The Children’s Hour Hits and Misses

Meg Dobbs as Amelia Tilford,
Serena Collins as Mary Tilford

By Brad Quinn
Photos By Elisabeth Ross

Iowa City - The Children's Hour is a simple enough premise: in 1961 America, two women, teachers and headmistresses of a small private school for girls, are accused by one of their students of committing lesbian acts with each other. The resulting scandal threatens to destroy their lives and the lives of those who love them. Whether the accusation is true or not is irrelevant; it is the perception which matters.

It took me awhile after I sat down for me to put my finger on what seemed so out of place in this theater in which I have many times similarly sat down. The doors to the stage were closed. They are never closed before a show. As soon as I realized this, I was intrigued…what surprises were they hiding behind the doors, on the stage? When they finally opened the doors, it turned out to be relatively mundane, and yet quite surprising nonetheless: it was just a regular set, but a really well done set!

Neighborhood 3: Requisition of Doom - A Modern Fairytale

By Brad Quinn
Photos by Elisabeth Ross

Jeff Emrich as Steve and Avonique Tipsword as Chelsea

Iowa City - You've missed the first weekend performance of Neighborhood 3: Requisition of Doom. Don’t panic; there is still one more weekend left to see it. You may wish to go see it on Friday night, so that you can go back and see it again on Saturday night in order to catch some of the things you might have missed the first time.

When you sit down in the theater, you’re confronted by a very simple set. Two black flats with a white screen between them, and three black acting cubes. As you will discover, this is more than enough to draw you in to the show. Once the lights go down and the show begins, a very different kind of staging emerges. There are ten scenes, each of which has a different set which are photographic backgrounds projected on to the white screen. Ominous music plays underneath each scene, sometimes mixed with video game sounds. The lighting is harsh and white, mainly projected from the rear sides rather than the standard front and front side projected lighting common to most productions. A narrator in a suit (John Crosheck) steps forward and begins to speak, but he is not your standard narrator. He doesn't tell you anything about what has happened before, or what is about to happen, or who the characters are, or anything you might have come to expect from narration. Those in the audience who are video game aficionados will recognize it as something known as a walk-through, a set of instructions set down by video game developers or players who have completed a game to help new players through it. The effect of all of this is to give the audience notice that we are now in a video game world.

Last of the Red Hot Lovers a surprising gem

by Brad Quinn

ICCT - As I took my seat for this show, I noted that the small theater was less than half full, which is disappointing for an opening night performance. Especially for a comedy by a big name playwright such as Neil Simon, despite this being one of his lesser known works. And as I was to discover, the people not filling those vacant seats were missing out.

I hope that more people will take advantage of those empty seats for the coming performances, and perhaps some who might not otherwise go will read this review and head out to the fairgrounds to see it, because this is a good show. Top to bottom.

Before I get to the true heart of the show, let me first take note of a few of the more mundane details. Last of the Red Hot Lovers is about a middle aged restaurateur in the early 1970’s named Barney Cashman, played by veteran actor Josh Sazon, who has decided that he is going to have an affair. It’s not something he’s ever done before, and it’s certainly not something he’s any good at. The play presents three separate scenes, each detailing one of his rather inept attempts at seduction.

The single set, and all of the action, takes place in the living room of Barney’s mother’s New York apartment. This is ably rendered by the set designer and constructor Rich Riggleman (who is also the director, and pulls down quadruple duty by running the sound and light boards as well). The furnishings, color scheme, and bad carpet (which could only have been more vintage by being shag) were perfectly reminiscent of the cheap and gaudy 70’s style. There was also a nice touch rendered by a window complete with blinds and curtains and sunlight streaming through.

That actually was one of my only problems with the lighting design. All of Barney’s assignations took place mid-afternoon, and though they tried to simulate this by the light coming through the blinds, the apartment was nevertheless far too dark in the moments before Barney turned the lights on. Sunlight floods a space with ambient light, but this appeared more to be a room late at night with a pair of headlights shining through the window.

To complete the 70’s retro feel, costume designer Rachael Lindhart did an excellent job in outfitting the cast. The outfits worn by the women were spot on. Barney was outfitted in standard men’s suits, of course, but the first suit was a very dapper blue double breasted number that definitely set a tone for the kind of character Barney was. My only complaint was that, after declaring in the first scene that he always wore a blue suit, he was then seen next in a brown suit and then a checked sport coat.

