THE 1041C Theater Reviews

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

Walking out of that crowded subway station, following my professor and a few friends, I really did not know what to expect from this evening. Pass the turnstiles, up the escalators and through the brightly lit tunnel we finally reach the outside. The cold but refreshing night breeze snapped me out of the trancelike state induced by the stuffy subway air. The first sight that greeted us was Lincoln Center in its entire splendor. Lincoln Center was pretty in the daytime but it was absolutely stunning at night, the brightly lit fountains, the glowing glass building. Into the lobby, up the stairs, pass the ushers, and on to the cushioned theater seats, here we are, let the show begin.

The lights dimmed and went dark until only the stage was lit. Out come Jacques Cornet and Cupidon Murmur with their banter between master and somewhat highly regarded slave. This introduction was iconic of the performance that was to follow. The interaction between Jacques and Murmur was hilarious to say the least. The way that Murmur manages play the role of both humble servant and long time friend is very impressive; I give the actor a lot of credit for being able to do this. Jacques has a very strong stage presence; he is able to grab the entire audience’s attention with his amusing arrogance and selfishness. But somehow the two characters managed to create a balance that lasted throughout the entire play.

The stage goes dark, but just bright enough for the audience to see the props rise out of the trapdoors on the stage. I must say, no matter how many times this occurs throughout the play, it never ceases to impress. The scene with the prostitutes portrayed the element of sex that was going to be a central aspect of the play. Personally, I thought this could have been done better than having the women swarming around Jacques Cornet in their undergarments. Throughout the play, it becomes evident that prostitutes are not the only women who were attracted to Jacques. Virtually every woman, many being wives, within the play gives into to Jacques’ advances. Ironically enough, not once does Jacques seek to satisfy his urges with his own wife.

During this scene, the first shift between settings occurs, when the stage suddenly goes dark and the props are hurriedly removed from stage. Out comes Napoleon Bonaparte, played by Triney Sandoval, in his bathtub, trying to develop strategies for his military campaigns. His lack of civility when dealing with people within his close circle is very amusing. The way he barks at his servant and wife alike made me laugh numerous times. The way that his narrow mind led him to curse a variety of British creations, even creations that were ahead of his time was really entertaining. This anachronism would be a source of humor throughout the entire play.

The lighting was very important throughout the play. By dimming the lighting of the stage, the transitions between scenes could be done without lowering the curtain. By selectively dimming the lights, the audience attention was directed or redirected to different locations on stage. But perhaps the most important function of the lighting is giving the stage the full effect of the setting. I particularly liked when the entire stage was drowned in white light to signify the white spaces on the map. Towards the climax of the film, when the ghost of Jacques’ half brother appeared on stage, the lighting was used to convey to the audience a sense of fear and foreboding.

Overall, I found the performance very entertaining and stimulating. It was a historical play but was not so centered on portraying the historical aspects of it to lose my interest. A few liberties taken on the part of the writers did not take away at all from the overall effect of the story. The one aspect of the play that bothered me was how much sex was incorporated. I found that the sexual aspects of the play actually did not add much to the story and did not need to be emphasized as much as it was. But the other aspects of the play more than made up for it.

A Free Man of Color was an entertaining and amusing experience to sit through and there was barely a dull moment to be found in the production. It was always fast-paced and laden with enough humor to keep the audience’s attention at all times. All the characters provided entertainment in their own way and there was not one character who I would describe as uninteresting, even the minor ones managed to catch your interest for at least one moment.

