Equity Superlatives for 2K13 (so far)

Growing-up in a time of reality competition TV shows and being an Oscars aficionado, my brain automatically categorizes things into superlatives. As you may know, I am an avid theatregoer so naturally I tend to compare/contrast different productions. In the past six months I’ve seen 30+ productions in Chicago and wanted to take a look back and see what left a lasting impression upon me.

So I originally started listing my Chicago theatre superlatives from the past six months without taking into account Equity status for the shows. I’d originally chosen five in each category, but decided to split it up separate the Equity and non-Equity productions and select only three in each category. Below are my choices in the Equity division (which I see much less of because, oh, you know, ticket prices and such). The * signifies my favorite.

 

BEST PRODUCTION

 

columbinus @ American Theatre Company

 

The Pride @ About Face Theatre

 

The Whale @ Victory Gardens*

While columbinus and The Pride were two of the productions I most eagerly anticipated, The Whale was the surprise knockout. Samuel D. Hunter’s searing dialogue and painfully real characters laid the foundation for an unforgettable production. I am surprised his script wasn’t at least a finalist for the Pulitzer this past year as it dealt with many contemporary American concerns with skill and honesty.

BEST DIRECTION

Bonnie Metzgar (The Pride @ About Face Theatre)*

 

PJ Paparelli (columbinus @ American Theatre Company)

 

Joanie Schultz (The Whale @ Victory Gardens)

The Whale’s hyper reality and columbinus’ docudrama theatricality both showcased their directors within their respective styles. Yet, Metzgar’s stark grip on the 50’s period decorum versus the much more liberated late-2000’s allows The Pride to successfully communicate the different characters and story lines with grace and fluidity.

BEST INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE

Patrick Andrews (The Pride @ About Face Theatre)*

 

Adam Poss (Teddy Ferrara @ Goodman Theatre)

 

Sadieh Rifai (Speech & Debate @ American Theatre Company)

In Speech & Debate, Sadieh Rifai easily gave the best comedic performance I’ve seen in Chicago since J. Nicole Brooks’ outstanding firecracker turn in Immediate Family at the Goodman. Adam Poss was perfectly bitchy while simultaneously irresistible in Teddy Ferrara. However, Patrick Andrews’ soulful handling of two emotional roles in The Pride stands out as the best performance of the past six months.

 

BEST ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCE

Beaten @ The Artistic Home

 

columbinus @ American Theater Company

 

Teddy Ferrara @ Goodman Theatre*

Obviously, I appreciate an ensemble that tackles a tricky, dramatic script successfully.  Although the casts of Barnum at Mercury Theatre and Goodman’s The Jungle Book delivered memorable performances, they felt more like individual powerhouses autonomously operating instead of relying on each other.

BEST INDIVIDUAL DESIGN

Mara Blumenfeld (Costume Design for The Jungle Book @ Goodman Theatre)

 

Janice Pytel (Prosthetic Design for The Whale @ Victory Gardens)

 

Mieka van der Ploeg (Costume Design for The Pride @ About Face Theatre)*

Although Thad Hallstein’s sleek set for Profiles’ In the Company of Men and Keith Parham’s appropriately moody lighting in Goodman’s Teddy Ferrara were very impressive alongside the other two recognized designs, no production element stood out quite like van der Ploeg’s costumes which gorgeously aided About Face’s The Pride to slide from two time periods separated by 50 years.

BEST NEW WORK

Beaten (by Scott Woldman @ The Artistic Home)*

With an unpredictable and more believable LaBute-like-surprise, Woldman’s family drama harrows with distressing recognition as effortlessly as it delights with comic levity. The unique character relationships are the foundation for a difficult trek through the cycles of abuse, secrets, and misguided love on which many families build their households.

In the Company of Men

Profiles Theatre is currently staging the World Premiere of In the Company of Men by Neil LaBute. As a fan of both Profiles’ and LaBute’s works, I was enthusiastic about attending the production. I viewed the film version many years ago; I found the film hateful and inhabited by unsympathetic characters. I entered the theatre with hopes that the staged version would find the heart and humanity absent from the screenplay. My hopes were not fulfilled despite strong performances (especially Brennan Roche) from the cast and a stylish set design by Thad Hallstein.

In the Company of Men has the recognizable attributes that I have come to appreciate from LaBute; he employs witty, naturalistic dialogue brimming with humor which eases the audience into recognizing the distasteful characters as extreme replicas of themselves. LaBute seduces the audience into empathizing and rooting for his protagonists quite well by making them flawed, but charismatic, and undeniably human. LaBute then proceeds to have these identifiable, likable people commit atrocious and often amoral acts. The audience is left questioning whether they are capable of similar behavior under the circumstances presented in the script. It’s a fascinating template, which he has arguably exhausted through his many plays. LaBute never cowers from sensitive, topical subject matter from racism, misogyny, homophobia, bullying, religion, national tragedies, body politics, etc. Therefore, his work is often controversial and received with a mixture of accolades and disdain. However, his voice as an American observer cannot be ignored especially as a playwright.

So why does In the Company of Men – one of his earliest works – misfire as the astute social commentary to which it seemingly aims? LaBute attempts to make commentary on corporate America and misogyny in his script. He portrays the two misogynistic lead male characters as ruthless and emotionally barbaric. However, he does not give the audience a character with which to identify. In the opening scene of the play, the two men plot a detestable scheme to hurt a woman because they have both apparently been recently injured by ended relationships. Therefore, one can assume that the woman chosen to be ill-treated will be the character with which to connect. LaBute in turn gives us an under-developed character which is hearing-impaired, and instantly a victim. Seems broad, right? That’s because it is. We understand that this character has a good sense of humor about her surdity and that she struggles to date because of her unique voice stemming from her handicap. However, that’s all the information we are allowed. We can sympathize with her pain in being hurt by them men, but without finer detail in characterization from the playwright the impact lacks strength.

This is where LaBute’s commentary on misogyny becomes misogynistic. We know more about the two male characters’ pasts, relationship-history, education, and friendship. They are more fully-fleshed than the female character (named Christine). Despite LaBute’s attempt to reverse expected nudity on stage – two men expose their genitalia while no women appear top or bottomless – one of the male characters, Howard, was given explanatory motivation for his actions. He is also given a softer side by genuinely falling in love with Christine. While it doesn't excuse him, he comes across as equally victimized as she does. This occurs because both Howard and Christine were part of a scheme concocted by the second male character, Chad. They are both sufferers of Chad’s jealousy towards Howard and his successes. In the end, Chad is left unscathed and promoted in corporate America, Christine finds internal peace and self-empowerment, while Howard is left emotionally distraught, demoted, and alone.  So who is the true victim?

So is this a cautionary tale? Is it a character study? Or is it a reflection of our merciless society?

There are other arbitrary, less-significant issues with the script: unnecessary atmospheric-characters and direct-address which makes the piece stylistically incoherent while contributing very little to the development of the characters and story line  Yet, the idea with which the audience leaves is compelling: “I can be whoever I want to be.” There is a lot of power in that statement and it rings true for each of the central characters. However, the faulty execution of the idea makes for a disagreeable play, albeit for inadvertent reasons. 

Also, check out my review of American Theatre Company's Speech & Debate!

http://chicagostagestandard.com/2013/05/14/speech-debate-american-theater-company/