The Walworth Farce is a play I knew nothing about before going in. I had heard that it came from Edinburgh, and was coming to NYC for a bit before moving onto London. So I checked out it’s first preview (discount ticket night!)

There’s so much to say about this play. So much good and so much bad. Such comedy and heartache. Such confusion and clarity. Painful and enjoyable to watch. Good acting yet confusing choices. Really, this is the kind of thing that you could discuss till you’re blue in the face. So I’ll try to keep it brief.

The cast is of 4 people only. A father, his two sons, and later, a Tesco checkout girl who accidently gets caught up in their world of insanity, denial and pain.

There is a play within a play here, but the main focus is really what happens outside the play within the play (meaning, their actual lives). During the play within the play, each of the two brothers play multiple characters and get to exercise their comedy chops. When that action stops, and we return to their real lives, that’s when things return to darkness.

All day long, every day, the father forces the two boys to act out a play - which tells the story of how this Irish family came to live in a flat in South London. One brother has never left the flat, the other only leaves once a day to purchase food/props for their daily play. The father encourages the boys to keep the play going by taunting them with the daily “acting trophy” (which he daily awards to himself), or outright violence and rage. On this particular day, the son took the wrong bag of groceries from the Tesco, and when the checkout girl comes to deliver the correct one, it all goes to hell.

The play is really an exploration of storytelling, and how some use it as a form of denial. Or, protection, depending on your perspective.

Brilliantly written, but I actually had some issues with the direction. It was so fast paced, and they jumped in and out of the fantasy world so quickly , sometimes you couldn’t tell what was real and what was part of their farce. And there was sooo much yelling! The father never stops yelling throughout the play. The whole thing is so fast paced and running around and yelly (much like a traditional farce) but I just wanted them to slow down once in a while!

And the choice to make both of the sons kind of retarded. Didn’t understand that. It makes sense that they would both be kind of slow and socially maladjusted, as one hadn’t left the flat in years and the other only leaves once a day to go to Tesco. But for some odd reason they both came off as kind of brain damaged - not sure if that was a directing or acting choice, but I didn’t quite get it. And there were even some unanswered questions in the story line. For example, why did the mother send her two boys off to London to live with their father, even though he’s a violent nutcase? Was it to rid herself of that life altogether? Did she not love her boys? It is unclear. Lots of things are confusing and unclear and I’m not sure if they make sense in the real world. But they make sense within the reality of this play, which is a place of sad imprisonment.

Really, really good, but so many questions still…I guess that’s the mark of a good piece of theatre. I’ll be thinking about this one for days and days.

My friend Danny is really going places. This night of songs and scenes from various operas from two composers was bloody good fun.

Directed by Christopher Alden (on break between international gigs), this evening of songs at the Zipper Theatre is something I would have hated to have missed, so thankfully the impetus of knowing one of the composers got me out of the house and into the theatre.

The tone of the piece varied drastically from piece to piece - started funny, then got quite dark and serious, then angry, then back to funny. So there was a little something of everything. Strippers, dominatrixes, politicians, etc - not your typical subject matter for what we normally think of when we go to the opera. I guess that’s the difference between traditional and “new”opera. Pretty much anything goes. Awesome.

What was really most impressive was how fully staged it was. For only a week of rehearsal (I think) - everything was there, except for a set. But costumes, props, blocking, everything else was pretty much fully realized. And each of the 4 singers were completely off book - and with this style of complex new opera, that is no easy feat.

The singers were all excellent. Michael Zegarski, Constance Hauman, Jessica Miller and Amy Van Roekel comprised the cast. What I loved was how versatile each of the singers could be as actors. Opera singers are not usually commended for their acting ability along with their vocals, but each of these performers deserves to be. Zegarski played a reclusive miser, and then later on, reappeared as Bill Clinton. Extremely varying roles for each of the performers - all quite challenging, and all well executed.

Danny’s wife Elizabeth Isadora Gold, wrote the libretto for the scene performed from their opera-in-progress “The Bloody Chamber.” I look forward to the piece’s completion! So proud of you Danny, it really went incredibly well.

Not knowing anything about this play, it was recommended by a friend so on a whim we bought tickets and went the following week. Sitting in the back of the house for an ambitious, lengthy, intense family drama I thought would be a bad idea, but the intensity reached me, sitting all the way up and back in the balcony.