As the play began, the aspect that first caught my attention was the well-crafted set: an elaborately decorated living space with a busy atmosphere that really caught the sense of fun and fine living. The use of the stage’s mechanisms such as trap doors provided a quick and effective method of indicating scene changes, as the entire set can transform into a completely different environment within only a few seconds. The use of the trap doors as actual parts of the story, such as a hidden safe or entrance to the underside of a ship, were also clever uses of the stage’s machinery to add to the play. Another set that particularly impressed me was the bayou area, with the dilapidated houses and buildings in the background. These were actually made of nothing more than wooden boards put together in such angles as to create the illusion of depth, making the background props seem to stretch further into the back than they truly were. However, the swamp set, which consisted of vaguely vine shaped green objects hanging from the ceiling seemed to leave a bit to be desired. I felt the vines looked a bit too cartoony and more like large foam cut outs of green blobs than vines. Then again, the characters searching through the swamps with nothing more than the lights of their lanterns provided an ominous effect to the scene, which really added to the suspense of the climax.

As for the characters of the play, many of them were very entertaining and enjoyable to watch. Jeffrey Wright, who played the lead character Jacques Cornet, delivered his performance perfectly, managing to make a lecherous, deceptive man into a fairly charming and likeable character. Wright performed the role of a boisterous, self-obsessed aristocrat to the best of anyone’s ability and watching this in action was a highly entertaining experience. I also had particular fondness for the character of Napoleon, presented by actor Triney Sandoval as a miserable, over-compensating caricature of the French emperor. Although not a prominent character in the play, he had a major role in the plot, and the antics he performed as he was making major political decisions served as humorous juxtapositions of silly actions and serious matters. I especially enjoyed the scene wherein Napoleon is in the background, walking across pans of water that his soldiers obediently lay down before him in fear of scorpions scurrying across the grounds of Haiti. Another character I enjoyed was Zeus-Marie Pincepousse, the jealous half-brother of Jacques Cornet. Although an antagonist, Pincepousse is portrayed in a pitiable role, as the son of an aristocrat whose inheritance was given not to him, but instead to his enslaved half-brother, and if losing his fortune to him wasn’t enough, Cornet later steals the heart of his beloved wife. Reg Rogers plays the character of Pincepousse well, being able to express his conniving side without sacrificing sympathy for the character, who the audience should fully understand seems to be justified in his anger.

The writing of the play is another exceptional trait, with its witty banter and clever use of double entendre. Almost no character seemed to lack some sort of humorous moment and it’s hard to say that any part of the play was boring. Each character seemed to have a role in the story and none seemed to have been extraneous to the plot.

But going away from the praise, there were some things I felt were not quite up to par. As far as characters go, I would say the least interesting one would have been the Haitian revolutionary Toussaint L’Ouverture,” played by rapper and actor Mos Def. This is no downplay of the character’s importance or the actor’s acting ability, but more that L’Ouverture’s personality seemed out of place. Here we have a play with a multitude of outrageous and exaggerated  characters and there’s this one man who plays his character seriously in every scene he’s in. That’s not to say serious characters are not acceptable in such a production, but if they are present they usually can gain humor from their interactions with the more eccentric characters, such as Murmur’s (also played by Mos Def) dynamic with his master Cornet. L’Ouverture never has any scene in which he has a comic foil to his straight man routine, and so he just seems to be a character from a historical drama who somehow stumbled on the set of a historic comedy.

Another part of the play I felt was a bit poor was the ending. The ending seemed to drag on for a lot longer than necessary, and I couldn’t help but feel that certain parts of it, such as the scene in which Cornet is pleading the various historical figures to find some way to free him, could have been cut down a bit. I think the ending was a good one, and effective despite the mood whiplash it presents in comparison to the previous lighthearted humor of the first act, but it loses a lot of its impact from the fact that it goes on for so long. It seemed so odd to me, that my attention had been firmly grasped for the majority of the play, but as it neared the ending and I started becoming unsure when it was going to end, my interest started to slip away. I found myself not caring about what Meriwether Lewis had to say about his thoughts before suicide (I’m not even sure if that’s what he was talking about) and eventually losing my interest in Cornet becoming enslaved, more interested in when he was gonna get sold off so they can finally end the scene.

Other than those few things I didn’t care for, “A Free Man of Color” has certainly been placed in one of the top most enjoyable plays I’ve seen. Considering the one I watched was one of the earliest releases, I hope that later performances will address some of the issues I raised and make the play more streamlined.