Of course that is all just window dressing, the real reason to come see this show is the stellar performances given by its cast. Riggleman chose his cast very well, and put the right people into the right roles. The aforementioned Josh Sazon is in perfect form as the gentle nebbish Barney Cashman, a role he fits in both physicality and temperament. Sazon has excellent comic timing and delivery, and if there is any problem with his delivery it’s that he has such precise and clear diction that it’s difficult to believe we’re actually hearing a New Yorker speak.

Paula Grady, another veteran actor, plays the role of Elaine Nevazio, a hard drinking, hard smoking sexpot who is Barney’s first attempted affair. In some ways this is the most difficult role to play in the show because it would be very easy to play it in such a way that would lacks any sympathetic nature at all for her character and indeed become almost a caricature. Grady resists this temptation and navigates these treacherous waters well.

Barney’s second try at extra-marital love involves a young, free spirited wanna-be actress named Bobbi Michele, played by K. Lindsay Eaves. He quickly discovers she is completely cracked, a flighty neurotic with a seemingly infinite capacity for self-deception and a penchant for horrible romantic partners. This is a very funny scene, and Eaves brings plenty of energy and inhabits the character of Bobbi so well as to make one wonder where the character ends and she begins.

This act also contains what I found to be the best directed scene in the show. Riggleman did an excellent job throughout of keeping his actors in the right zone, but I most enjoyed the final few minutes of this act where both characters were stoned and sitting together on the couch. There was almost no movement, but it was very funny.

Last but certainly not least was Carole Martin’s turn as Jeanette Fisher in the final act. Her low key delivery and facial expressions had the audience laughing almost from the moment she stepped on stage. Jeanette is an uptight, depressed woman who has become completely disillusioned with humanity. Martin does a fine job of finding the humor in a humorless woman, and her interplay with Sazon allows both characters to finally reach the peace they’ve both been looking for.

The art of comedy is, in my opinion, the most difficult of all the various shades of theater. Without great skill, it is easy to ruin an otherwise hilarious script, and with great skill one can make even a mediocre script hilarious. I understand that, because of this, going to see an amateur performance is a risky proposition at best, which may explain some of the reason why the theater had so many unfilled seats. Well, I can assure that I would have a difficult time deciding if Last of the Red Hot Lovers is a mediocre script because it was so enjoyable to watch. I hope that tells you something, and I hope that you’ll grace these hard-working actors with your presence, because I do not think you will be disappointed.

Fine performances dominate Crimes of the Heart

by Brad Quinn

Cedar Rapids - A few notes to begin this review. I was in a production of Crimes of the Heart when ICCT did the show several years ago, playing the role of Doc. In fact I believe if you look far enough back in this blog, you’ll find an article about it (though oddly enough, not a review of that show). I had a great experience with that show, and I will try not to let it color my review.

Also, this was the first time I had visited TCR since they moved back into their old home. What I found was a state of the art theater facility that kind of made me turn green with envy. If some our local Iowa City theaters had half the resources that TCR enjoys, we would consider ourselves truly blessed. So I will also try not to let my jealousy of their fantastic home color my review.

As with most productions, the first thing you see when you walk in the theater is the set. And without a doubt, this was a very well done set. The entire play is contained within this one set, a kitchen in an old house. This is a fine choice by the author, because this play is about family and their relationship to each other more than anything else. The kitchen always seems to be the heart of a family, the place where people tend to gather and talk. This kitchen was done in such a way that it really suggested the kind of old family home you would imagine you’d find in a small southern town. Glass cupboards, knickknacks, vinyl floor tiling, and a sink that actually worked! You could really imagine what the rest of the house looked like; it'd be the same sort of home your grandparents lived in when you where a kid.

I did think the set was actually a bit too large. This is not an action packed play, and there was too much area for the actors to use. I thought a slightly smaller set would have given the play a more intimate feeling. And I am not quite sure about the choice of having a small flight of stairs down from the “back door” which presumably led out onto a porch…I’ve never seen a house with a sunken kitchen before. It seemed strange, but otherwise the set was ideal for the show.

The play itself is two days in the life of the Magrath sisters, three 20-something women who are each dealing with some major life issues. As the play opens we meet Lenny, the oldest sister and the glue which holds the family together, played by Angie Toomsen. She is having a birthday, and she is by herself. The director chose to use some opening music for this scene which I found a bit unnecessary. Rather than let the audience slowly clue in to the fact that Lenny is lonely and sad and having a birthday, the lyrics sort of hammer that home to you right away.

