College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

The wars at home

Strengths and failures in DUDS’ portrayal of conflict-related issues

Published: Friday, February 26, 2010

Updated: Friday, February 26, 2010 00:02

Play

Beth Garceau

‘Paige,’ Crossman, sits with ‘Peter,’ Umansky, in ‘Soldier W’

Play 2

Beth Garceau

Amy Crossman (’13) as Paige, David Umansky (’13) as Peter and Bentz Deyo (’10) as ‘soldier’ Will

Play 3

Beth Garceau

‘Harper,’ Lemchick, consoles ‘Joan,’ Giacona, in ‘Far Away’

Two plays produced side by side are often mismatched, but it is effective for them to convey a common message. “Solider W” by Kathleen Burke (’12) and “Far Away” by Caryl Churchill complement each other well by showing both the products and realities of war. However, they are not equal in quality.
Starting the evening is “Solider W,” Kathleen Burke’s (’12) newest piece directed by Caitlin White (’10). The plot is simple—three old friends meet up in an apartment and one is a catatonic soldier.
From a stagnant start, Paige, played by Amy Crossman (’13), is consistently distant from both her character and her cast mates. For a part with such a wide range of emotions, reactions and attitudes, Crossman maintains a steady flat line. Only during a later monologue did Crossman deviate and actually show character development. Her performance was far from unbearable—she evened out at a high level of proficiency, showing her skills as a performer. Unfortunately, she did not propel the character from deeply rooted motivation, instead presenting a practiced set of routines. There were moments when Paige faced great frustration, but Crossman expressed a fake feeling of mild annoyance.
Following suit is David Umansky (’13), who is like an arm-flinging robot. His portrayal of Peter is not stale, but is unmoving and fake. As the comic relief, Umansky misses the chance to embellish funny lines. The seriousness of the play requires a break in rhythm. He misses the comedy beat by merely verbalizing the inherently funny line. Umansky also seemed slow with the wit, and overly confident behind his Elvis Costello glasses. Even if his intent was to let the lines speak for themselves, he neglects to bring creativity to the part.
On the other hand, Bentz Deyo (’10), playing the seldom-speaking Will, creates a presence of incredible tension. His constant stare motivates the audience to discover Will’s secret. From the start, Deyo maintains an awesome focus, staring past the audience for almost the entire play. On the two occasions he interacts with the other actors, he excels in appearing natural and realistic. At an emotional moment, Deyo convincingly breaks down, showing incredible ability.
Yet, throughout the play chemistry was off. Crossman and Umansky were distant from each other. Umansky also was not quite as capable as Deyo and Crossman who were working at higher calibers. Crossman, despite her flat line, fared well aside Deyo. She only ran into trouble when Will was unresponsive. When Umansky faced Deyo, he seemed awkward and unreal.
The set designed by Brooke Murray (’11) is simple, clean and practical. It shows a plain, cheap apartment and is the perfect backdrop for these characters and their story. The lighting, although simple, keeps with the mood, complementing the tone changes.
There was only one major upset, the scene changes lasting an annoyingly long time.
Churchill’s play “Far Away” had a more abstract take on war. Split into three parts, it tells the tale of a girl named Joan. As she ages, the war described in the first part worsens. In part three, the play’s characters reflect on the war they have no choice but to involve themselves in. “Far Away” shows how war is, in reality, a horrific insanity.
The dynamic set, designed by Whitney McClees (’12), creates an unsettling feeling of change. The rearrangement of the set reinforces this notion. Mclees’s crude diagonal platforms moved about after each part, leaving abstract shapes for actors to play with. Upstage stands a large connection of tubes resembling the forest floor. Their shadows in blue light simulate tree branches, giving the whole stage a feeling of loss.
With her first line, Ali Giacona (’10), playing Harper, seizes the audience and keeps them invested. With a certain attitude in the first part, Giacona terrifically reflects the hopes of the audience. With steady motions and calm fluidity, she clearly conveys Churchill’s lines, while allowing for necessary chemistry between her and her cast mates.
As Joan, Jamie Lamchick (’11) convincingly shows the effects of war in all three parts. She never drops the ball, creating an interesting and compelling performance with little to spare. Together with Giacona, Lamchick draws the audience into intimacy, ensuring the play’s success. Ian Smith (’10), playing Todd, has a bold personality and air of confidence.  His natural stage presence makes Todd a strong companion to Joan. Smith’s qualities establish the character immediately and completely, giving the audience a sense of certainty in the play, a certainty that conveys the inanity of the situation.
A tragic parade of war prisoners marching around the audience to an onstage pedestal was one of the strongest moments of the play. One by one, wearing hats, each prisoner pauses at the pedestal and stares blankly into the audience. This shockingly reflects the terrors of war, making the audience look madness in the face. The exquisite hats, designed by Matice McMillan (’10) and Elizabeth Young (’10) made the scene perfect. Each abstract hat echoes the hollow feeling of the set, both in crudeness and in severity.
Dealing with war is difficult because it is an ugly issue the public is uncomfortable experiencing. “Solider W” and “Far Away” blatantly show the wounds but don’t compete with the severity of war.
 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

7 comments Log in to Comment

Anonymous
Sun Feb 28 2010 19:17
Your point seems to be that critics are above criticism. Edelstein's piece reads more like a director's arch private critique than a bona fide review.
Anonymous
Sat Feb 27 2010 21:07
Back off guys--the point of a Theater critic is to critique. He has a right to his opinion, just as you have a right to disagree. And frankly, as a Theater major here, I know firsthand that we as a dept. complain that the theater reviews offer mere plot summaries as opposed to critique. Finally someone does and we attack him? This happened last year too! WE CANNOT HAVE OUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.
Anonymous
Fri Feb 26 2010 23:42
Mr. Geoffery Edelstein, please gets your eyes and ears checked my a doctor because you wrote a critique that was completely inaccurate.
Anonymous
Fri Feb 26 2010 23:30
I'm not sure that a person involved in the Theater Department, who has not only consistently shown himself to be a mediocre actor at best, but also tried out for--and failed to get into--the first of the 2 plays is in the best position to review these plays. And I'm sure he's aware that David (who of course got the role that Geoff had hoped to be cast in) got nothing but laughs from the audience, his petty, disparaging comments notwithstanding.
Anonymous
Fri Feb 26 2010 23:23
Boi, u needz to check yo'self! Don't nobody attak mah theater frendz, u can kiss mah negro azz!
Anonymous
Fri Feb 26 2010 23:02
So, I was wondering what play this critic saw, because I thought that Soldier W. was totally awesome!!! The acting, the emotions and the setting was definitely worth watching. I felt a connection with the actors because they delivered a "one-of-a-kind" performance. Great job cast!
Rosemary McLaughlin, Professor, Theatre Arts Dept.
Fri Feb 26 2010 14:30
If I were going to spend 474 words reviewing a play—Kathleen Burke’s Soldier W-- which was having its premiere production, having already won the Oxnam Prize and received a professional stage reading by Ensemble Studio Theatre, would I devote 333 of those words to the acting? Probably not. And as important as it is to note what works and doesn’t work, in one’s view, in a given production, I don’t think, even in my days as a college journalist, that I’d devote 202 words to harshly critique first year actors. Like first year critics, they’re still learning.

In time, they’ll have a better handle on what to emphasize, what to leave between the lines, how to balance things, how to see what the truth is, what beauty is and how best to express it. As a theatre critic, one can write with a club or a pen. Reach for the pen.

Rosemary McLaughlin, Professor, Theatre Arts Dept.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In