I’ve waited a year for this one.  The Full Monty — the story of out of work men who decide to bare it all before they lose it all.

The show takes place in Buffalo, New York, where the plant was unexpectedly shut down, leaving many of the men in town without jobs.  Jerry, a divorced father, cooks up a plan to put on a strip show in order to make enough money to pay the child support he owes his ex-wife so he can keep seeing his son.  He enlists his best friend, Dave, a man whose big belly is holding back his confidence, particularly with his wife.  Together, they pull in four other men to give the Chippendale’s a run for their money.

The show itself is not bad.  Some of the songs are not all that good, mediocre.  But, there are a few numbers that really score, more than making up for the others.  As for Circa’s production of the show, the theater handles the material quite well, thanks to a fantastic, somewhat minimal set that’s actually quite versatile, and a cast that’s up to the challenge of baring it all.

The entire cast is good, but there are a few standouts.  Hernando Umana creates an adorably awkward Malcolm.  He’s so cute and likeable and literally illicited a few audible “ahhs” from me.  Troy Scarborough’s Horse is a scene stealer, not just because the character is so interesting, but because Scarborough is able to use the character so effectively as to have the crowd in stitches quite often.  And, Autumn O’Ryan’s Jeanette is another attention grabber.  She’s loud, boisterous and a solid laugh getter.

While the show itself isn’t fantastic, the production truly is a lot of fun and well worth your evening.  That’s especially true for the final number, which is fantastic.  It’s a fantastic song fantastically staged by Circa.  Regardless of how you feel about the show leading up to it, the payoff is well worth it, as you wonder how far these actors will actually go when it comes to the final strip.  Will it actually be the full monty?

While there’s little that’s overly shocking, the shock level is raised merely by the fact this is Circa 21.  I mean, this is the theater that said to a friend of mine it would never do Gypsy because Circa’s patrons would be averse to a show about a stripper.  Gypsy’s actually quite tame, by any standard, with no real stripping in the show.  And, it’s not centered around stripping.  The Fully Monty, however, is.  It’s all about stripping and, unlike Gypsy, has swearing and bare butts.  So, I’m shocked to see The Fully Monty at Circa 21, but I’m also pleased.  To borrow a line from the show, I’m just thankful it isn’t another production of “Church Basement Ladies”.

I’m told the show is selling out, which is good.  The success of this show could perhaps mean more than just one show that’s actually been on Broadway showing up in Circa’s future seasons.  Who knows.  Maybe Circa will even dare to do Gypsy some day.

The Full Monty runs through November 8th at Circa 21 Dinner Playhouse in Rock Island.  Tickets can be purchased online at www.circa21.com or by calling the box office at (309) 786-7733.

UPDATE: Per a comment from Circa 21’s Owner and Producer, Denny Hitchcock, Circa is actually not adverse to staging Gypsy, having staged it in the past.  I’ll have to have a word with my friend. 

Posted: October 2nd, 2008 under Theater.
Comments: 2

This blog is usually used to share my reviews.  However, I’d like to take some time to share some personal thoughts.

I got into this review gig for two reasons: as a means of moving my career in a new direction and as a way to be involved with local theater despite being unable to actively participate due to my work schedule.

Two years ago, I approached the then News Director and asked if there was a possibility I could ever be a news anchor.  Bored with producing, I wanted something new.  And, having theater in my background, I figured anchoring would combine my knowledge of news and performance.  To my surprise, he was keen on the idea and told me anyone interested in anchoring should start with something with which they are passionate.  Since I have an acting background, he suggested I review movies on air.  It’s something I know and a step in the right direction.  That’s how I started.

Sadly, that News Director is no longer my News Director.  He’s moved on and I’ve worked under two other News Directors since.  Since the most recent one didn’t regard me as “on air” and even had my bio removed from the website, my hopes for advancement were dashed.  The thing is, I don’t like others completely controlling my life.  So, of my own doing, I started reviewing local theater productions.

I’ve long loved being a part of the theater.  Unfortunately, my schedule does not allow me to participate at this time.  (I get off of work at 7:15 on a good day, which is usually 15 minutes after rehearsal begins.)  It’s just too much and is hard on my partner, who doesn’t like not seeing me for weeks on end.  Reviewing theaters, however, means I get to experience some of the excitement without the time commitment.  It’s a somewhat empty experience, as I often leave a show I’m reviewing in tears.  Not because the performance was bad, but because I regret that I cannot be a part of it.  I regret and am saddened by the fact I can’t be up there on stage myself.  It’s a longing so deep, I actually cry about it.

