AM+fuddy+meers

I saw the play Fuddy Meers on opening night, which is always an exciting night for both the actors and the audience. When a play is put on for the first time in front of viewers, unique emotions emanate from the characters. Actors are slightly giddy and excited to finally put all of their hard work on stage for the audience to see. Also, the actors are now expected to portray a story for a live audience who may not be familiar with the play. This is unlike performing for people that have watched and critiqued it prior – the director, producer, designer, and other cast members. Since I only saw the play once, I am not able to compare opening night to another night. However, since theater is live, so many things can happen during a show to make it more fascinating, and one show is never exactly the same as another.

The plot was very active, and jumped around between many different sets quickly. For example, a scene would take place in the kitchen of Gertie’s house, and then suddenly the next scene would consist of different characters in a completely different location, such as a car or the basement. For this reason, the set designers had to come up with a way to change between locations so often. The audience would not want to wait for a smorgasbord of furniture to be placed around each time the scene changed because this happened so often; thus, quick changes of set pieces were necessary. I thought that what they designed was very appropriate for the rapidity of the plot – a swiveling set of walls that were able to show different locations simply by a rotation of the structure. The structure was able to encompass the necessities in each of the sets without any curtain drops or much movement of furniture, and it was quick, allowing me just enough time to ponder the previous scene before jumping into the next one, and not too much time to the point at which I got anxious or impatient.

Another reason that the set designer may have thought to design the structure like so was because of the location in which the play was produced – the cellar theater. There are limitations to every venue, and the cellar theater is definitely a small space for a show that has so many different sets to include. In addition, I am pretty sure there aren’t any curtains available in the cellar theater, so that wasn’t even an option when designing the set.

My seat ended up being far on stage right in the front row, so my angle to watch the play was not optimal. Preceding the start of the play, I was nervous that I would not be able to see the action, but the way that the set was arranged most details were visible to me. It was exciting being so close to the stage during the action scenes, and when Claire sat at the kitchen table to do her Search-A-Word, I could even see the letters on her page! The proximity of my seat to the stage gave me the feeling that, although they weren’t addressing me personally in their representational drama, I was on a journey with Claire to discover the mysteries of her intriguing past.

An interesting take on the design was the use of windows. Throughout the course of the play, many things were thrown out of either the car “window” or the kitchen window. Really, the car had no doors or windows – just seats, a steering wheel, and a gas pedal – but the window was still made known, as the scrapbook and a joint were both tossed out of it. In Gertie’s kitchen, the window was used as every person peeked through it before entering her house (even Millet’s puppet!), and also as things were tossed out of it (bacon, knife). I think the use of windows symbolized a main theme in the play – that things and details can easily be forgotten if they are simply tossed aside. This was chiefly portrayed in the main character, Claire, a victim of psychogenic amnesia.

Not only was the set unique, but the lighting designer also made some interesting contributions to the overall appeal of the play through the use of windows. One aspect of this lighting caught my attention when Richard “opened” the “window” in the morning upon awakening Claire. This “window” was located on the fourth wall of the stage, which separated the audience from the actors since the play was representational. As the sunlight shone through the window, a yellow light was cast on the floor with shaded lines separating it into many small rectangles, resembling an actual windowpane reflection. This light made it seem as though the audience actually was separated from what was going on onstage, and it was a neat way to portray this.

Another intriguing characteristic of the lighting was that whenever Claire would remember something new about her past, the lights flickered. The flickering corresponded to the firing of certain neurons in her brain being activated that had been dormant since the start of her amnesia. I thought the flickering was a clever way to depict the confusion in her mind as her it raced through lost memories of her troubled past.

Language and communication were also important aspects of the story as events unfolded, and Claire recovered her memory. Each character had a completely different way of expressing himself. Gertie, played by Kirstin Calvert, spoke in “stroke talk” and her exact sentences were difficult to understand. At first, I didn’t like my inability to comprehend what she was saying. I worried that I was missing important plot points. However, as the play progressed I realized that the purpose of Gertie’s character was to add to the theme of confusion and not necessarily to add details to the plot. Through Calvert’s wonderful acting, I found that it was not even necessary to know exactly what she was saying because her actions and stage presence conveyed her point. Calvert did a great job memorizing gibberish in a way that she did not drown her character in the jumbled words.

Cole Earnest played the limping man, Phillip, and his character spoke with a strong lisp. This lisp was apparently a side effect of the assault from Claire in the back-story, but it also contributed to the concept of a difficulty in communicating between characters. Earnest handled the lisp perfectly, and although it was opening night, I didn’t notice a single missed “s”. Not only did the lisp play a part in creating muddled communication, but Earnest’s character also had a hard time telling the truth. Discerning between veracity and deception in Phillip’s stories was another aspect of the play that shaped confusion and plot twists.

Millet, played by Carson Cerney, communicated through two different personalities – himself, and his hand puppet, hinky-pinky. I would imagine that it is hard to change voices so rapidly from the monotone, depressed, jailbird to the outspoken and tactless puppet. However, Cerney carried out the complex role well, and was the source of much laughter by the audience.

The language techniques attributed to each character added to the idea that communication didn’t come easy. The gibberish of Gertie was obviously important since the title of the play was something that she specifically said – stroke talk for “funny mirrors”. These are two ordinary words that have been unrecognizably distorted. The title, in addition to Claire’s predilection for Search-A-Word puzzles, represents looking for things in a sea of ambiguity. In funny mirrors at a carnival, one would look for a reflection of themselves but would only be able to see a distorted image. When searching for words in a puzzle, each row and column must be scrutinized in order to make sense of the puzzle or else it will just look like a bunch of random letters with no meaning at all. This theme is also prevalent in Claire’s examination of old photo albums. She searches through the pages of her past with no recollection and tries to make sense of it all.

Overall, I think the director made good decisions when casting actors in the play. Libby Ricardo played Claire’s role splendidly, being able to express herself in a sunny manner as the role called for, but also being able to act increasingly interested in what her past held. She was sensitive to the shocking things that she found out and depicted her shifting emotions with grace. Richard, played by John Plough, was suitably cast in that he was able to say his ridiculous lines without cracking a smile. He was the spark that generated hilarity from the audience in some of his lines, which he delivered clearly and passionately while staying in character. Jordan Harris played his role of Kenny well, in that he had long hair in his face and stood with a slouch, how I would imagine a reserved and neglected teenage boy to stand. I didn’t notice anything particularly incredible about his acting, but it suited the role.

All in all, the play ran marvelously and I would recommend it to anyone that can handle the adult themes and language. The set and costume changes all ran smoothly, and I was entertained by the mesmerizing and exciting plot as well as the sometimes subtle wittiness and otherwise obvious humor in the storyline.