by Brad Quinn
ICCT - Although Neil Simon can pretty much be depended on for a laugh, this may be one of his more weighty offerings. I knew very little about this show going into it, but knowing Neil Simon in general I had some idea of what to expect. In many ways, I was wrong.
When the subject matter is divorce, adultery, and the death of a spouse, you can be assured that it’s not going to be all fun and games. So those of you looking for nothing but a laugh, this show may not be for you.
However, there is a lot to recommend this script for those of you who are looking for some depth to your comedy. Maybe it is hard to imagine a comedy which is anchored by death and marital strife, but Simon pulls it off with his usual flair. All that is needed is the right people to bring it to life.
Does ICCT’s presentation of Chapter Two achieve this? Yes…and no. I can say with certainty that the opening night show which I saw was absolutely crisp and the cast was firing on all cylinders. Unfortunately, the only real problem with that is that the supporting cast actually outshines the leads.
Without a doubt, Ken Van Egdon steals this show away from the rest of the cast, playing the part of Leo Schneider, the younger brother to the play’s romantic lead. Granted, with only four people in the cast this is not as hard to do, but his stage presence and comic timing set a standard that the rest have difficulty achieving. And just when you think his character is nothing but a comic foil, Van Egdon manages to reach deep and pull some real feeling out of a particularly emotional scene in the second act.
Robyn McCright also more than pulls her weight as Faye Medwick, best friend to the play’s female lead character. I have had the pleasure of seeing Ms. McCright in a number of other performances, and this one is truly her best yet. And it is a brave as well as comic performance…she performs one scene dressed in a flimsy negligee and another in nothing but a sheet. Other actresses might flinch from this but she charges at it straight ahead. Her scene with Van Egdon in the second act is probably the highlight of the show.
The two leads were played by David Pierce, as George Schneider, and newcomer Caroline Sheerin as Jennie Malone. It is to be hoped that Ms. Sheerin continues to pursue the theater now that she has returned to the stage after being absent since high school, as she shows a great deal of promise. Unfortunately, where this show really suffers is the lack of chemistry between the two romantic leads.
Pierce in particular seems out of place as George. Not that he doesn’t have the tools of a comic actor, but he is about 10 years too old for the part and seems a bit more milquetoast than the part would call for. The two together have no spark, and this becomes quite evident when they kiss onstage for the first time. It is difficult to play romance on the stage, but the challenge of such stage romances is that you really only have a very short amount of time to establish the relationship as legitimate in the audience’s eyes and you have to make use of every moment.
The story relies on this relationship to make it work. George is a writer who has recently lost his wife to an unnamed illness, and Jennie is an actress who has just been divorced. Neither is eager to start a new relationship, but through the machinations of brother Leo and friend Faye (and a happy accident) George and Jennie meet and begin a whirlwind romance that neither is particularly equipped for. The first act of the show details the background of these characters, including Leo and Faye, and is generally light-hearted and fun. The accidental first meeting between George and Jennie is particularly well written. However, the second act is much heavier on the drama and emotion and is more difficult for the audience to get in to (although not unrewarding for those who stay with it). There is also a subplot which, while in some ways seemingly unnecessary, actually threatens to become more interesting than the main plot.
At the end of it all, though, I do think the audience was well satisfied and got their evening’s entertainment out of it. Not only was the cast on fire for opening night, special mention has to be made for the set, beautifully constructed by Rich Riggleman. Riggleman is a veteran who has built many fine sets over the years for various local productions, but this one may be his finest. The set consists of two apartments side by side, and it was designed in such a way to allow them to share the same stage but be completely distinguishable from each other. Aiding in this endeavor is an apt lighting design by Andrew Couch. Each apartment has its own hallway lighting and interior lighting that are independent of each other and allow the audience to truly feel that they are separate spaces despite having no real boundaries between them.
There is the possibility that this show may be the last performance ICCT ever gives. I certainly hope that is not the case and that they rescue themselves from the financial trouble they find themselves in. If this does end up being their last show, it is certainly not an unworthy one. And I would recommend for anyone reading this to go see the show and enjoy it for what it is. For it may not be perfect, but it is still a fine evening’s entertainment.
6 comments:
I'm not going to say anything about the substance of the review. Obviously I disagree with it where I am concerned, and Caroline's wonderful performance deserves far more than 'she shows a great deal of promise', but mine is hardly an unbiased opinion. I know from personal experience how hard it is to say something negative when reviewing community theatre productions, and I applaud the reviewer for not being afraid to voice his opinion.
I find it strange, however, that nowhere in the review is the director, Brian Tanner, mentioned. Brian did a great job with the show, and the audiences have been incredibly responsive. The director of a play never gets enough credit, but the director of this play could have at least gotten his name in the review.
Something doesn't smell right here. I attended the same opening-night performance as the reviewer, and thought the play was terrific--in large part because the cast was so well balanced. After reading this review, I checked to see who had written it, and thought the reviewer's name sounded familiar--and, sure enough, when I checked my program from the show, I found that Mr. Quinn is running the sound board for the play. So one of the crew's own members is posting a review of the play, praising some actors and criticizing others. That seems really odd to me. Plus, it makes it hard to believe that the review is objective, and not a function of friendships or the absence of friendships. Something here isn't right.
Everyone's opinions can vary. It actually astounds me though that the lack of direct praise can be considered criticism.
But, it is a review and obviously there will be positive and negative aspects to it. But I assure the above poster that I was as objective as possible while writing this.
I have nothing against anyone involved with this show and in fact find them all nice people. However, for the record I was in the audience on opening night, not running the sound board.
This was not intended to be negative towards anyone or towards the show itself, just an honest assessment of it's strengths and weaknesses in my opinion. You are welcome to disagree.
It is the policy of the blog that if a person is working on a show, they are not allowed to write a review. I was unaware that Mr. Quinn was running sound for the show, however I fear I didn't make this policy clear enough to all of the reviewers, so I take full responsibility for this.
That said, I believe this review to be fair and objective and I am not going to remove it.
However, in the future, we will make sure that all reviewers are not directly involved in the show they are reviewing.
I look forward to seeing Chapter Two this weekend and I certainly encourage all of our readers to check it out.
Matt Falduto
Iowa Theatre Blog
The review is well written and I agree with the assessment of performances. I didn't understand or see how she fell for him, and it didn't seem like there was any chemistry between them. They both had some good moments later in the play, though. I don't agree that the guy was too old for her. People of all ages can fall in love with each other.
I agree with Matt. Brad was not the best choice to write the review. However, I saw the same show and I must agree with Brad's assessment.
Now, I enjoyed the phone-tag scene between George and Jennie. Caroline made some very clever choices as she portrayed Jennie's increasing "giddiness" as she awaited George's next pseudo-crank call.
Yet, Ken and Robyn did steal the show. It's not their fault. They simply got-into their respective characters and had fun. What's not to like?
Tanner is becoming a fine director and I always look forward to his shows. But, by the end of the "Chapter 2", I was left wanting more Ken and Robyn.
So, sue me.
Post a Comment