There is a bit of solace, odd though it may be, that follows each of my theater reviews.  The day or weekend after I review a show, I find one or two friend requests on my Facebook account.  At first I thought it odd, as I don’t really know these people.  I just watched you on stage, ofter criticism of your work and you want to be my Facebook friend?  In fact, the first request came from someone who received a bad review from me, if I remember correctly.  I found it quite odd.  It continued, though, to a point where I now look for a friend request or two after every theater review.

Odder than the requests from people I don’t know is the fact they’re somewhat comforting.  There are two things I love about the theater: performing and the community.  There truly is something to be said about the theater community.  Friendships are fast, but true and can be lasting.  Not being able to be a part of any shows, I am unable to experience that community.  Or am I?  With each friend request, I feel a part of it.  They’re comforting and, rather than feeling like an outsider criticizing a show, I feel like a member of the community offering my thoughts to praise performances well done or to press for stronger performances in the future.

So, to those of you who’ve requested a friendship with me on Facebook, I thank you.  And to those of you who will request one in the future, I thank you, too.  I welcome and appreciate your friendship, even if it is not face-to-face, but, rather, facebook-to-facebook.

Posted: September 15th, 2008 under Personal, Theater.
Comments: none

There is only one new movie in theaters this weekend, but, does Bangkok Dangerous starring Nicolas Cage actually count?

Okay, it does, since it is new.  It’s just lucky there’s no new competition.

Cage stars as a hitman  in, of course, Bangkok, one night in which will make the tough guys tumble.  He’s working to take out the four enemies of the crime boss who hired him, while bonding with his own errand boy.  Can’t be too careful with your company, you know.  Is it an angel slide up to or a devil walking next to me?

Okay, enough with the early 80’s lyrics.  Bangkok Dangerous is the American remake of the Pang Brother’s 1999 Hong Kong action film.  And, there lies the problem.  While they’re wildly popular in their home country, the Pangs have yet to have a hit in their American remakes.  And they’ve had two goes at it — The Messengers and The Eye.  Throw in Nicolas Cage sporting a mullet, and you’re really working up hill for a hit.  In the original, Cage’s character is deaf and mute.  Not so, here, though it would’ve been more interesting.

Bangkok Dangerous, in my opinion, is completely passable.  But, if you’re a fan of the Pang Brothers or Nicolas Cage, it might be worth a go.  I’d recommend not going to the theater, however, but waiting for the DVD release.

Posted: September 4th, 2008 under Film.
Comments: 1

Despite my theater background, I’ve never seen A Streetcar Named Desire, not on stage nor on film.  So, until last night, all I knew of it was seeing clips of Marlon Brando yelling Stella.

A Streetcar Named Desire is the story of Blanche DuBois, sister to Stella.  Blanche shows up at Stella’s home, with plans to stay for a spell after burying their parents and losing their home.  Blanche is eloquent and a bit on the proud side, but with a sad uncertainty hidden underneath the slightly haughty exterior.  Through the course of the show, we learn what causes that sadness.

Kim Furness takes on the role of Blanche in Harrison Hilltop’s production.  And, she manages to convey that proud, but sad character quite skillfully.  And, she’s not over the top.  You never really hate Furness’s Blanche, but there’s something you don’t quite trust about her.  And yet, when it comes time to pity her, it’s more a sympathy than a pity, because Furness does include a touch of likeableness about Blanche.  I’m impressed, truly.  There are actors who are unable to convey various characters.  They bring pretty much the same approach to every character.  And, while they may be good, they’re not versatile and watching them grows tiresome if you see them in multiple shows.  The last time I saw Furness, she was appropriately over the top funny, making up her own form of sign language in Circa’s “Smoke on the Mountain”.  Here, she keeps the placement of her voice behind her teeth, adding to an heir about her and preventing her from being over the top.  Her Blanche could in no way be mistaken for her character in “Smoke on the Mountain”.  And that’s true talent.