Ms. Toomsen delivers a strong performance as Lenny, possibly the best out of the ensemble, although that would be hard to say for sure as the entire cast was very good. TCR veteran Sarah Jarmon played the middle sister Meg and even though she was actually quite ill that night, still managed to inject Meg with the right amount of energy and vivaciousness. The youngest sister, Babe, was played by Katy Slaven, the only one of three which I had not had the pleasure of seeing perform before. Babe is a tough role, because she has to be able to maintain a sort of youthful innocence and keep the audience’s sympathy even while revealing the dirtiest of laundry. Ms. Slaven does an admirable job at this, easily allowing the audience to believe that Babe was the beautiful, beloved, and sheltered baby of the family.

The rest of the cast is rounded out by three secondary characters: Barnette Lloyd, played by Justin Braden, Chick Boyle, played by Clare Duffy, and Doc Porter played by Alex Williams. Barnette is Babe’s lawyer and potential suitor. Mr. Braden was very enjoyable to watch, he has an infectious smile and made Barnette a very likeable character. I did, however, not really feel the chemistry that should have been there between him and Babe. Mr. Williams did a great job as Doc, Meg’s old lover, who has a small part but can be very challenging not to portray as a caricature. Ms. Duffy was wonderful as Chick, the cousin of the three sisters. Chick is sort of an antagonist figure in the play, and it would be easy to go overboard with that, but her performance made Chick seem like a real person.

Still, the play is really about the three sisters and their relationships with each other which, no matter how strained they get, are always held together by love. As I said before, this is not an action packed show. It mainly unfolds through simple conversation. In fact, especially at the beginning of the show, it can drag a bit. Which is not to say there are not some pretty comedic moments; however it sometimes seemed like they left some potential laughs on the table. I’m not sure if it was a choice not to accentuate the comedy in the script, but I did get the idea that maybe the actors hadn’t really considered the fact that the audience would be laughing at some points. At the very beginning of the show there is a scene where Chick struggles to put on a very small pair of pantyhose which is very silly and funny and had the audience laughing out loud. Unfortunately, rather than hold for the laughter, the actors kept talking and I heard many people complain about the fact they missed a lot of dialogue because of it.

Projection was occasionally an issue for some actors. I sat in the back of the house and had no trouble hearing, but I could see how some people, especially older people, might have had a hard time understanding the dialogue. I also thought that some of the staging could have been better. A lot of time was spent by the actors facing each other, rather than the audience. It was often very difficult to see their faces, especially since Ms. Slaven’s hair was practically a curtain which hid the side of her face when she wasn’t facing outwards. Ms. Jarmon also had an issue with her hair, with long bangs that hid and shadowed her eyes, losing some of her expression.

This was further exasperated by the lighting, which tended to be a bit too dim. There were a few areas, especially on the right side of the stage, which had some dark zones. When the actors stood there, it was very difficult to see their expressions.

Other than those issues, though, this was a very solid production. I don’t think anybody left the theater disappointed. As always, the main success of a show relies on the performances of the actors, and these were fine performances indeed. If you are in the mood for some plain old-fashioned character driven theater, then you’d be advised to check out Crimes of the Heart.

How to Heal the Hurt is a Triumph

by Brad Quinn

Red Door - Community theater is always a rather hit or miss proposition. To paraphrase Forest Gump, it is like a box of chocolates…you never know what you are going to get. I am here to tell you, however, that you can’t judge what’s inside by the box.

So let’s get the aesthetic details out of the way first. Red Door Ensemble’s production of How to Heal the Hurt by Hating certainly won’t look impressive as you walk in to the space. Public Space One is a dingy little unfinished basement of a room, with hardly enough space for a stage let alone an audience. A load bearing column is placed right in the middle of the seating, and the front row seats are so close to the foot of the stage it’s likely you could reach out and touch the performers if you so desired (not recommended). And speaking of the seats, they are those really uncomfortable metal folding chairs probably surplus from 1978.

The lighting for the show consists of whatever lighting sources were available with the room itself. The curtain is basically a couple of black sheets hung on a string, and the set consists of a couch, end table, coffee table, and bookshelf which seem likely to have been rescued from various curbsides on moving day. In other words, every thing about this production screams “cheap”.

