tcMustGoOn

Talley Cook THEA2100H 3/2/13

A Review of //Must Go On//
The farce, //Must Go On// by John Kundert-Gibbs, contained many unusual but refreshing elements of a play blended with stereotypical characters and scenarios. I must say, I heard very bad things about the show before I saw it, so I went in with very low expectations but came out pleasantly surprised. Although some of the humor was rather pedantic (to be expected of a farce), the characters and the actors who executed their roles carried the entire show. The creative set design both added and took away from the quality of the show. There were moments where I felt the TV and the live stream from the other room enhanced the performance, and other moments where I felt very distracted by the two simultaneous scenes. Overall, I felt that the writing of the play could have been more concise and centered around a central theme more. Most of the time I was wondering what the conflict of the play actually was or if there was any plot at all. That being said, I was impressed by the play in general but it could have been improved greatly with little effort.

The set of the show, with a live feed onto a screen on the stage, was interesting and original because it isn’t done very often. It was clear that a lot of work went into this aspect of the show and I was rather impressed by their efforts. However, I still felt that the show could have been stronger without the live stream. They could have created two rooms on the stage, one for the preparation room and one for the talk show set. I believe this would have created more fluidity in the performance because it would be easier for the actors to time the delivery of their lines. Although the feed was live, there still seemed to be a delay between the actors in the green room and those on the actual stage. I appreciated how the technology made the set more “realistic” but don’t believe the quality of the performance should be sacrificed for a more realistic set. I thought the door with the glass window provided a unique way for the audience to see the characters’ internal emotions when they aren’t interacting with the other characters. Ruby used this very effectively when we could see her fuming through the door when she saw Brooke flirting with someone. Had they used less effort on technology of the set, I feel they could have had a stronger performance.

The writing of the play could have been much better. In my opinion, this was the weakest element of the play. It seemed almost as if the writing was “dumbed down” for the comedy genre. Although farces are more simple than say a satire or other sophisticated forms of comedy, the writing did not need to be “dumbed down” to match the genre. The entire first act of the play I was trying to identify the conflict. There didn’t appear to be any plot until they introduced that their talk show was being cancelled. This critical aspect of the show needed to be introduced earlier so the audience had an idea of what the characters were trying to resolve. The playwright could have introduced to the audience about the Good Morning America casting director. This would have created an additional conflict or obstacle that the characters needed to overcome. Without any introduction of the premise earlier in the play, it just seemed as though we were listening to a steady stream of one-liners and comebacks. There were many things that just seemed random or out of place, such as when the rat lady Eustace begins shaking her butt toward the camera. This type of humor can be funny, but I didn’t understand why she was shaking her butt or why Gwen was freaking out or why Sammy suddenly started fighting with Phyllis. There just seemed to be a lot of unexplained conflict and tension. It could have been that I couldn’t hear her over the shouting of the actors, so I didn’t know what was going on. The actors performed very well, but the overlap of their lines made it very difficult to focus on the show. I understand that John Kundert-Gibbs was trying to create a sort of duet with the meshing of lines, but this made me one confused audience member.

My favorite aspect of the play was the cliché characters and the way the actors performed these roles. As the director says in the production notes they were meant to be stock characters: characters that are so stereotypical that we already know them after only a few lines. Sammy reminded me of Christian the gay designer from Project Runway. Gwen was like Sharpei, the diva from High School Musical. Then there was the rest of the cast, the sassy black woman, the conservative sex addict, the closeted homosexual, the Aussie, the overworked unnoticed girl, etc. Each of the characters had such a strong personality, it was interesting to see the way they interacted all together. I really loved Nathan Cowling’s performance of Sammy. For me, he carried the whole show. Nathan made Sammy someone the audience could relate to because he was being judgmental of all the other characters. When Gwen was being a diva or Brooke said something dumb, the audience could rely on Sammy to voice their judgments. His gestures and the way he delivered his lines were exactly the way I would imagine a sassy stylish gay guy to behave. The guests were all so over the top, but I enjoyed their presence as well. Victoria Velasquez performed the “drunk hispanic woman” perfectly. She never broke character even when she was just sitting on the side of the stage. I was very impressed with the casting and the presentation of all the characters.

I know a lot of people were very critical of this play, but I thought it was fairly good! At the end of the show, it was clear that all the actors were very proud of all their hard work and I could feel the sense of community they had developed while working on this production. There are many ways that this play could have been improved, but I laughed and did not regret seeing the show. I would have appreciated some more sophisticated comedy, but sometimes the simplicity of a farce is fun.