Eddie Staver III takes on the role made famous by Marlon Brando, but does not channel the iconic actor.  Staver’s Stanley is not overly aggressive, but more realistic.  It’s that “average joe” approach that makes the abusive moments all the more shocking.  And real.

But it’s Stephanie Burrough who offers the most natural performances.  Her Stella is not at all affected, not at all calculated in emotion nor movement.  It’s, in a word, nice.  Harrison Hilltop’s space is so small, so intimate, that taking a “play to the balcony” approach would be laughable, annoying.  Burrough is so subtle, so gentle in her portrayal of Stella, that you almost want to invite her to sit down next to you and enjoy the show together, because this is not a character, this is Stella.

Jeff De Leon, in a word, is sincere.  Utterly sincere as Mitch, with an innocence about him which, eventually, is in contrast with Blanche.

The show, overall, is very well paced.  The actors, for the most part, know when to pause for impact or when to press on for a realness about the production.  At one point, the movement is enjoyable, with poker over here and girl talk over there.  There’s hardly an ounce of tension in the air.  And then suddenly, Stanley is slapping Stella.  The rush to the moment of abuse is so fast that you don’t have time to catch up with the change in emotion, making the slap all the more shocking.

The lighting, too, deserves a nod.  There is no stage lighting, really.  Light bulbs and lamps provide the lighting and, without the help of stage lights, the shadows.  There are places on stage that are masked in shadow, as are sometimes the faces of the actors.  It adds a mystery, a poverty sort of feel to the production.

The set is set up in such a natural way, as if we, the audience, could be in the home of Stella and Stanley.  With the exception of the placement of the porch, which is unnatural but appropriate, the layout of the inside of the house could be real.  The kitchen is masked by a semi-transparent curtain, which I loved.  The audience cannot see every part of the set and the actors sometimes stand behind that curtain.  Why should we be able to see every nook and cranny?  Is it that way in real life?  It’s perfect!  And, with the audience on the same level as the stage, there is not only an intimacy, but an added depth.  When an actor steps forward, there is a beauty, almost cinematographic asthetic to the scene, with a depth to it which is often gorgeous.

A Streetcar Named Desire runs just one weekend at Harrison Hilltop Theatre and seating is limited, so be sure to get in your request for tickets soon.  Showtimes are August 28 through August 30 at 7:30 p.m. and Sunday, August 31 at 2:30 p.m.  Tickets are $15.  The theater is located at 1601 Harrison Street in Davenport.

Posted: August 28th, 2008 under Theater.
Comments: none

There are moments almost every family experiences, moments that can stir up quite a laugh when remembered.  In Circa 21’s “Are We There Yet?”, it’s a string of those moments, one after another, with many of them set to song.

“Are We There Yet?” is not a linear show, in that there’s not a storyline with a beginning and an end with a conflict in the middle.  It’s actually a series of scenes, some with song, about the funny or sometimes touching parts of life.  It does follow a path, however, from birth to old age as the show moves along.  And, with a cast of only four, the actors in the show take on a new role with each scene.The positives — there’s a live band, which always earns bonus points in my book whenever I see a performance at Circa.  The humor is something we all can relate to as, while we may not have experienced every experience portrayed, we are at least familiar with them.  There’s a commonality that sets us on the inside of the inside jokes.  And, the performances, which are solid.  All four actors have quite good comic timing and delivery and the ability to change their character enough to take on another character, so we’re not confused.If pressed to pick a favorite actor, it would be Sandra D. Rivera, who plays it big, but never over the top.  Tristan Tapscott is close behind, due to his monologue as an elderly man with alzheimer’s.  It’s the most moving scene in the show, with the audience completely silent, with not so much as a cough during his performance.

Posted: August 15th, 2008 under Theater.
Comments: none

Staging the works of Stephen Sondheim is quite an undertaking for any production company.   Make it Assassins and you’ve got a subject matter than may not appeal to many people.  But, it should.Sondheim’s Assassins is populated with assassins throughout U.S. history, successful and attempted, from John Wilkes Booth to John Hinckley.   But, they’re not heroes in this show.  Instead, the concept centers around their belief that all you have to do is move your little finger and you can change the world.  But, after squeezing that trigger they find angry men don’t write the rules, and guns don’t right the wrongs.   That is, unless they can convince Lee Harvey Oswald to kill the president instead of himself.Not only can staging Sondheim be awkward, but casting it can be, as well.  Sondheim isn’t the easiest to sing.  So, it requires the right singers.  More than that, Sondheim’s shows aren’t for singers who can act.  There’s depth to his characters.  His shows are better populated by actors who can sing.  (Angela Lansbury, anyone?)  The Green Room Theatre’s production, fortunately, is well cast, almost perfectly, though not quite.

