.  The actor who played Torvald did a terrific job in his treatment toward Nora.  He would put on a certain boyish charm and act like a child illustrating the failure of Nora and Torvald’s relationship.  The actor who played Nora also did a wonderful job of creating anxiety and tension in the audience’s heart.    The actor would pace back and forth creating the illusion of tension and her facial expressions created a sense of hopelessness forming emotional bonds with the audience.  The audience had also developed a sense of fear towards the future of Nora’s character because of the consequences of Nora’s actions.  A Doll’s House is one of the few plays that have a lasting impact on the audience.  Erik Ibsen had intended to question society and their moral issues in this play and the Baruch production does a wonderful job of getting these messages across. Although this performance lacked many of the necessities of modern theater such as, elaborate costume and set design it still did a wonderful job of delivering a powerful performance that relied heavily on acting skills.

After having the privilege of seeing “A Free Man of Color,” my expectations for a play might have been raised. The performance of “A Doll’s House” that we saw at Baruch was obviously nothing compared to the wonderful staging of “A Free Man of Color,” and maybe I am being unfairly harsh in this critique, as the production of the former had nowhere near the time nor the means as did the latter. However, I still really disliked it. In my humble opinion, it was bad.

What annoyed me the most was the script-on-a-stand acting. It wasn’t even script-in-hand. When we saw “Medea” at the same venue, I was mostly unaffected by the actors’ referral to their scripts. That was just it. They referred to them, and did not rely on them. Even though they were reading from them, they embodied the characters they played and emphasized what needed to be emphasized without being corny. This was not the case with this production of “A Doll’s House”. The actors read directly from the scripts, and did not make appropriate physical gestures toward each other. They made rudimentary contact, touching arms and waving toward one another, but hardly ever spoke their lines to the face of their counterpart. It made the play on whole, unbelievable. The lines they spoke were very powerful, but under such sparse acting, they became meaningless. I was very disappointed.

Then, there was the acting itself. It was so melodramatic, I ended up laughing at what were supposed to be very intense scenes. To put it bluntly, it was campy. Beyond campy. The actors tried so hard to be “serious” and “worried” and “sad,” and in effect, they were unintentionally hilarious. If anything, the production did amuse me, so taking everything into account, it might not have been such a waste of time. However, I do not think that was what it meant to do.

If anything could save the production, it was the actual play. I did take something from it: a more thorough understanding of Henrik Ibsen’s writing. I can actually picture it being performed very well–just not by this cast.

My first impression was that the usher was rude and way over-enthusiastic about playing Theater Police. For the first five minutes of the play, I was more focused on sneaking raisins into my mouth without her seeing, than on the actual stage. But then it got interesting.

The stage opened up into a lavish living room, beset with prostitutes and other characters. Each was introduced: their name, their background and a small monologue about themselves. The interaction between characters was very fast-paced, but witty, so it kept my attention. The dialogue throughout the whole play remained this way, and it actually made me laugh. Some people called it corny, and even though it may have been, I didn’t care.

I was really impressed with the set design. They seemed to take full advantage of the space on stage, and the kinetic pieces worked seamlessly, scene by scene. The costumes were also very well done. They were detailed and appropriate to each character, and overall very beautiful.

As far as the play itself went, I thought that the second act was much more compelling than the first. The first act was playful and funny, and although it was entertaining, it seemed to lack a bit of backbone. The second act made up for that, though, as it got pretty serious and grave as time went on. The plot got more interesting and the stories of each set of characters became more interwoven. The play basically started to all make sense.

Overall, I really enjoyed the play. It was funny and compelling, and well staged.

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.