I was actually dreading it a bit, after hearing that it was 3.5 hours long with two intermissions. That being said, some of the best plays I’ve ever seen have been that long. This didn’t feel that long, and I was definitely engaged the entire time. Although the show could have used some editing. There were so many characters - some could have been cut completely and chopped of at least a half hour of length. Tracy Letts, the playwright, best known for “Bug,” could have done with some editing - but weirdly, not as much as you’d think for a 3.5 hour epic drama.

The action follows a dysfunctional family in rural Oklahoma. In the first scene we meet the patriarch, an alcoholic and ex-famous writer, who’s hiring a maid for their large house. He talks about his life, and how he drinks and his wife takes pills, and that’s the deal they’ve made with each other. Next scene - Dad has gone missing. So the rest of the family shows up to deal with the situation. The family is composed of three sisters and their various husbands, ex-husbands, fiances, children, and cousins. So it becomes a full house very quickly. And the epic proportions of their various issues become apparently very quickly.

The characters are all excellently well written - with 3.5 hours of dialogue, Letts really takes the time to delve into the psyche and backstory of each and every character. It’s nice to see so many realistic characters, so in depth, and connecting so well to one another on stage. The acting is for the most part, excellent. It’s amazingly riveting for a play in which not much actually happens. Mostly, the family talks to each other. And there are so many levels it’s incredible to watch.

Best acting trophies go to Deanna Dunagan as Violet Weston (the drug-addled mother). Her act 2 tirade at the dinner table is the stuff of Tony winners. And I also loved Amy Morton as Barbara Fordham, the eldest (and strongest) daughter. Sarcastic and hard to the bone, but full of pain and subtle vulnerability that she works hard to cover up as her marriage is falling apart. My only problem with the casting was with Sally Murphy, who plays Ivy Weston, the middle daughter, who is supposed to be 45 years old. From where I was sitting, she appeared to be about 20. She was dressed like a 20 year old, had the voice of a 20 year old, and body of one too. So whenever she would make a reference to her character’s age of 45, it was terribly confusing. Perhaps she looks older up close. I had to find out - turns out, the actress is indeed in her 40s. From far away she appeared horrifically miscast, perhaps it worked better up close - or perhaps Ms. Murphy is just blessed with a younger look. She easily could play in the 18-25 year old range. It was almost infuriating, actually. The character is supposed to have a naivite and vulnerability about her - she never left the nest and still lives at home, taking care of her parents - but all in my party agree that she was miscast.

This play won the Pulitzer this year for play writing. Not having seen or read the other nominees, it’s hard for me to judge, but this is certainly one of the most ambitious and successful new American plays I’ve ever seen. And it’s about the simplest, most basic of themes that’s been done a million times before; your typical dysfunctional family. It just goes to show that it’s not always about the freshest or newest ideas that matter - you can take an established idea, shed new light on it, put your voice to it, and people will see it in a fresh and new way.

It’s interesting what kind of work people can churn out over the course of 24 hours! Some great - some not so great.

First off, I must shame the venue for their policies. The event took place at The Triad Theatre, which is on W. 72nd Street. I would never see theatre that far uptown were it not to go see the work of my friend, Matt Doyle - so all in all it was worth it. However, the admission price for a one hour show was $12, plus a two drink minimum, average drink price - $9. So $35 later, I’ve seen a show with no sets, no lights, no budget whatsoever. At that price I literally could have seen a Broadway show. Cheap seats of course, but still - really greedy venue. Pick a downtown one next year, guys!

Anyway. The concept is that 6 playwrights get together, are assigned 2-3 actors and given a theme. The play has to be written, directed, rehearsed, and performed 24 hours later. Quite a daunting task for all involved.

Some came off as cute, short little sketches, each about 10-12 minutes long. Others seemed more like a fully realized one act. All chose comedy as the overall theme, I think because it’s easier to do than drama, in this context. The ones in which the actors were completely off book tended to be the better ones, of course because the actors could focus on acting and not reading their scripts. However, I’m not sure I could learn that much dialogue in that amount of time, so props to those who did. It paid off.