There’s a distinct split in the cast list.  There are those who immerse themselves completely in their character, becoming the assassin rather than simply acting the part.  And then there are those who are acting the part, with staged expressions and “wait for the next specific blocking” drops in character.  No one in the cast is bad, nor merely adequate, however.  It’s actually the difference between good and exceptional.

In the exceptional category is Lou Hare, who portrays John Wilkes Booth.  While others may put more stock in the Balladeer/Lee Harvey Oswald, I think Booth is the foundation of the show.  He’s the one who sets the long line of assassinations in motion.  And, in the show, he’s the one to push Oswald toward assassination rather than suicide.  He has to be solid.  While Hare may not be as solid as others in the singing department, missing a few notes here and there, he’s spot on with his acting.  Instead of playing Booth loud and commanding (as I expected), Hare takes a calmer, more realistic approach.  He’s solid in his viewpoint, if milder in his manner.  He is human, in that he has his beliefs, but Hare’s Booth also holds back a bit, perhaps conveying the mediocre actor Booth truly was, whether intended or not.

Opposite of Hare’s softer approach, Michael Callahan’s Gisueppe Zangara is severe, loud.  Not once did Callahan drop his accent.  Nor did he drop the pain in his stomach.  Nor any notes while singing.  Callahan is captivating, frightening.  He is Zangara, with his weird belief that assassinating a president will stop the pain in his stomach.  And that voice!  Powerful, solid and filling the entire room with its deep beauty.  Some of the humor of the character is lost in Callahan’s solid, pained performance, but the performance is so real, so exceptional, it hardly matters.  (I also could help but hope to see him portray Pirelli in Sweeney Todd someday, a role for which I think he is perfectly made.)

But the most real of any peformance in this production is Melissa Anderson Clark’s Squeaky Fromme.  She was so good, I couldn’t believe it.  I actually watched her closely to spot the moment she dropped character, the moment she’d drop Fromme’s conviction and motivation.  To my delight, she didn’t.  Her portrayal of Fromme is breathtaking and perhaps the best performance I’ve yet to see on a Quad Cities stage.  Ever.

Which is hard to say when it comes time to share my thoughts on Eddie Staver III’s performance as Sam Byck.  I’ve said before that he’s my favorite Quad Cities actor, and he remains so.  Unfortunately, I’ve never liked Byck’s role in Assassins.  I don’t like long monologues and Byck has really long monologues.  And, I hate the device used to justify them, Byck making tapes of his personal sermons to send to Leonard Bernstein and President Nixon.  While Byck may have done that in real life, it seems contrived on stage.  But, that’s the role, not the actor.  Staver does an excellent job believing what he’s saying.  I find his long monologues far more listenable than Mario Cantone’s (whose track I skip when listening to the New Broadway Cast Album).  Staver manages to bring Byck into his being, from inflection, to believing his own words, to his body language.  It’s another fine performance from Staver, even if the role is my least favorite.

At the start of The Green Room’s production, my least favorite on stage was Mark Ruebling’s portrayal of Charles Guiteau.  I thought, “Oh, boy.  Here’s the overactor who belongs in community theater with less lofty theatrical goals.”  I found him entirely annoying.  Yet, as the show progressed, he grew more endearing to me.  And, I realized, his portrayal is truly fitting of the Guiteau role.  The chipper air mixed with the self-promotion and nods to God were both believable and enjoyable because of Ruebling’s odd portrayal.  From liking him the least, I wanted to see more of Guiteau.  In fact, he’s one of two actors who consistently brought a smile to my face simply by his presence on stage.

The other would be Jackie Madunic as Sara Jane Moore.  I knew she’d be notable the moment I heard she was cast in the role.  She’s got the perfect ding-bat presence and smile (not in real life, but on stage as Moore).  She’s delightful!  She’s hilarious and over the top without being out of control.  Truly delightful!

