- Hmmm on Winter Season Wrap-up: "Lol. Don't you mean "broke" a 25 year old record? GO STAGS...."
- Actually on Rethinking the Hub: "I don't know who the author used as a source, but I have talked direct..."
- Not interested in RDS on Rethinking the Hub: "The article says RDS requested space for its "scholars;" nothing about..."
- What about the food? on Rethinking the Hub: "I think that a good part of the problem with the Hub, is the quality o..."
- Actually on Should We Fund 5C Parties?: "@ a theory: don't count your chickens before they hatch with cable. DO..."
UTL’s “Don’t Drink the Water”: A Rather Disappointing Affair
Whenever planning a trip, I’m always approached by that know-it-all neighbor or friend with advice to bring this or that or to not do this or that. Oftentimes, I brush off these comments and insist on exploring the new place on my own. Then I drank the water in Thailand, and now I listen to every piece of advice people throw at me. Which brings me to the question: Why didn’t I listen to my friend who insisted on not going to dinner theater?
To be fair, Under the Light’s production of Woody Allen’s “Don’t Drink the Water” was not without strengths.
The two act play is about a typical vacationing American family—complete with Hawaiian shirt, camera, and cultural insensitivity—mistaken for spies when Soviet police catch Walter Hollander (Dan Feblowitz), the father of the family, snapping photos of missiles at a military base. Walter, along with his wife Marion (Katherine Wernet) and daughter Susan (Cecily Keppel) run to the American embassy to seek asylum. There, they are confronted with Axel (Zeben Kopchak), the incompetent son of Ambassador Magee (David Pezzola), Kilroy (Amanda Sardis) the angry secretary, the even angrier chef (Naomi Bagdonas), and a strange magician priest, Father Drobney (Max Menke) who has lived at the embassy for the past six years. The family’s arrival is followed by an explosion of time bombs, elaborate escape plans, magic tricks, a bunny rabbit, romance, and guns, before the play ends with a rather conclusive bang.
Amidst the jamboree, Katherine Wernet’s and Max Menke’s acting stood out from the fray. Wernet was both annoying and charming–exactly how one would expect a suburban housewife who is past her prime and stuck in a foreign land. Menke’s portrayal of the crazy and eager-to-please priest was hilarious and believable. The comical scene where Marion grapples with Father Doheny who is stuck in a straight-jacket when a magic trick (a la Houdini) goes awry is physical comedy at its highest. Equally funny are the angry exchanges between the chef and Walter. Both Feblowitz and Bagdonas (this actress has impeccable timing) used the stage effectively—moving away to express dissonance, increasing tension by standing in each others’ faces, and pulling a rabbit out of the hat (quite literally) for maximum entertainment.
I would like to have seen the same chemistry between the lovebirds, Axel and Susan, but all I saw were stilted interactions. To their credit, the kissing scene was by far the most convincing of all UTL kissing I have seen before. Nevertheless, Keppel’s acting reminded me of Elisha Cuthbert’s in the first season of 24 (interpret that as you will) and Kopchak… well I think he was trying to portray a lost, incompetent diplomat, but all he seemed to be able to portray was a lost, incompetent actor. Misstating your lines is one thing, but to have difficulty suppressing your nervous laughter when doing so is simply unacceptable—especially if you have a significant role in the production.
As for the minor characters, most noteworthy is Krojack (Danielle Spencer), a NKVD officer. Spencer’s portrayal of an angry Russian witch is forceful and realistic—so much so that I could not help but wonder whether the actress was actually acting. Applause is also due to Solon Christensen-Szalanski for doing a stellar job as an officer and most notably, the wine-loving dignitary. Sure his part is small, yet he embodied his character and made the most out of his three lines. Perhaps Countess Bordoni (Divya Vishwanath) could have taken a leaf out her co-actor’s book and not have recited her lines so monotonously. Also, who was the costume designer? A purple jersey dress does not a black tie attire make. (Props, however, to Christensen-Szalanski’s three-piece suit and leather pants, and Wernet’s dress for the dinner party was perfect for her character.)
A combination of dull acting and true talent, of incidental and purposeful comedy, of bad and good accents, UTL’s performance, at the end of the night, was a most exasperating concoction. A few good actors did not overshadow for the poor performance of others. Perhaps “Don’t drink the water” is a wise piece of advice one can give to friends traveling to foreign terrains. Here’s my advice on viewing UTL plays: Don’t expect much. I left the Athenaeum slightly disappointed as I had seen better plays directed by Brendan Sasso. At the end of the night, did Wernet and Menke’s acting keep the play afloat? The answer is a resounding no.