None of that matters at all.

If you ever needed any assurance that the only thing that really matters in theater is the performances, then this show is the one to do just that. I’ll admit I was skeptical when taking my seat. It certainly looked like guerrilla theater, and my experience with that sort of thing has usually been not so good. Within a few minutes, however, of the three actresses taking the stage, I had forgotten all about my surroundings.

Kelli Michel, Jana Stedman, and Ashley Yates put in phenomenal performances, each portraying a different aspect of the same person, an unnamed female narrator. They are collectively the play’s only character. This seems a little curious at first, but it doesn’t take long to catch on to the fact that the show is essentially one long internal monologue done by three people. Ashley Yates does a fantastic job of playing a more cynical, angry part of the character. Her stage presence is magnetic. Kelli Michel plays a more romantic, emotional part of the character, with just the right amount of force. It would be easy to go overboard or remain too passive, but she navigates it perfectly. And Jana Stedman is the anchor. She plays the hurt and confused part of the character, but the part that must maintain and deal with the day to day. She is steady and assured in her performance.

The only complaint I could possibly have about this arrangement is that it is incredibly difficult to focus your attention at all three of them at once. Only one actress spoke at a time, but you miss a lot of subtle performances if you only concentrate on that particular actress at that time. I happened to look over at Ms. Yates during the opening scene when all three were onstage at the same time, and was rewarded by seeing a range of expressions and reactions to Ms. Michel while she was delivering her monologue. It was quite interesting to think about it in terms of our own internal dialogues, where different parts of our psyche past, present, or future might have entirely different reactions than whatever aspect of our selves is active at the time.

The play itself is adapted from a book by Anita Liberty, who presumably wrote it in a semi-autobiographical fashion. I actually found the title misleading, though, as there really was very little hating in this show. It’s about heartache and healing, and though there is some occasional bile thrown the way of the story’s unseen ex-boyfriend Mitch, it is really more introspective and understanding of the nature of emotional pain. Men do not have to be afraid that they will find themselves bashed or belittled in this script; it is above that.

And it’s funny. It’s the humor that is born of our shared experiences and through the use of clever word play. Which is, in my opinion, one of the toughest kinds of humor to pull off because it requires expert timing and delivery. Again, these ladies did not disappoint. All three of them were spot on in all aspects. I found myself laughing out loud on multiple occasions…and take my word for it, that is not something I do easily.

All in all I would call this show a triumph, and top to bottom the best show I have seen so far this year despite its inherent limitations. Ignore the uncomfortable surroundings, the cheap lighting, the fact that the costumes are basically right out of the closet of the actresses in the show, and the set that looks like a poor college guy’s basement apartment. These things truly do not matter when you have a good script and great actresses to bring it to life.

Hopefully not the final chapter

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.

Rita delivers a fine evening's entertainment

by Brad Quinn

Old Creamery - I’ll admit I had never been to dinner theater at the Ox Yoke Inn before, but having of course eaten there on occasion I couldn’t figure out where they were possibly going to stage a play. I didn’t know what to expect, and when I was directed downstairs into a smallish room appointed something like a living room I thought for a brief moment that we the audience were to sit in a waiting room for a bit before going in to the performance space.

Of course, I quickly realized that I was in the performance space. As I said, the room seemed small and was lined on all sides by chairs for the audience. In the center, close enough for the audience to reach out and touch, was the set itself which consisted of a couple of desks and chairs, a couple of small bookshelves, and a settee. So, theater in the round then. But not just any kind of theater in the round, this was clearly going to be a very intimate sort of show, where the small audience was going to be practically sitting with the characters.

Actually, the size of the space is a little deceptive…I counted about 45 people in the audience and there was room for more, which at $40 a seat is not a bad set of numbers. The $40 includes a full meal of your choice at the Ox Yoke Inn, so it’s a fairly reasonable price for a full evening of entertainment. But what sort of entertainment are we talking about?

Educating Rita is not a plot-driven show. What little plot it has is beside the point. This is a character study, the sort of script where dialogue is the engine which drives it from beginning to end and you learn the details of these character’s lives as they learn them from each other. There are only two characters in the entire show- Frank Bryant, a borderline alcoholic professor of English at a small British college; and the eponymous Rita, a lower class hairdresser who has decided to try to broaden her horizons by taking a few classes at the college in her spare time.

