Into the Woods [B]

(a middle school production at Village Community School)

First, let me come clean: I really don't like Sondheim musicals. That being said, giving a B to "Into the Woods" is high praise indeed. The acting was quite good, though it did have the variability that one would expect from a school production. The sets, costumes, and lighting were excellent. And the show… Well, surprisingly enough, I think this 'coming of age' show actually improves when it is performed by real 'coming of age' 13 year olds.

I'm still not going to rush right out to see the next Sondheim that comes to town, but I had quite a pleasant evening at VCS.

A Picasso [B+]

his is a very interesting play about the interplay between two people: Pablo Picasso and a Nazi bureaucrat/interrogator. The acting's very good, and the play poses lots of interesting questions about Picasso the man, Picasso the artist, artists in general, and the value of art. Also, there's excellent chemistry between the two actors which always improves a show.

Pillowman [A]

Excellent play! Warning: this show will not appeal to everybody. It is about the murder of young children, and can be hard to watch at times. But, wow, if you can get past the revulsion, what a show it is. My favorite of the season. Fabulous acting, thought-provoking interesting plot, really good sets/lights. Who could ask for anything more.

Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang [C]

It's a fun show, but it's a kids' show. The second act was really pretty good, but the first act was long and ponderous. The kids in the show were decent performers and very cute. It's really a spectacle more than a musical.

Privilege [C]

There's nothing wrong with this show about rich kids whose father is arrested. It was kind of entertaining - like a sitcom. The kids were both wonderful actors. But to quote my friend Gertrude: "There's no there there." I was constantly thinking "here's a good opportunity to deviate from the sitcom tract and make a thought-provoking point," but they never did. Not an unpleasant two hours, but not productive either.

The House of Blue Leaves [B-]

Nice play. It's very funny with a wallop of an ending. This production was done by graduates of the T. Schreiber acting school, but it was pretty professional. (I'll be going back to T. Schreiber again.) They seem to select good shows and, based on a sample size of one, do a good job with them.

The Glass Menagerie [B]

I really like the underlying play; it's thought provoking and tragic in an intellectual sense while being almost hopeful emotionally. I'm a big Christian Slater fan, but he just didn't quite do it for me here. Nonetheless the show is very worth watching. I overheard an audience member say that one reviewer who didn't like it said something like: "Bad Tennessee Williams is better than no Tennessee Williams," and I would have to agree.

Shockheaded Peter [D]

This one just didn't work for me. I'm a bit upset by that, because some of my friends, whose opinions I admire considerably, did like it very much. Maybe I've grown too buttoned-down to like this, but it just seemed silly to me - not good silly, like "Spamalot", but plain old dumb silly. I think the kids in the audience loved it, but I just couldn't care about anybody on stage, and I didn't find it funny or exciting enough to watch without caring.

Technically everything was very good: acting and sets especially.

Thom Pain [A]

Two A shows in two days. Wow! This is a very different kind of show. It's a one man show with no particular plot and little direct emotional impact. But, oh those words! The author, with excellent help from the actor James Urbaniak, manages to toss out dozens of random hints about the meaning of life (both his and the audiences) and the non-meaning of life, and he challenges us to figure it all out. Needless to say, I haven't quite figured out the full meaning of life, but give me a couple more days. It's amusing and very thought provoking, but only go if you want to do some intellectual work during the show.

Glengarry Glen Ross [A]

I liked this one a lot. I had seen it on Broadway 20 years ago and had mixed feelings about it back then. Maybe I've changed since then (!!!), but I really liked the play this time. And that was the only doubt. The acting ranged from very good to fabulous. Alan Alda didn't particularly impress me, but that was probably because I expected a lot, and everybody was so good. Liev Schreiber was just amazing. It's worth seeing the show just to watch what he does. Jeffrey Tambor, Gordon Clapp, and Tom Wopat are all very, very good, but Schrieber still manages to outshine them.

What of the Night [D+]

This is a one woman show reminiscing about some of the life of avant-garde writer Djuna Barnes. It is well acted, and the set is quite fascinating, but the script just doesn't do it. It didn't however pass the F test. The F test states that for a show to get a grade of F, I must seriously contemplate leaving early at least once. This show was interesting enough that I never planned to leave. Also, Ms. Barnes is an interesting woman (Google her if you, like me, don't know her), and had some depressingly accurate observations to make.