Editor’s Note: The Forum welcomes reviews of campus events and, if need be, can publish them–as we did here–under the pseudonym, Campus Critic.
19 Comments
2009-04-14
13:19:36
For a less tame and more talented production, make sure to see the second utl play of the semester, Glengarry Glen Ross by David Mamet, on May 7/8 in pickford (starring David Pezzola, Brian Fuerst, Ben Beller, Kestrel Arps, Skipp Stillwell, Logan Brown, Noah Goldberg, and Max Davison)
2009-04-14
14:41:14
@ David Mamet: Just to be clear, Under The Lights is in no way affiliated with any other productions this semester. There is no "second utl play of the semester." That said, Glengarry Glen Ross is a good play and I wish you guys the best of luck.
2009-04-14
17:18:41
"Editor’s Note: The Forum welcomes reviews of campus events and, if need be, can publish them–as we did here–under the pseudonym, Campus Critic."
What in this "review" necessitated the anonymity? Was it the cruel comments targeted at specific actors? The lack of fact-checking (Brendan Sasso has never before directed anything for UTL)?
"Here’s my advice on viewing UTL plays: Don’t expect much."
I have heard nothing but positive reviews of the show, as I have with all other UTL shows in my four years at CMC. Last semester's one acts were so popular that we did not have enough seating for everyone who came. The dinner theatre shows consistently sell out. There is a reason for this.
We are not a professional theatre company. Not a single person in the cast is a theatre major. We construct the set and obtain props and costumes on a limited budget from ASCMC.
Maybe Campus Critic didn't like the show, and that is fine. I don't expect every single person to be a fan. But the anonymity and the cruel comments about your fellow classmates - who will likely read and be hurt by the words you've written - makes this review more suitable for Claremont Confessions than The Forum.
2009-04-14
17:21:22
I would also like to second Brendan's comment that Glengarry Glen Ross is in no way affiliated with UTL. Although some of the actors are members of UTL, the production is not being funded nor assisted by UTL in any manner.
2009-04-14
18:45:34
@amanda -
probably the reason you haven't heard bad reviews is because most of the people commenting to you are your friends or the friends of someone in the show. when you know someone, you enjoy seeing them do anything, good or bad.
as for the negative comments about his classmates, whoever the author was, he was only commenting on their acting skills, and that's perfectly legit. (and your reaction is maybe more proof of why you haven't heard anyone negative comments.)
utl is a mixed bag; some years the performances are good, some bad. i'd agree that this year's production was on the mediocre side -- and that's not to be mean, that's just an aesthetic opinion. there were lots of missed opportunities for laughs, and a lot of actors (the lead included) did seem very uncomfortable. the main physical action all the actors seemed to do was holding their hands out to their side. that said, there were good things, too. i agree that the priest was hilarious, some good costume choices, etc.
i like utl. i think everyone appreciates that it's put on out of love. but that doesn't mean it can't take a bad review.
2009-04-14
21:25:32
One way to think about this is in terms of how much entertainment the audience gets out of the show compared to how much money and time is spent on it. From the perspective of that ratio, UTL often blows Pomona's shows out of the water.
2009-04-14
21:53:24
I think this review is a bit harsh.
I think UTL does a pretty good job putting on a play for a school of econ and gov majors, but could definitely do better. Also, as much as Woody Allen is hilarious, I think we should put on a student-written comedy at some point.
And to agree with the commenter above, the ~$3600 ASCMC spends on UTL is a pretty reasonable amount, as it covers both One Acts and Dinner Theatre.
2009-04-14
23:35:00
I thought the play was awesome. This review is way too harsh. I laughed throughout the whole play and thought the actors were great. Nice job Brendan and cast!
2009-04-15
00:24:58
I agree with Kenley. The play was great. The actors were hilarious and one of the reasons I enjoyed it so much was because our friends, our non-theater major friends, had combined both effort and incredible talent in the production.
Also... I hope the Campus Critic doesn't mean to say that it was Countess Bordoni wearing a purple jersey dress. She was stunning in blue polyester.
2009-04-15
01:15:48
FYI-- jersey fabric is often made of synthetic fibers like polyester or rayon (although it can be cotton (like in tshirts), wool (like in sweaters), etc) :)
2009-04-15
11:50:21
Haha. Okay, but it was blue, not purple, nonetheless.