The first play was really very vague and didn’t make any sense to me. Then there was a cute scene between an Obama- loving hippie and a Hilary-loving Southern lady. That one was cute but why did it have to end in lesbianism? Too obvious. There was actually a whole lot of lesbianism over the course of the night for whatever reason. Such as in the next piece; a “bad-date” scene written by someone who couldn’t stop referencing Shakespeare and I found it very tiresome. As if we were supposed to think the actress was actually a boy at the beginning….no way. Didn’t work.

The funniest of the night was a scene in which a soap opera for Telemundo was being filmed, and the actors were having a hard time not moving around and being dramatic when the dialogue was just repeating “te amo…no te amo….te amo! NO TE AMO!” Then there was a soft dramatic moment and the actors were able to push the comedy aside and play the scene seriously, and it was a great shift - well written and well acted. (Lesbians in this one too….random.)

Lastly was my friend’s piece, which was a scene with a psychiatrist and patient. You can tell the psychiatrist is disinterested, and keeps asking the patient if she’s dreamed about certain random things - like a platypus, perhaps? Turns out, she’s playing psychiatry bingo and she’s never won before so she really wants her patient to have had a recent dream about a platypus, because, bingo! Very funny concept, clever and well written. I also appreciated how Matt used elements of his real life in the character of the patient, making her more well-rounded. I’m not sure the actors really fully “got” Mat’s sense of humor - some of the line readings I’m sure he envisioned totally differently - but they still pulled it off and it was very funny. And brilliantly, it didn’t look like they were carrying scripts, but I think they were - the patient had a notebook and doctor had a clipboard, but they played it off as if they were parts of the scene, but I assume their scripts were in there just in case. But it appeared that they were off-book. Good for them, Matt can be wordy! Write longer plays! He is good stuff.

Quite an ambitious project, with varying results. The acting was really spotty - some great performances, but some very unconvincing and uncommitted ones too. But I would never go back to the Triad. This is why I avoid mainstream comedy clubs! Drink minimum PLUS admission? Really?

This show was recommended in an email blast from Banana Bag and Bodice, a theatre company who’s work I’ve been a fan of for years. So, taking their recommendation that this show was not to be missed, I decided to check it out. While no where near as good as the work of your average BBB production, this piece definitely had merit and was well worth an hour out of my Saturday afternoon.

The New York Frigid Festival is one that I had been previously unfamiliar with. This production was performed by The Nonsense Company, out of San Diego (now based in Madison, WI.)

In the course of about an hour, there are two half-our pieces, with no division - the first runs seamlessly into the second. The first is literally a cacophony of sounds. Three men sit around a dining room table and make noise. However, it is the most perfectly orchestrated bunch of noise, made by the most unorthodox methods. Noises that were repeated often included silverware clinking on plates and the hum of a wet finger around the rim of a water glass. No actual text is included in this piece, although some random words are spoken into a contraption that muffles and distorts the actors voices, to indicate background chatter or ambient noise from a faraway radio. I am pretty sure the piece is inspired by the actual sounds of the goings about of cooking, eating, and cleaning up an average Thanksgiving dinner within a large family. Although it could have potentially just been a bunch of noise. Perfectly orchestrated noise, that is. The text that was used was largely to do with the Iraq war and American politics, but I wasn’t sure if that was the focus of the piece, or if that was just representative of background radio at the dinner table.

So complex was this performance is that the three actor/percussionists had to follow along with a score - as doing something with that much complexity from memory seems impossible. Very excellently created and performed, but not riveting story telling by any means. But an interesting idea.

The second piece is a more traditional play, in the sense that they use dialogue to tell the story. Three actors discuss the concept of torture - one argues for it, the other against, and the third appears and reappears as a third, varying character, most often a waiter at the restaurant at which the discussion is taking place. It plays with interesting methods of story telling, such as repetition, allegory, and jumping forward and backward along the timeline of the story. The whole thing is very self-referential and meta-theatrical (indicating that they are acting ina play, etc). Overall, it uses various methods to tell what is at heart, a discussion on the benefits and drawbacks to the current American policy on torture. It gets very heated and intense and you’re left with the clear notion that torture is always a bad, bad idea.

Interesting work from a potentially great theatre company - but the two pieces seemed a bit disconnected, which was slightly bothersome.