In essence, this show is sort of a reverse Pygmalion. Instead of a highly educated professor trying to take an unwilling lower class student and mold her into a different woman, you have a lower class student who is trying to educate herself at the behest of an unwilling professor who doesn’t want to change her. There are other familiar elements as well, enough so that you have a pretty good idea of where this is going from the very beginning, and there aren’t a lot of surprises.

However, since as I said before this show is not about the plot, that doesn’t really matter. It’s all about the characters. And since there are only two characters, an actor who wants to take on this script better be well prepared for a challenge.

Deborah Kennedy, who plays Rita, is a veteran actress who certainly is capable of stepping up to the plate. She throws herself in to this role entirely, from her blonde dyed hair to her street-level London accent. In order for this play to work, the audience has to care about Rita, and she is definitely adept at making that happen. She also has great comic instincts and timing. There is no satire, absurdism, or irony in this show, but there are lots of lines which are meant to be funny. A lesser actor might not be able to evoke the humor in them. Kennedy had the audience laughing quite regularly. The only complaint I could make about her as Rita is really the fact that Rita is quite obviously meant to be played by a younger actress. Rita is expressly stated as being 26 years old, and I thought there was a certain youthful energy level, difficult to quantify, that Rita was supposed to have but seemed missing somehow.

Tom Milligan plays the other half of this duet, Frank Bryant. It was a bit more difficult for me to get a grasp on his character. Milligan did not make any attempt to use an English accent, so at first it was a bit confusing even figuring out who was supposed to be the foreigner in which country. It becomes apparent that both characters are meant to be British in Britain, especially later on when Frank refers to himself directly as an "English poet." This makes the choice of not using an accent more puzzling.

However, his Frank is quite likeable. At times I wondered if maybe he was too likeable. Given the fact that he is an alcoholic who has essentially given up on life and retreated into safe obscurity as a tenured professor, I felt maybe he was meant to be more gruff and reticent. Milligan played him with a sort of wide eyed innocence that belied his world weariness, but on the other hand made him very endearing to the audience. He was soft spoken to Kennedy’s loud brashness, but he never let her overwhelm him on the stage.

I actually think the playwright was rather abusive to his actors. Not only did he write a fairly long play (nearly 2 ½ hours) in which just two actors were expected to carry the show entirely on dialogue, but he wrote it in about a dozen or so different scenes, each of which took place on different days. This meant that the actors had to change costumes for every single scene, and do it quickly. By necessity, they basically had to make a simple change such as throwing on a different shirt or jacket before charging on into the next scene. The set had to remain completely unchanged…whatever state it was left in was the state it started the next scene in. Fortunately there wasn’t much change that was required…the staging was fairly static.

Despite this, they made the costumes work. They were kept pretty simple and casual, the way these characters would dress. I thought the costumes for Rita were particularly well chosen. They had a sense of style which definitely fit her brash character and lower class origins.

As you can imagine, in such a small space with no stage to speak of, there was little of note as far as lighting and sound (although at one point one of the directional lights which was aimed at the center of the room sort of swiveled on its own accord so it was pointed directly down at a poor audience member). There was music between every scene to cover the quick changes that needed to be made. Some of it I found strange and wasn’t sure why it was chosen or how it fit in, although the choice of The Smith’s “Hairdresser on Fire” was incredibly apropos.

The set had a great deal of character. There were all kinds of books, papers, files, bottles, knick-knacks, and other details on the set. It had an old, homelike look to it. It was exactly the sort of place you would expect a professor who has grown complacent in his tenure to have nested in for 20 years or so.

So there was definitely thought put into the design of this show, but I found myself wondering who had directed it. No director was listed in the program, and I rather suspect this show was self directed by the actors. The reason I suspect this is because the way the show was staged looked to me like nobody was watching it from the outside when it was being blocked. Nearly every scene began the same way, with Frank sitting at his desk doing some kind of business with papers and files. And many of them ended the same way as well, with Frank standing at the door looking puzzlingly after the just departed Rita. There was also less dynamic movement within the scenes themselves than one might expect. I can speak from experience that often as an actor on stage you can think that something feels natural to do (or not do), but usually a director will force you to change things up on a regular basis because he sees it from the audience’s perspective.