2009-04-15
01:38:32
I have a few issues with this review:
1. Anonymous reviews are unprofessional.
People ought to stand behind their opinions. If you believe what you're writing, you shouldn't have a problem putting your name on it. As evidenced by Claremont Confessions, anonymity brings out the worst in people. They say mean and vicious things online that they would never have the courage to say to a person's face.
I assume the reason The Forum publishes anonymous reviews is so that reviewers can feel free to express their real opinions. But I think reviewers generally feel free to express their opinions even when their name is on the piece. Why else would major newspapers and even other college newspapers always publish reviews with the author's name? I can't think of any serious publication that has anonymous reviews. The difference is that without identification, people feel unrestrained by basic social standards of decency and respect. They feel they can insult their fellow students without any ramifications. Anonymity just lowers the level of discourse. Is this really what The Forum wants in its coverage of campus events?
2. It is unnecessarily mean-spirited.
I'm glad that The Forum reviewed the play. And I definitely don't expect them to write a fluff piece. But in general, when reviewing fellow students, it is traditional to display a certain level of tact. Personally insulting students, calling them "incompetent" and "dull" is not exactly tactful. There is nothing wrong with criticizing the play-- but this author seems too preoccupied with trying to be clever and not at all concerned that he or she is mocking fellow classmates. There is a difference between reviewing a professional production and reviewing the efforts of amateur student actors. Which brings me to my next point...
3. It has unrealistic expectations.
UTL is not professional theater. It is not even a regular college theater production-- none of the cast members were theater majors, and some of them had never even acted before. UTL is a club. It's a group of people getting together, working hard, and putting on a show that they hope people will enjoy. I directed the play because I believe it serves a valuable purpose on campus; it gives students the opportunity to act, and it gives the college community a chance to see live theater. The ultimate goal is for people to have a good time. It should be judged by those standards.
Also, since this is the only play I've directed, I am just curious which of my other plays this author thought were better...
2009-04-15
02:19:15
I agree that the review was unnecessarily mean-spirited, but I think there is value to keeping it anonymous. Though I don’t know who wrote the review, I don’t see how any non-anonymous review would be anything but fluff unless it’s written by someone who doesn’t mind becoming a target or even outcast.
Sure, no major newspapers allow anonymous reviews– even larger university or college newspapers probably don’t– but CMC is different. The size and scope of a major newspaper or major university newspaper provides an inherent form of anonymity anyway.
At CMC, almost everyone on campus has a friend who was involved somehow in the play. If not, they have a friend of a friend who was involved. Even for a freshman author who knew nobody, a negative review would make that person about 30 enemies, or, at the very least, 30 glares and whispers in passing or at Collins. A few more reviews of campus events, and that person could have 10%+ of the campus pissed off at him. Imagine an article critical of our football team, which makes up around 5% of the student body.
This all might be an exaggeration, but just look at Charles Johnson– the most critical and unnecessarily mean-spirited “reviewer” on campus. It’s not easy to be critical of other people on the internet unless you want to create enemies (of course, you’re right– it’s especially hard if you’re really mean about it).
That said, I hope future Campus Critic pieces are publishable by a named author, even if they are published anonymously anyway.
2009-04-15
03:51:54
While I agree with your point that being negative can be more difficult at CMC, the review does not need to be anonymous if it is judicious and fair. We give people too little credit if we think that they will become offended at the slightest form of critique (as students we are reviewed and critiqued constantly, in the form of grades), as long as the critiques are well-founded and reasonable. Calling a volunteer actor "incompetent" is not reasonable (nor is it accurate). The reviewer would have "10%+ of the campus pissed off" only if they always gave negative, malicious reviews about everything (at which point I would wonder if they had a bad childhood).
And while Charles Johnson may be considered unpopular and, as you say, "mean-spirited" in some circles, his lack of fear in sharing his opinion is much more admirable than being mean-spirited, anonymously.
2009-04-15
11:14:23
For what it's worth, Mark Blitz thought it was very funny. Issue settled.
2009-04-15
22:40:58
The "campus critic" should reveal him/herself if he/she feels so strongly about this play.
I think you can be critical without being mean, but this reviewer doesn't get the distinction.
If you are going to be mean, at least I hope you're funny. This is just mean. I laughed more during the play.
