msMustGoOn

// Must Go On // John Kundert-Gibbs

When one turns on the television to view the five o’clock news, he expects to see a charming man and woman, having a polished look and wearing professional-looking clothing, sitting behind a news desk eloquently delivering the day’s latest news. With the smiles on the news anchors’ faces, their perfect hair and makeup, and the dignity in their posture, the audience perceives everything to be running smoothly. However, what happens when the lens is turned around, and the audience catches a behind-the-scenes glimpse of what goes on off camera? In his play //Must Go On//, John Kundert-Gibbs gives his audience the chance to see both sides of broadcast television with his comedic portrayal of the show //Taste of the Morning//.

Sitting in that audience of the small Cellar Theatre waiting for the start of the play, I was slightly entertained by the somewhat cheesy commercials playing on the television screens mounted on the wall. At this point, I deduced that the play was a comedy, and I hoped that the acting in the commercials was not indicative of the acting in the play. As I sat through the performance, I felt as if I was pinned against my seat by the whirlwind of emotions that the actors portrayed on stage. The play was definitely very frenzied, but that frantic chaos, in my opinion, gave the play its comedic merits. Critical analyzing of other elements, such as the directing, design, and acting, also helped me to determine the play’s overall quality and effectiveness.

When speaking about the director of this play, I also have to include the playwright because John Kundert-Gibbs played both of these roles. This coupling follows the fourth model of directorial approach that Stephanie Arnold points out in her book. In essence, the playwright is the author of the actual piece, while the director is the author of the actual performance. Because Kundert-Gibbs wrote his own play, he had a keen understanding of the material and knew exactly how he wanted it portrayed on stage; because he was also the director, he was able to implement those ideas. However, in critiquing the playwright and the director, I must consider their work separately. I myself was not a fan of the writing of this play because I prefer pieces in which I can take away some sort of moral lesson or idea. Granted, this play was funny, but the subject matter was too superficial for my liking. Also, I felt as if the script lacked fluidity at times, especially when characters were entering and exiting the greenroom and starting completely new dialogue with the characters who were already in there. This made it extremely hard to follow what was going on, but I suppose that these sporadic occurrences were meant to add to the chaotic atmosphere of the play.

Despite my dislike for the writing of this play, I thought that the directing was very good. I commend Kundert-Gibbs on his consistency of the concept that he chose to resonate throughout the play, in which he focused on certain stereotypical aspects of his characters. Collaborating with both the actors on the way in which they portrayed their characters, and the costume designer on the wardrobe of the characters, he successfully created an ensemble of “stock” show business people—the “pretty-boy” anchorman, spotlight-loving anchorwoman, air-headed weather girl, and homosexual makeup artist, just to name a few. I also think that he did an excellent job of casting, especially the actors who played Gwen, Brick, and Sam. Both Gwen and Brick had great chemistry together on stage, and I could honestly see the two of them hosting a //Good Morning America// segment. Nathan Cowling, the actor who played Sam, had the physical characteristics as well as the overall acting ability that made him a perfect candidate for the role of the homosexual makeup artist. Lastly, Kundert-Gibbs successfully established an enjoyable atmosphere for his performers, which I believe to be one of the most important jobs of a director. I loved the last scene in which the actors danced to Taylor Swift’s “I Knew You Were Trouble” because the actors looked like they were having a lot of fun, and it made me want to jump out of my seat and start dancing with them. The actors appeared to be very comfortable onstage, and it was obvious that they all thoroughly enjoyed what they were doing.

