When I first went to see Guys and Dolls, my initial thought was "No show put on by a community theatre group is worth seeing for $25 dollars". We all know how community theatre works: it's cliquey, it's tacky, and it's typically just for sycophants whose dreams of spotlights cost them a hefty check, and are merely rewarded with applause from family or senior citizens on a field trip. In my life, I don't know which experiences were more gruesome; witnessing it, or being a part of it. But to be completely honest, The Norton Singers left me very pleasantly surprised, and hell-made me miss doing shows myself.
Guys and Dolls is that quintessential 50's musical, engaging to all ages, classic for its timeless humor and plot devices. The cast was comprised of actors young and old, which was nice and rendered more of a reality to the show (I'm sick of 18 year olds pretending to be 50). The show opened with three men who captivated me with their great ability to harmonize. The ensemble seemed really into it (not just kids who were bored, sitting around wishing they had bigger parts). The dancers were always smiling...let's cut to the chase here.
The Good: The entire tour of Havana was done so superbly well, I didn't want it to end. It was an epic montage of comical dancing, colourful costumes, vivaciousness, and good music, with snippets of tactful scene changes, simple prop use, and the occasional dialogue. It was rushed excitedly, as opposed to stressfully, and not once did it pause for changes; it didn't lose its flavour. It was a whirlwind of distraction, but it still served its purpose, elapsing time for us to believe that Sarah's love for Sky wasn't sheer inebriation.
The orchestra was wonderful. Nobody missed a beat, the conductor was professional, they were exciting, and engaged. It's musicians like these that make you realize how important having a good orchestra is for a show. They were absolutely incredible. No complaints. Perfect.
The four leads: Sarah Brown (Esme Sammons) was played with a modest maturity. Her innocent angst was displayed with clarity, and poise. She was the porcelain doll amongst the box of Barbies. Her weak attempts at strength and independence were admirable, and heartfelt. Sammons's voice wasn't as bold as the others', but it was beautiful (think Johanna versus Mrs. Lovett), rising high and sweetly like a bird learning to fly (except...more graceful). Her love interest, Sky Masterson (Kevin Mischley) had the attitude of a 1950's Mr. Big (Sex & the City) with the voice of an amateur Michael Buble. I fell in love with him, and I knew it was fictional. His charisma poured effortlessly like a sarcastic die rolling across a craps table, always landing in his favour. Nathan Detroit (Chris DiOrio) was that middle aged man still dealing with fears of commitment, and temptations, defeated by his need to succeed, and stunted by his desire to give his fiancee a luxurious life. The character was played with great conviction. It didn't call for emotional depth, just faulted simplicity. DiOrio played off of the characters' short comings so well, that you couldn't help but feel bad for him; his selfishness seemed sweetly intended and justified.
Miss Adelaide (Janet Ferreri) gets her own paragraph. I'm going to be honest, when I first saw her, I thought "She looks great...but she's older". Why would they cast an older woman for the part? Is she really going to have five kids? It looks fine, but it doesn't make sense for the plot.
Let me tell you, Janet Ferreri is so good, she could play frigging Juno. Her actions, her voice, and her charm were so vivifying and exceptional, I was on the edge of my seat every time she was on stage. She didn't need stage lighting to illuminate her presence. She gave it the whimsical zeal of Audrey Fulquard, with the psychotic emotional tenderness of Blanche Du Bois. Ferreri, in my opinion, stole the show. Amongst the younger dancers, my eyes were still on her. She made me feel like there was no gap between old and young, her talent stretched throughout the auditorium and covered us in a fog of laughter and captivation. Initially, it seemed like her character would be obnoxious, but whether she was the weakest, or just the most persuasive, her adorable stamina made you root for her the whole way through. Her performance took the tacky stigma out of community theatre.
The Mediocre: The fourth wall in the show was definitely broken, in some instances good, and in some instances, bad. The use of the space was tactful, and very well done. The characters storming down the aisles, or up on the risers, made the show happen all around us. It said a lot for the creativity of the director (Ted Mitchell) that not only could he use the whole space provided to him for the benefit of the audience, but also for the benefit of the settings (the stage just wouldn't have been as good of a sewage system as the risers were).
I don't agree with mixing the worlds of the characters, that being said, as pretty and funny as the opening girl was, I was not a fan of the choice made to have an actual character from the show (speaking role or not) making the initial "here are the exits, turn off your cell phones" announcements, or doing the raffle during intermission only to immediately be seen on stage in the same costume. It just wasn't an appropriate choice. This wasn't the show for anachronisms. There were not many of them, from what I could see, and I was thankful for that (though...Mischley's Brando impression wasn't half bad...and at least paid homage to the movie ).
When it came to the singing, everyone was great. The harmonizing was very well done, at times the music overpowered the singers, and frankly, maybe it was that factor, or not enough annunciation, but there were instances where I could not understand a THING they were singing about. But they sounded great. Blind me with shiny shit, I guess.
Other than some extremely annoying sound malfunctions in the sewer scene, the show was great, and not once was I really taken away from it (I'm so ADHD, that comment says a lot). I felt like pieces of the show dragged on, while others I wish went on longer (Why was the "Sit Down!" part cut so much?! General Cartwright [Michelle Yundt] was HYSTERICAL).
The costumes were gorgeous, and the make-up was very well done. Every girl looked beautiful, and every guy looked like a gangster. The lighting was applicable at every point (though some spotlight use seemed a little unnecessary), and every transition was smooth and nicely done.
I'd seen a show at Wheaton about ten years ago, where characters profusely smoked cigars onstage. Apparently, it bothered the audience so much, they banned cigar smoking. I wish they didn't. I would've liked to have seen Big Julie (Bill Yundt) finish off his implied toughness with a nice puff of that cigar (I mean, a guy like that wouldn't have a lighter that doesn't work). But that's nit picky, and neither here nor there.
The use of sex was also very tasteful. I thought it could have been a little more risque, but there were certain moments, and splashes of costumes that gave it just an ounce of zest while still maintaining a PG rating.
The point I'm making is, everybody onstage was into this show, and everybody seemed to be having an absolute blast entertaining us- and that in itself counted. Normally I would say that can be a sign of a passive director, but the fact that it went off without a hitch could say otherwise. The smiles and energy on all of the dancers, the rogue chaos of all the gangsters...they all blended together to make an ensemble that did not just stand behind the leads and take up space- but gave life to the entire show.
Every actor loved their character, and that's what makes a good production. They embraced the truth in the text, despite the lack of emotional depth that Guys and Dolls may render, but that's why it was good.
And you know what? It made the $25 a worthy investment.
It made me want to get back into theatre, or at the very least, see more shows put on by The Norton Singers.
Either way, Guys and Dolls, I'd be sorry if you missed it.
A
No comments:
Post a Comment