ngmustgoon

__Must Go On__

This theater production by John Kundert-Gibbs, who served as both the playwright and director of this work, surprisingly took to my liking, even though after initially reading the script, I did not think I would. The script is an aspect of the play that held back its potential to be better than it already was. The plot line lacked creativity and was made up of disjointed story lines. The outrageous side plots were very distracting from the main plot of the play and sometimes even distracted me from the central conflict of the show. Without a doubt, the show provided comedic relief despite the seriousness of the issues such as the shutting down of the show, relationship issues, and being successful in life. Even though the multiple story lines that all took place at one time and left the audience wondering where to look and who to listen to were overwhelming, I think they produced the desired effect of instability and craziness that would ensue in real life with any studio with a similar situation. The confusion of the characters as to the future of their show was paralleled in the audience who were forced to pay attention to multiple characters, dialogue, and scenes at the same time. Because the show was live and there was not a camera to focus on the key actions and reactions, it was difficult to figure out where to direct attention. Still, the director did a commendable job of creating the stage picture to show relationships among characters. The stage picture made it easier for me to keep all of the subplots in my mind. For example, whenever I saw Brooke and Ruby together, I knew that there was more than a friendship going on between them, which in my opinion, was a very random aspect that did not fit in with the rest of the play. Likewise, whenever I saw Eustace and Bill together, I knew there was going to be a one-sided attraction between them.

Immediately, the play’s set by Rich Durham, caught my eye. The concept of having the functional “On the Air” sign gave me the constant reminder that I was actually looking at the backstage of the set. The set very much resembled a dressing room and the use of the door that the audience entered through incorporated the audience with the action of the play. Given the limitation of space in the Cellar Theater, I thought that the compromise of using the dance studio as the show’s set was beneficial to the play. Because the actors had to rush to the second set in order to avoid a gap in the play’s plot, it made the rushed and unorganized atmosphere of the backstage scene much more realistic. It was awkward that show’s visiting guests had unlimited access to the makeup room where the hosts were located and I saw a lack of set design located on the walls of the set. The golden trim that ran horizontally along the walls was out of place, in my opinion. Pictures of the hosts or awards that the show had won could have made the set even more realistic. A detail that I particularly liked was the trim on the inside of the door that led to another area of backstage. This simple black trim gave the impression that there was a hallway located behind the set that we saw. The minute details such as the coffee mug and magazines added a realistic feel. The double television screens were overwhelming and I thought one would have sufficed. However, the commercials that played before and after the show and during intermission definitely kept the audience’s attention and added credibility to the production set. The use of prerecorded videos was a superb idea and it was apparent that a lot of work was put into them.

The lighting of the set was spot on as the high intensity white light dominated where the show was filmed and there was less lighting in the makeup room area. The spotlights that highlighted the background of the show’s set reminded me of shows that I watch on television and created the atmosphere of a show’s set. However, I believe that the lights could have been used to increase focus and direct the audience’s attention to a specific area of the stage or even to one of the two television screens. The lights could have been used to indicate the mood of the set, such as when news broke that the show was ending. There were little fluctuations in lighting and I thought that was a missed opportunity.

I found that the director’s decision to have the play take place in a current time period with relevant allusions was brilliant. The references made throughout the play about popular songs and celebrities were relevant to the audience, largely made up of college students. There was incorporation of a “fourth wall” throughout the play as the audience viewed the backstage of a television show production. This might have been a disadvantage because incorporation of a live audience into the production would have been brilliant.

Regarding the characters, I believe that each one of the actors did his or her character justice. I could see that there were remnants of Stanislavsky’s psychological approach to character development. For one, the character of Emma, by Victoria Vasquez was played so incredibly well that I was confused when she awoke from her drunken sleep at the end of the play. Her interactions with alcohol resembled those of an alcoholic and reminded me of a family member who used to be an alcoholic. Her acting was done so incredibly well and it was apparent that she had very few inhibitions when performing. When any particular actor has the ability to allow the audience to relate to a character on a personal level, a good job has been done. In my opinion, the character of Sam was played to be very inconsistent. At some points, the character was played out to be very calm and collected while at other times, the character was completely unpredictable. I was unable to tell whether the bipolar acting was intentional or whether the fluctuation came from the actor himself. I think that selecting a person who is effeminate in real life to play an effeminate character is a bad choice because the actor then takes acting out character traits to the extreme. Personally, I found it difficult to discern the actor who played the role of Ruby. Her facial expressions were unvaried and mainly showed disgust and anger. I was unsure if Ruby’s character was meant to be a grouch who disproved of everything or if she was trying to exude sass. Nonetheless, I was not a fan. On the other hand, I enjoyed watching Suzanne Zoller play the role of Brooke due to her ability to express a wide of emotions. Even though she was dressed as a very intelligent lady, her acting effectively portrayed that Brooke was not simply the character she was dressed as.

At times, I noticed the characters struggling to keep up with everything going on at one time as they ran from one scene to another. Even though this rushed atmosphere was perfect for the play, I could tell that the actors were worn out. The characters on the live feed often slowed down speech, which I think was an attempt to line up with the events that were panning out on the backstage set. Overall, the characters in the play proved to be very stereotypical of the time period of the play, which again, improves unity. They included the young anchor who dreams of making it to the big screen, the drunken male who is only focused on getting girls, the gay best friend and stylist of the show’s main host, and the hard working employee who doesn’t receive any credit. More likely than not, I predict that the director used typecasting in his selection of characters. Gwen, for one, looks like the typical pretty blond haired show host that we often see on television in real life. Cole Earnest, who played the role of Bill, reminded me of Steve Irvin from Australia.

Moving along, Christine Burchett-Butler did an impeccable job with costume design, an element that definitely supplemented the actors of the play very nicely. I appreciated how dressed down the staff was in relation to the TV cast. It was made clear which characters were meant to be on television from the over the top, shiny costumes. One costume that irked me was Gwen’s because it didn’t seem to fit in with the stylistic unity of the rest of the characters. Her costume was not put together very well and was childish when compared to the others, which did not seem to be in line with her goals of becoming a star reporter in New York. Emma’s flower embroidered wedges represented her perfectly along with her noticeable mole.

Personally, I had a good time watching this play even though there were several shortcomings. The use of double screens, prerecorded videos, and technology took away from other elements of theater. To be more specific, there was a lack of sound devices used in the production. It would have been nice to have sound effects such as people clapping and even a theme song for the show that played to alert the audience about where to direct their attention. Similar to light, sound is a device that could have been used to improve focus. A sound device that I enjoyed, and that was probably unintentional, was the noise made by the actors offstage such as when they were running back and forth. Additionally, the script of the play was very disjointed with its manifestation on stage, which brought a lack of unity to the production. The beginning of the play was very slow, followed by an abrupt ending with no moral resolution. I remember watching Gwen and Sam have a discussion that left me very confused as to what was happening and with no clue as to what I should expect for the rest of the play. There were many characters that were introduced as guests after intermission, which was overwhelming for me because I was already so entrenched in the struggles of the crew and television personalities. If a director was to take on production of this play for a second time, improving unity by working with the script and minor adjustments as far as design, including light and sound, would definitely improve the show.