"THE PLAY THAT GOES WRONG" did

 

The Play That Goes Wrong DID!

 

 The Play That Goes Wrong, the latest offering of Theatre Cedar Rapids, had three problem areas: the script, the director, and the acting approach.  From the word go, as the audience arrives, we see the curtain up and trouble brewing. The set looks like it was done in a hurry by a meeting of the unskilled. Things are already falling off the walls and we haven't even started yet. This is followed by an overlong curtain speech that adds little to the show other than running time. Why this tedious pre-curtain ballet was necessary I do not know as the title and pre-show publicity already explicitly trumpets the content. We are treated to another curtain talk at the beginning of the second act.  Again unnecessary. 

 When the curtain finally does rise for real, this Brit developed show does give you what was advertised, which is a compendium of every possible miscue that could possibly occur in a live stage production and then some. Unfortunately, a great many of them are repeated more times and more broadly than necessary to get the requisite guffaw. That leaves some of the more original ideas in the show, such as a bit with exchanging a pen, with a notebook, with a glass and the quite fanciful tilting floor to be obscured by immersion in the obvious over-repetition of objects falling off walls, giant actor takes accompanied by loud music and light changes a la Phantom, or actors looking at a copy of the text or writing on their hands every time a line is lost. 

This is all accompanied by the practice of louder and larger is always better. Most of the actors could use a more controlled use of variety in vocal attack. This seems to have been advice expunged by the director when giving notes. The actors, also almost as a group, do not realize that lack of clear diction can foil intent.  Again I would fault the director, whose duty is not only to manage the action, but make sure that the dialogue is understood. Two other people attending the performance with me agreed that they were unable to understand a good deal of what was spoken. And this was not, as just noted, a problem of lack of volume in a large theatre. It may even been because of too much volume too much of the time. 

Shifting now to the script, I feel that the play overworks every cliché in the book. This work is not written with the sophistication of Michael Frayn’s Noises Off, a classic in this genre, which presents actors desperately trying to do a good job in the midst of production chaos. I was never quite certain that these actors were trying to do that. They seemed to me to be celebrating their inadequacy even to the point of wagging a hand at us to ask for applause. If the writing is truly strong, the audience will respond and yes even applaud a well executed bit. If the writer, the actor, or the director feels insecure and resorts to telling you what response they want, it telegraphs a certain lack of confidence in the script and their own performance of it.

Another pitfall for the comic writer and director is the tendency to go back to the well too often with running gags. I must admit I start to groan not applaud after three or four returns to the same well. Farce can be maniacal in its plot devices, but it takes a most talented director and a highly talented cast to keep the subtle attachment to reality that makes it operate smoothly. One example from this show is John Zbankek’s butler, whose over-loud machine gun delivery combined with more than ten (I must admit to stopping counting at ten) memory lapses and consultation with his hand for his lines occurs. His performance wore thin in a hurry. Did he have the entire show written on his hand in tiny letters? Accents, as might be expected from an American cast, were also uneven. One performer, Aaron Pozdol I think, was playing some kind of Scotsman, but his diction was so garbled that neither I nor my companions had any idea of what his presence in the show was about for some time.

 All told some friends of the cast, like several folks around us, were slapping their knees and shouting encouragement, but others were sitting on their hands in stoic silence waiting for the silliness to end. I am willing to take account that the second performance of a show that was postponed for a week might have been just too giddy and might have seemed more under control later in the run, but I am still not ready to give this production more than a three out of five. Choose a better script, exert more directorial control, and pay attention to clarity as well as comic business and you will get a more professional  performance.

An apology:  (I look at plays in a more technical manner than most viewers. Because I have directed more than 100 of them, I look at a show in terms of would I like to direct it or would I do things differently if I had directed it or a similar piece. In this case I have directed a production of Noises Off by Michael Frayn. It is perhaps the very finest example of writing in this genre and I refer to it in my notice. All of this may have influenced by hyper critical attitude here and I do accept that many may have enjoyed this show more than I did. )

jim

4/20/23