The Producers

For my mediated performance, I chose to watch the film The Producers, starring Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, Uma Thurman, and Will Ferrell. This movie is not the original one that was directed by Mel Brooks but is the remake that is based on the Broadway musical that was based on the original movie. If you watch this movie without knowing these facts, then you may not like because a musical is not the typical movie format. That being said, I absolutely loved this film. It was filled with great actors and had cameos of several great comedians. Nathan Lane plays the greedy and sinister(ish) Max Bialystock, a famous producer who is down on his luck. Matthew Broderick plays Leopold Bloom, a cowardly accountant who dreams of being a Broadway producer. They come up with a scheme to earn $2 million by producing a flop show that closes on opening night so that they can keep the production money for themselves.

This film has it all. It has great comedic moments that keep the audience engaged and laughing. One example of this is when Max and Leo learn that Adolf Hitler’s middle name was Elizabeth. Another is when the audience learns that Max’s financial backers are a bunch of old, widowed women whom he sleeps with for production money. The film also has catchy songs that keep playing in your head long after the show is over. One such song is when the previously mentioned women dance in the street with their walkers or when Leo sings about being a producer. However, what makes this movie truly worth seeing and truly hilarious is its absurdity. From the show “Springtime for Hitler” that they produce to the gay production team that helps put it on, the two producers encounter many absurd situations that result in making the audience laugh hysterically.

It’s a Wonderful Life

This week, I had the privilege of attending Saginaw Valley State University’s production of the It’s a Wonderful Life Christmas radio show. This is a very interesting form to present a play in. Instead of having the cast come onstage as the characters from It’s a Wonderful Life and perform the show like a regular play, this play had the cast come on and act like actors in a 1940’s radio studio. The actors were dressed in stereotypical 1940’s clothing instead of clothing from the play. The set was designed to look like a radio studio instead of the locations where the play took place. 

The actors also behaved differently than you would expect them to. They milled around onstage and acted as if they were from the 1940’s, complete with the women over exaggerating chewing their gum. When the show began, they involved the audience by flashing an applause sign to signal appropriate places for us to clap. Each actor had a binder with a script and read their lines into microphones at the front of the stage. This was very interesting to watch because even though they had the script, they didn’t just read. They brought the characters to life by acting out movements to make their performance sound authentic. 

One of the coolest things about the play, however, was the sound Foley. These two actors stood in a booth on the side of the stage. They had no speaking lines, but they provided sound effects for the show. They clinked glasses together for party or bar scenes and shook a piece of sheet metal to create the sound of magic. It was a very interesting process to see. Another added piece of comedy to the show was that it was interrupted for commercials of products ranging from Coke to Jell-O.

Angels in America

Tony Kushner’s play Angel’s in America contains many “split screen” scenes. These are scenes where two or more different actions in the play are focused on. An example of this is Act 2, Scene 4 of the play. This scene is divided into two areas. The first area is the conversation between Joe and Roy. The second area of the scene is between Louis and the man in the park. The reason that Kushner did this may have been to break up the drama in some of the more intense scenes. If the scene suddenly jumps from Roy telling Joe to leave his wife for Washington to Louis meeting a man in the park, then we are removed from the intensity of the scene and reminded that it is only a play. Doing this allows the audience to gather their thoughts and prepare themselves for what is coming next.

Another reason why Kushner may have decided to mix different areas into one scene is because they would have been awkward on their own. The area of the scene that involves Roy and Joe is important enough to stand on its own as a scene. It advances plot and reveals more about the characters of Roy, Joe, and Harper. The area that involves Louis having sex with a guy could not stand on its own. It shows Louis’ guilt about Prior, but it also creates the awkward situation of having the audience watch a gay sex scene. The author may have broken it up and put it into another scene so that the audience could focus on it, but take a break from it as well.  

A Number

This week’s play, A Number by Caryl Churchill, was very interesting. It dealt with the issue of cloning. There are only four characters in the play and three of them are clones played by the same actor. However, what is really interesting is the style in which the play was written. The play is written entirely in dialogue. There are scenes, but no descriptions of scene changes or even a description of the scene itself beyond the fact that every scene occurs in the same area. Character descriptions are limited as well. We are given the ages of them, but we do not know anything else beyond the fact that three of them are the same person.

I think that the author chose to write her play this way so that it would be timeless. Because the issue of cloning and the advances of technology are still debated about, the author decided to leave everything blank so that we could fill in the blanks with information that is pertains to our time. Reading through the play, I picture Michael as a typical teacher: an average guy wearing a shirt, tie, sweater vest, and slacks. This image may change if I move forward ten years. By keeping out “unnecessary” details, the author allows us to add our own details and make it more meaningful to ourselves.

Leaving the characters blank severely limits their actions in the play. They only seem to talk. In fact, the author is so dedicated to allowing us to interpret the play however we want that she even leaves out punctuation. This makes reading the play very difficult. However, it allows you to decide how characters react to information. If you were to perform this play you could make them move or sound in whatever way you felt was appropriate. You could have them just standing and having a conversation or you could have them running around yelling at each other. The author seems to emphasize that it is your choice.

Incorruptible in Performance

Over the weekend, I attended a performance of Incorruptible that was put on by the Saginaw Valley State University theater department. The show was directed by David Rzeszutek, a theater professor who managed to impress me with how well the play was performed. The play was very enjoyable and I really liked watching the play after enjoying reading the script so much. Most of the characters were exactly how I pictured them, but Professor Rzeszutek added some things that enhanced the play and others that I felt took away from it.

Allow me to begin with the character of Jack. David Milka played the character exactly how I imagined him to be. He seemed to be very charismatic and witty, and you never knew what to expect from him next. Milka also did an excellent job of milking the humor out of the show with his very well timed comedic side comments. I loved how he played a character that played to the audience. Next is Charles. I loved how Rusty Myers played the role of a suffering priest in conflict. He was very humorous throughout the play but also very serious when the need arose. Olf was another character that I thoroughly enjoyed. He truly was a loveable oaf and David Ryan brought that to light in the funniest way possible. Olf starred in one of my favorite parts when he clothes lined Jack as the latter tried to escape. The peasant woman played by Cassidy Morey was surprisingly humorous. Although she was a smaller character without much dialogue, the humor was really emphasized with some of the “vulgar” gestures that she used that you wouldn’t expect from a woman of her age.

Agatha, Charles’s sister, was played by Mykaela Hopps. Vocally, the character was perfect. She was extremely loud and very frightening. However, the actress was pretty small and after watching Charles shake in fear, I had expected her to be some huge woman with monster strength. This is only a small complaint that I can’t really validate because I enjoyed her performance. On the other hand, the character that I couldn’t stand was Felix. He was played by Cameron Thorp. I had expected Felix to be a very outgoing and robust character after reading the script. After all, he is supposed to have been a great lover of women. However, Cameron played the character so timid and un-influential that I wondered how he managed to help restore faith to the church at all. Besides the character of Felix, the only other complaint about the performance I had was that the lines of the play frequently ran together. At these moments, I had a hard time figuring out whom was talking, much less what they were saying.

 Overall, the show was very good. It had great humor and an excellent cast. I would definitely recommend seeing the show if you have the opportunity.