I think that, overall, the type of audience who would go to dinner theater would enjoy this show. It is incredibly sincere theater; small, intimate, done with an aim to please and a joy in its simplicity. As I was there as a critic I may have found fault where others would find none (such as the fact that this play has an overly long first act and no real ending, not to mention leaving a strongly hinted romantic subplot unfulfilled), but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t make for a fine evening’s entertainment. If you like character, dialogue, and the drama and comedy you find in every day life, you will like this show.


Brad Quinn is a veteran of the local theater scene, and has worked with all of the local community theaters both onstage and backstage in various capacities.

A Review of The Drag

by Brad Quinn

Dreamwell - In the interest of full disclosure, let me start this review by revealing that I am neither a fan of the musical genre of theatre, nor do I find men dressed as women to be particularly amusing. So those reading this review can keep that in mind and perhaps give less weight to my criticisms, and more weight to my praise, of Dreamwell’s presentation of The Drag.

The Drag was written by Mae West, the infamous sex symbol of the early 20th century who was known for both her rapier wit and her ample bosom. She was also quite open minded and progressive in many ways, and The Drag is an example of that. Though it might seem tame and even a bit archaic now in its attitudes towards and representations of homosexuality, its main theme of acceptance and understanding towards homosexuals was no doubt quite shocking for its time, especially since we still live in a society where subjects such as gay marriage still stir up heated debate.

Community theatre is a labor of love, and nowhere is that more clear than in this production. The cast and crew had to put their hearts into this show in order to overcome some major obstacles. I have often bemoaned the lack of a decent theatrical venue in the Iowa City area, and as I watched this show I could not help but think that this show needed a bigger, better theater to spread its wings. Even before I got there, I found myself wondering how they were going to pull of a musical production in that space. I was fairly familiar with its dimensions, and couldn’t imagine where they might put even a small orchestra, or even a piano.

As I suspected, the only accompaniment for the music was a small electric piano. One generally thinks of a musical as being a big event with lots of sound and sight, but by necessity this one is small and intimate. Although that does work to a degree with this particular play, I could not help but wonder what it would be like if they had more to work with. The downside of this was that much of the music was two dimensional and similar sounding. However, there was an upside too, which was that the singers' voices were never overwhelmed by the music. As there were some very good singers among the cast, this made that particular aspect of the production quite enjoyable for anyone who loves a good display of vocal talent.

Another example of an obstacle this production had to overcome is the lighting, and this may be my biggest complaint about the show. The stage, though not particularly wide, is fairly deep. Dreamwell only used eight stage lights, and two of those were not working, which left the stage much too dim in general. There were significant dark patches which the actors could not help but wander into, and the only place one could be assured of getting decent lighting was actually just in front of the stage. There were lighting changes of a sort during the various musical numbers, but with such small lighting choices to begin with it was hard to tell. Dylan Wheeler, who designed the lights, unfortunately had his talents wasted with such limited resources. He did, however, get to showcase his onstage talent to better effect as one of the lead roles in the show, which I will say more on in a moment.

The set was very utilitarian; in fact I am relatively certain that I have seen the same basic set design used before in other Dreamwell productions. This is not a bad thing in and of itself; I only wish that it had been painted in brighter colors. The walls were a dark olive green which unfortunately exacerbated the dim lighting problem. I found the set for the first act to be a little too spare. It was meant to be a doctor’s office, but a few diplomas on the wall did not do enough to evoke that impression. However, for the next two acts the furnishings and set up (which takes advantage of the fact that this stage comes with its own built in fireplace) were quite adequate and only wanted for a little more space to play in.

This brings me to the final technical aspect of the show before I get into the actual performance itself: the costumes. This is a period piece set in late 1920’s New York City, and one of the best ways you can evoke a particular historical era on a small budget is through the use of proper costuming. This production succeeds in this aspect, to a certain extent. The first several characters to appear onstage are dressed wonderfully, and fairly period appropriate. I particularly liked a dapper eggplant colored suit worn by one of the characters. Unfortunately, some of the other male characters later in the show wore simple suit jackets and ties, which works but I would have liked to have seen more of the true 20’s style in their outfits.