David Turley has one of the smaller roles in John Hinckley, which is a shame.  If I were to meet him in person, I’d expect him to be quietly, internally neurotic, with it affecting his social interaction enough to make him seem shy and a bit “off”.  That is Hinckley.  His portrayal is so convincing, I’d have trouble believing this is not what he’s truly like in real life.  All of the paranoia and less vocal madness is there.  It’s a shame is wasn’t there on stage longer.

Also notable is Wendy Czekalski, who is part of the ensemble and handles a majority of the solo portion of “Something Just Broke”.  I was enamored by her.  She has a jovialness that’s enthralling and pulled my attention.  I’m anxious to see her again on a Quad Cities stage.

Ryan Westwood takes on the dual role of the Balladeer and Lee Harvey Oswald.   And here is where we split between the two groups of actors, those who are exceptional, fully believable and those who are acting.  Westwood falls into both categories.  As the Balladeer, he has an innocence about him as he tells the stories of these killers.  While there’s still a touch of that boyish sound he brought to John of John & Jen, it’s fitting as this is the character with which we, as the audience, can relate.  We certainly can’t relate to the assassins.  But, good theater requires a connection to someone.  And, Westwood’s thoroughly likeable Balladeer is that someone.  Here, he is notable.  Unfortunately, his Lee Harvey Oswald is not quite as good.  Westwood’s Oswald seems forced and his motivation is difficult to ascertain, as he seems to go through the motions of being Oswald, trying to portray the feelings, but not thoroughly committed to them.

Curtis Oelschlaeger seems to suffer the same symptoms.  An excellent singer, he is a pleasure to hear.  I could listen to him perform the entire show for me, he’s so good.  But, his Leon Czolgosz is not a fully developed character.  Oelschlaeger even seems a bit uncomfortable on stage, which is too bad.  He’s still good, mind you.  But, he would be another exceptional cast member were his acting abilities to match his vocal ones.

Jon Schrader is actually quite good as the Proprietor, but there’s a problem with the role itself, at least in this production.  Director Derek Bertelsen chose not to highlight the carnival game aspect of the show with anything physical on stage (other than the Proprietor handing out guns).  It’s a baffling choice, in my opinion, as the lyrics themselves play into the game theme.  Shoot a president and win a prize is the theme connecting the assassins, all who think they’ll win by killing the leader of the United State of America.  Without the physical aspects of this game, what’s the point of the Proprietor?  He seems merely a guy there to hand out guns, then be the focus of everyone’s anger when they don’t get a prize.  Why?  How is he necessary in this capacity?  Without the carnival game, it seems the roles of the Proprietor and the Balladeer could be combined, except that the Proprietor encourages the assassins to play by assassinating, while the Balladeer is an observer, a storyteller who is not condoning the assassins’ actions.  Even though I know the Proprietor is the man manning the Shoot and Win game, watching this production, I still found his inclusion confusing.  This, again, is not the fault of Schrader, who does a fine job playing the part.

It’s rare that the musicians stand out to me (unless they’re really bad), but, in the case of The Green Room, they often do, particularly Danny White.  He has tremendous musicality at the piano.  Never does he merely play the notes before him.  Consistently, he interprets them.  He adds his expression to them and they take on a role of their own.  I was captivated during each interlude, during each piece of accompaniment that did not accompany lyrics, if only for a few bars.  White brings the music to life, so that it is just as thrilling, just as moving and just as enjoyable as watching an actor expertly portray a role.

It is to the Quad Cities benefit that attendance has been so good, the show is extended for another weekend.  I wholeheartedly reccomend making your reservations (now, since it is selling out) so as not to miss this, one of the finest productions the Quad Cities has to offer.

Posted: August 8th, 2008 under Theater.
Comments: none

It’s a familiar story, being an American classic, but that doesn’t mean Little Women: The Musical lacks a freshness making it worth watching.

The story centers aroung the March sisters — Meg, Beth, Jo and Amy — the little women of the title.  Vowing to always stay together, the storyline follows their growth into adulthood, which ultimately separates them.