In addition to the director, I also felt that all of the designers did very well with their respective jobs. First, the scenic designer had a very tough job in front of him, creating the greenroom, the filming studio, and the different parts of the filming studio, such as the jungle, the kitchen, and the traffic map. I believe that he did a fabulous job of creating accurate representations of all of these sets, especially the greenroom, which looked extremely realistic with its makeup stations, plush couches, and even an “ON AIR” signaling light. Because the play was performed in the Cellar Theatre, Rich Dunham had only a small space to work with. He managed to arrange the furniture in such a way as to give the set nice detail and depth, while allowing the characters to have an open space for movement. However, I did not like the way in which the televisions were used. Streaming live video feed of the actors in the filming studio was a creative idea, and it did add to the realistic feel of the greenroom, but many times throughout the play, I thought it was too much of a distraction to the audience. Speaking from experience, I could not focus my attention on the action that was happening right in front of me because I was too busy looking at whatever was happening on the television. Also, the noise was almost unbearable; actors in the greenroom were yelling at each other; actors on the television were yelling at each other. Everybody was yelling, and it became too chaotic, and all I wanted was for the noise to stop. I believe that the televisions could have been used more effectively had the conflict in the film room not occurred at the exact same moment as the conflict in the greenroom. However, I cannot judge the scenic designer too harshly on the use of the televisions because I believe that the script called for them to be used in this particular way. In such a case, I could only hope that the playwright, director, and scenic designer collaborate in such a way as to stage the film room video streams in a more ordered and methodical way.

Along with the scenic designer, the costume designer, Christine Burchett-Butler, also played a magnificent role in the production of this play, and she helped to bring Kundert-Gibbs’s vision of his characters to life. Her task was to create a defining look for each “stock” character that classified them into one of two categories: either the on-camera television personalities or the members of the backstage crew. Brick wears a shimmery gray suit and colorful tie, while Gwen’s wardrobe is completely ostentatious, with bright colors and glitter. Also, Brooke wears a professional dress with nice shoes, which came as a surprise to me because with her childish personality, I would have assumed that she would wear something more juvenile looking. Bill, the rugged “Aussie,” wore a neutral-colored Colombia shirt, PFG shorts, and boots. For the most part, these characters wore a good deal of makeup, which makes sense because they are the ones that appear on camera. Juxtaposing the wardrobes of Brick, Gwen, Brooke, and Bill with those of the crewmembers shows the dichotomy between those characters who are on-camera and those who are off-camera. Those who were off-camera lacked the glitzy clothes and heavy makeup that being in front of the spotlight required, and they were dressed in a more natural way. For instance, Sam and Phyllis dressed in a more functional and casual manner, the Stage Manager wore a uniformed blue shirt with khaki pants, and Willy wore a Hawaiian-print shirt with shorts. Through Burchett-Butler’s choice of wardrobe for her characters, the audience could clearly see who belonged in front of the camera and who belonged backstage.

Another important aspect to consider about this play is the quality of the actors. Having actors that can entertain the audience, regardless of how good or bad a play might seem, can sometimes save the play from total disaster. Once again, I did not care for this play, but I did love the way the actors played their roles. Because this was an original play, it had never been performed before, and the actors had to become the pioneers that created the characters. They had to read the script and interpret their characters to the best of their ability, and I believe that all of them nailed their characters. My favorite actor was Nathan Cowling, and I thought that he gave a spectacular performance. All of the other actors definitely embraced the meaning of “stock” character, and even though they were playing the roles of these stereotypical people, they all were “over-the-top” in their manner of acting, which I found very appropriate and entertaining.

//Must Go On// has received many different types of reviews. Some loved the play, while others hated it. I did not enjoy this piece because of the simple fact that I just do not like this particular style of play. However, the hard work and dedication of everyone involved in this production certainly does not go unnoticed. I realize the many difficulties that one might face when trying to conduct a scene in which the action occurs simultaneously in two separate rooms. Although I believe that the use of the television in relaying the video streams was distracting at times, I appreciate Kundert-Gibbs’s innovative technological ideas and creativity; the theatre is beginning to incorporate more technology into productions these days, and I think that with a bit more work, video streaming could become an effective theatrical technique. In my opinion, the play itself was only mediocre in quality, but I commend the director, designers, and actors for making this play as good as the script would allow it to be.


 * This critical essay is five full pages typed in Microsoft Word**