The character of Clair Kingsbury at one point is dressed in a beautiful and alluring white party dress which will definitely have all eyes on her. However, at other times she is wearing the sort of bare bones of a flapper-esque dress. The dress itself is fine, but in order to make it work she needs to be wearing more accessories, such as gloves, jewelry, and by all means stockings. It is only in the last twenty years or so that women began to walk around bare legged, and I have to admit it bothered me a little bit that the women in this show were not wearing garters and stockings or such. It also distracted me somewhat that, other than a few exceptions, the characters all wore the same outfits over multiple days; however this again probably boils down to the question of resources.

Now, as to the show itself: in short the story is about a man, Rolly Kingsbury (TJ Besler), who is a closet homosexual married to his father’s best friend’s daughter. Besler portrays this character believably, as a sort of dissolute young man who feels trapped by the secret life he must lead, but also intolerably unmindful of the pain his lack of affection is causing his wife Clair. Though he does care for her, his true love is a man named Allen Grayson (Dylan Wheeler) who in turn has fallen for Clair, who is played with a wonderful sense of naïve fragility by the lovely Becca Robinson. The innocence and confusion she brings to the character might almost convince someone that her character really can’t quite figure out what’s missing from her marriage (hint: it’s sex).

It is a large cast, and I have to say that most of them did an excellent job with the material they had. The plot is rather thin, being mostly a morality play in a melodramatic wrapper, and some of the dialogue can be a bit heavy handed. In particular, Brian Tanner as Dr Richmond had to continually deliver the lessons and morals of the story, which he was able to do without becoming too pedantic and recondite. Rex Van Dorpe’s portrayal of a self loathing, love crazed, drug addicted ex-lover of Rolly’s definitely brought the melodrama, but he managed to pull it off without straying into the ridiculous, no mean feat. He kept it simple and sweet, which gave the audience sympathy for his plight.

I wish I could comment on the entire cast, but in the interests of brevity I will just limit myself to what I considered to be the highlights of the performances, notwithstanding those already mentioned. Dylan Wheeler gave a low key performance as Allen Grayson, but I thought his soft spoken and somewhat hesitant manner went a long way towards making his character believable as an upstanding man who is admired by both sexes; he also has a fine singing voice which went well with Ms. Robinson’s.

Of course, this show is called The Drag, so as you can imagine to some extent the cross-dressing characters are a major part of the show. One notable instance is actually a woman playing a male character. I don’t want to give away the surprise, but I did think Ellen Stevenson pulled it off quite well. As for the actual drag queens, one in particular stood out to me, Gary Tyrrell’s performance as Clem Hathaway. Gary has a great deal of stage presence, and he immediately brightened up a rather pedestrian first act the moment he stepped on stage. Every time he took the stage thereafter his grand gestures and ability to project his emotions to the room made him a scene stealer whether dressed as a man or a woman.

As I just mentioned, I did find the first act of the show to be somewhat trying. In addition to containing the majority of the moralizing, it also contains the least interesting musical numbers. The major issue I had was that the same stage device was used throughout the entire act; essentially every song was sung by one of the characters while Dr. Richmond sits and watches them silently and unmoving. Unfortunately, the singers don’t move around much during their numbers either.

However, the show definitely picks up in the second act. The humor starts to shine, and the musical numbers get more exciting. My favorite routine of the show, a great rendition of “Paddlin’ Madelin Home”, is performed in this act by the talented and unabashed chorus of drag queens (although they are not currently in drag) who use the limited stage space to great effect for the choreography. I found myself wishing that song would last longer, which I can tell you does not usually happen for me.

The third act as well is sure to delight many theatre goers, and John Crosheck does an outstanding rendition of “Hard-Hearted Hannah” as this act’s notable musical number. He, and indeed all of the drag queens, vamp it up and use the entire theater, not just the stage, to draw the audience in and engage them. There is plenty of verbal and physical comedy to go around, so I imagine it would be hard not to have a smile on your face during this act. Still, this is a melodrama and unlike most musicals, it can’t have a happy ending.

All that being said, the cast and crew of this show clearly put their best foot forward in this production. Credit has to be given to first time director Chuck Dufano, who took his limited resources and limited source material and made the best out of it. I suspect that if he chooses to continue to direct shows in the future that he will make a large impression in the local theatre community. As I said before, this show was a labor of love for all those involved, and if you want to see a group of people giving it their all and loving what they are doing, I think you’d find this show to be a good evening’s entertainment.

Brad Quinn is a veteran of the local theater scene, and has worked with all of the local community theaters both onstage and backstage in various capacities.