Specifically, Little Women centers around Jo, a headstrong, independent aspiting writer.   And, with her at the center, any production requires a solid actress to take the lead and set the tone for the show.  Thankfully, Erin O’Shea walked into the Quad City Music Guild’s auditions for Little Women: The Musical and landed the role of Jo.  While it took a scene or two for O’Shea to warm up to the role, once she was there, she was there!  She is fully committed to Jo, and well suited to portray her.  O’Shea’s Jo is utterly believable and thoroughly enjoyable to watch, as she throws her entire being into the character.  O’Shea does not hold back on the physical demands of the role, nor on the notes.  O’Shea is an actress who truly can sing.  Her Jo, alone, makes Music Guild’s production worth seeing.

Fortunately, she’s not the only reason this show is worth the price of a ticket.  Almost every character is perfectly cast, particularly the March women.  Laurel Williams’ Meg is perfectly a bit timid, with a slight awkward shyness.  Sarah Walker’s Beth is fluid, natural, arguably the most believable performance of the bunch.  And Abbey Donohoe’s Amy is delightfully haughty and naughty with an energy that grabs your attention.  Also among the March women, Marmee, portrayed by Dolores Sierra, who gives the character a gentle strength, making her the ideal mother we all wanted.

Not quite as solid, but still good, are Pami Triebel and J. Adam Lounsberry.  Triebel’s Aunt March is a bit affected.  While I prefer acting in which you can’t tell they’re acting, Triebel’s protrayal actually works, in that her, again, affected approach adding a sense of eccentricity to Aunt March.  Lounsberry’s accent is solid, unwaivering (except when he sings).  His portayal of Professor Bhaer, while good, lacks a certain chemistry.  When he professes his feelings for Jo, it’s a surprise, not in that it’s an unexpected twist, but in that there was no feeling beforehand to express a trueness to his love.  And no chemistry in the moment.

Danny White, however, seems entirely miscast as Laurie.  Before I proceed, let me be clear.  White has tremendous talent.  The higher register of his singing is crystal, beautiful.  He can sing.  And, he can act, though I would categorize him as a singer who acts.  There’s nothing wrong with is talent, other than that it doesn’t fit the role of Laurie, in my opinion.  While it would help a great deal if he didn’t rush through his lines, but slowed down his delivery, concentrating on diction, I still wouldn’t cast him as Laurie.  He’s believable as a best friend, bot not at all a love interest, perhaps because he doesn’t seem fully committed to the love in the relationship.  But, I want to be careful here.  I am not saying White should stay off the stage.  On the contrary, while watching him on stage I ran through a good number of roles I would love to see him portray.

Also worth mentioning is Kathy Lafrenz as The Hag.  It’s a small role, but Lafrenze does not approach it as a small actor.  She dives wholeheartedly into The Hag, making me wish there were more of her on stage.  In fact, every moment she was on stage she was The Hag, not dropping the character for a second, even when exiting in the dimming lights.

And, I must give a nod to Phyllis Lioen’s Mrs. Kirk.  Another small role, but Lioen is so delightful, natural in it.  I was drawn to her, watching her in each moment, even when the focus was meant to be elsewhere.

One of the biggest surprises to me is the set.  This is community theater, after all.  And I’ve seen a good number of productions at QCMG that remind me it’s community theater.  But, the set of Little Women helps the show rise above it.  The performances too, yes, but the set also makes a tremendous difference.  It moves from a simple, unnotable boarding room to a grand living room of the March home, which required a long look to take it all in.  And the scrim for the attic space!  It’s so well painted, I would think it a professional part of the set!

The costumes, too, add to the trueness of the production.  Aunt March first appears in a dress so grand and so gaudy.  There are several hand-me-down dresses, each of which, appropriately, does not quite fit.  I assume it was intentional.  If an accident, then certainly a lucky one.  My favorite costume, however, is a brown dress worn by Beth.  It’s perfectly fitted and looks beyond costume quality.  It’s very realistic and could walk off the set and into the real world.  Well, if this were the 19th Century.  Jo also wears a dress of note, a brown, striped piece worn in the Second Act.

