DT_SPELLINGBEE

Devyn Trottier Dr. Farley Richmond THEA 2100 16 November 2010 5 Upsides 1. **The set fit the play.** Like //Tulsa Lovechild//, //The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee// featured outstanding set design. From the subdued humor of the sponsors’ advertisements to the outlandishness of the props (e.g., the pointless basketball hoop hung overhead), the set had just the right mix of subtlety and flamboyancy to convey the slapstick tone of the musical. Further, the set was well laid out. From my awkward seating position in the extreme right front of the house, I could see almost everyone on stage. The spelling bee judges were situated at an angle to the place where the “contestants” spelled their words, allowing for a clear view; the live musicians were elevated on a platform; and the contestants were on bleachers. 2. **The characters were distinct and well developed.** Unlike //Arabian Nights//, which had a redundant supporting cast, //Spelling Bee// fielded a well-rounded ensemble, in which every character was equally interesting. Even the judges, Rona Lisa Peretti and Douglas Panch, were given distinct personalities—Panch had a persistent crush on Peretti and a volatile temperament, while Peretti was a nostalgic former spelling champion herself. The spellers were each substantially different, too. Logainne Schwarzandgrubenniere had a lisp and a quirky sense of fashion, while Leaf Coneybear had a mullet and a high-pitched voice. No two personalities were alike in this play. 3. **The atmosphere was energetic, with live music and audience interaction.** The play featured a live woodwind orchestra, live keyboards, and live drums. The musicians were elevated into plain sight by platform, too, instead of being hidden behind the set or in the orchestra pit. This made the musical numbers (which were lackluster by themselves) much more interesting, entertaining, and exciting. Also, the character of Chip Tolentino, once he was defeated in the spelling bee, walked out among the audience, sang, and threw candy at everyone. The audience seemed to love it. 4. **The dialogue was excellent.** The dialogue was full of fresh and funny witticisms that came at unexpected moments. For instance, the example sentence for the word “palaestra” was, “What happens at the palaestra stays at the palaestra.” Similar one-liners were peppered throughout the play. 5. **The story resolved quickly and tidily.** //Spelling Bee// had no intermission, and its running time clocked in at less than two hours. As a result, it was concise, and it didn’t get bogged down with the lengthy endings that both //Tulsa// and //Arabian Nights// did. The comedy rolled throughout the entire two hours, culminating in a brief but satisfying ending where each character’s future was briefly explained.

5 Downsides 1. **The characters’ singing about their own backgrounds was distracting.** Just as the spelling bee was beginning to get funny, each character had to sing about his childhood and academic talent during his first turn. The pacing and comedic timing of the play were interrupted, and I found myself quickly losing interest. It didn’t help that almost every bit of information revealed in the background numbers was unnecessary. Schwarzandgrubenniere’s dysfunctional relationship with her parents, Marcy Park’s history of winning and losing, and William Barfee’s eccentric spelling style could all have been revealed through the regular plot. There was absolutely no need for the introductory flashbacks. 2. **The characters of Peretti and Panch were over-acted.** I could tell this was going to be a problem from the very first scene, where Peretti walked up to the trophy with the embellished facial features and jerky movements that typically characterize an overdone character. Throughout the play, Peretti and Panch overreacted to one another, ruining the comedic rapport that was supposed to develop between them. Was I really expected to believe that Panch could pronounce difficult words but was reduced jerking his head around in exaggerated confusion when asked to find the definition right in front of his face? 3. **The “audience participation” was pointless.** Supposedly, several of the characters in the spelling bee were called from the audience; their names were announced at the beginning of the play. Whether they were a part of the cast or they were selected randomly, their roles were completely useless. They had no personality, they did nothing to further the plot, and they did not even seem to be committed to their characters. The play would have been better off without them. 4. **Style overwhelmed substance, confusing the plot.** Although the plot was not the focus of //Spelling Bee//, the storyline was difficult to follow anyway, because the focus was too much on the look and feel of the play. There was supposed to be character development, for example, but the flashbacks associated with each character were sung in catchy verses that were not entirely coherent. It was also difficult to determine why characters did what they did (what, exactly, was Chip Tolentino’s motivation for giving the audience candy?). A little bit of incongruity is forgivable in a comedy, but it was far too abundant in //Spelling Bee//. 5. **The musical numbers were repetitive and uninspired.** If the whole point of a musical is to present quality singing and dancing numbers, //Spelling Bee// came up somewhat short. Although the physical comedy of “My Unfortunate Erection” and similar numbers was memorable, the actual singing was unoriginal, and the choreography was bland. Each character’s individual songs seemed repetitive and similar to the songs of the other characters (note the parallel structures of “My Friend, the Dictionary” and “I Speak Six Languages”). Fortunately, the lyrical content, and not the songwriting or dancing, was the focus of //Spelling Bee//.