2009-04-15
23:06:15
Why is everyone so against anonymity? I wasn't the commenter nor do I share his/her views but it seems as if the villagers all want to get their pitchforks and hunt down this one person with a critical view. UTL is flawed. It is a group of nonprofessionals who put on shows. The director didn't originally want to direct the play so what can you expect? I love UTL but they aren't broadway and they do put on bad shows from time to time, as well as great ones. Learn to deal with criticism and move on.
2009-04-18
02:50:25
I love to see stage plays and have seen many in my life. I have seen college, high school, community theater, and professional plays. One thing that I have noticed is that it doesn't take professional actors or a large budget to make a good play, so the first thing I would like to say is that I wish the director wouldn't duck out so easily and say things like: people have unrealistic expectations and what did you guys expect... and so forth. Secondly I would like to agree with Mr. Sasso about the critic. Whoever the critic is, does not understand plays well and definitely has never acted his or her self and if he or she has, then she or he is just cruel.
First off, this person laid into Divya saying she did her part poorly... OK you try being in a play where you have 10 words or less and try to leave a positive lasting impression on the audience... They do have the saying "There is no small parts, only small actors" But COME ON... the best you can hope for when you have 10 words is that the general part of the audience wont recognize you (meaning you didnt butcher your lines and ruin the play) and that your friends will see you and think its cool that their friend was in the play. Considering it is not professional nor does Divya get any credit this critic and all others should thank people like her willing to be part of the play and take on the time committment for the good of the other actors and everyone who would come to the show, to play this bit part. But I was there on Friday and maybe the night the critic went Divya broke the 4th wall and started cussing out the audience and ruined the whole play. But if she didnt, which i know she did not, then you saying that is just cruel and unfair, she was believable as an attractive high society wife who was with her high society husband at a high society socialite party in an embassy.
Also, I dont see why anyone is ripping the director. I think he did a good job and the play turned out well. It got laughs throughout and it was entertaining and that was its purpose. Who actually had anything better to do on a Wednesday or Friday night and even if someone went Thursday TNC doesnt start till after the show ended. I think the acting was pretty solid, I do agree that Menke was what stood out, but also he had the most flexible and over the top part. It is designed for him to be the constant comic relief and for him to be in for gag comedy. While Axel might have lost his composure a few times that is kind of within his character to do so. He is not supposed to be sure of himself. The girl he was going after seemed to overact her lines and that was at first annoying, but it was also in her character to be overly dramatic, but sometimes her overacting did get distracting, but i wouldnt go as far as to say that she did poorly and make fun of her, because she did her part and got some laughs of her own.
In the end, the play was solid if unspectacular. It made everyone laugh. Everyone I talked to said they really liked it and with a free dinner and a free glass of wine or two or three, it was a great night.
Finally I am extremely curious about this Glengarry Glenross play I have heard about. First off, why is UTL trying to disown it? who is directing it? Is it being funded? Not to be a pessimist, but i doubt it will get pulled off well, I saw the movie and the characters would be really hard to pull off. I doubt we have enough good male actors at this school considering we have no theater department. So it very well could be a huge disaster, but if its pulled off well it is an incredible play so I'm excited to see it regardless... But I have not seen any fliers, advertisements, or facebook groups for it yet, nor do many people seem to know about it so part of me is wondering if it will actually happen because i do doubt that some random guys at this school could pull of Glengarry Glenross.
2009-05-01
13:47:09
Turns out Glengarry is not actually going to happen. The people in it apparently gave up for one reason or another. But I doubt it could have happened anyways as they did not actually have a legitimate UTL director who might have known what he or she was doing, but it was just a bunch of guys who were likely unorganized and not really taking it seriously. It would have been really cool to get another theater group going at CMC as there is not enough of a focus on the arts at CMC as their should be. Despite what Insomniac said, there are great actors and actresses at this campus. The One Acts were incredible and there were like 10 different shows and about 2-6 people each and there were only a couple repeats in actors, this means that there were at least a solid 20-30 actors to pull from. Im a junior and I hope someone elects to do this play next year and someone who has experience and knows what he is doing decides to direct it like Brendan Sasso. I would love to try out for it, but even if i didnt make it I would be stoked to see it, because Glengarry is a play that you could likely get every CMCer who ever was to come see because it is right down CMC's alley. It's unfortunate that this fell apart because I was getting really excited to see it and I think a lot of people were pretty stoked. To see what we missed, click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-AXTx4PcKI&NR=1