The show itself suffers the typicalness of a musical.  It’s high-spirited and delightfully varied in the First Act, but plods a bit through the middle of the Second.  I still don’t understand why so many musicals end up with several, similarly melancholy songs in a row in the Second Act, prefering to keep variety in the First.  Still, it’s not enough to turn one away from seeing QCMG’s Little Women.  Despite not being a tried and true standard (registered as a “not again” in my mind), Little Women should fill the seats.  I’ve seen too many QCMG productions that lacked a heart, a soul and, arguably, should’ve been skipped, but packed the house.  Little Women is one of the rare QCMG gems that shouldn’t be skipped by any means.

Little Women: The Musical runs July 17, 18 and 19 at 7:30 p.m. and July 20 at 2:00 p.m. at Prospect Park Auditorium in Moline.  Tickets are $15 for adults and $9 for children and can be reserved by calling the box office at (309) 762-6610.

Posted: July 17th, 2008 under Theater.
Comments: none

To be honest, I didn’t look forward to seeing Riverbend’s current show, a play, not a musical.  But, Kimberly Akimbo took me complete by surprise as a truly delightful production.

Kimberly Akimbo centers around Kimberly, a soon to be sixteen year old girl with that disease that ages your body four-and-a-half years for every year of your life.  And, while that’s an interesting subject, it’s not the focus of the show.
Instead, the story follows life with her dysfunctional family.

The show is billed as a dark comedy.  It’s subject matter lends itself to a darker, uncomfortable humor.  However, almost the entire cast performs their roles with a bit of a smile on their faces, knowing the show is funny.  That makes it less dark, which isn’t a bad thing, in my opinion.  It lightens things up, making the dark comedy easier to take in as a comedy.  It’s been a while since I laughed so much during a live stage performance.

What’s key to the success of any production of Kimberly Akimbo is the actress playing Kimberly.  You have to cast an older woman to play a teenage girl.  It would be easy to overact and not be believable, which would ruin the show.  Fortunately, Peggy Freeman is Kimberly in RTC’s production and she’s perfect.  Not only is her vocal inflection and tone spot on for a teenager, but her body language is, too.  She’s absolutely believable as a 15 year old girl.  And, she’s darling, to boot.  You really like her Kimberly, which helps to invest in the show, wanting to know what’s in store for her.

While Freeman is the focus of the production, it’s Denise Yoder who steals the show, in my opinion.  Never have I seen Yoder so free and comfortable in a role.  She doesn’t hold back in this performance as Debra, Kimberly’s highly dysfunctional aunt.  Yoder seems to be thoroughly enjoying the role, which makes it easy to enjoy it along with her.  This is, hands down, the best performance I’ve ever seen out of Yoder.  Bravo.

While Yoder stands out, that’s not to say the rest of the cast is short on talent.  On the contrary, the production is perfectly cast, with not a weak performance in the bunch.  Dustin Oliver has the right youthfulness and “outcastness” about him, making him oh so lovable.  Jaci Entwistle’s pregnant, always injured Pattie is full of humor, garnering many a laugh from the audience.  But, Aaron Sullivan’s Buddy is perhaps the most developed character on stage.  Sullivan fully grasps the internal conflict of someone who wants to escape his not as expected life by drowning himself in alcohol and a father who wants to do right by his daughter.

Kimberly Akimbo is staged at the Village Theatre in the Village of East Davenport.  And, while there is a stage, the cast is often not on it.  A couple of the sets are on the floor, in front of the stage and at the feet of the audience.  It’s ideal for quick scene changes.  And, the director, Allison Collins-Elfline made a smart choice in using the room.  Side doors lead the basement of the house or the fridge or another part of the library.  This production makes excellent and impressive use of the space in which it is staged.

I can’t recommend Kimberly Akimbo to you enough.  It’s truly delightful and thoroughly enjoyable.  It’s a shame if this weekend doesn’t sell out.  Go see this show!

I must warn you, though.  There is a lot of strong language, so this isn’t one to take the kiddies to see.  Adults only.

Kimberly Akimbo runs tonight and tomorrow night at 8 p.m. at the Village Theatre in the Village of East Davenport.

Posted: June 26th, 2008 under Theater.
Comments: none

The show begins with George and Helene packing up their youngest son Keith and sending him off to college.  The front door closes and, phew, finally, after too many years, they have the house to themselves.  They can run around naked, if they want to.  They no longer have three sons in the home to invade their privacy and demand their attention.

That is, until they decide to get cozy on the floor in front of the fireplace.  As they snuggle, their son Michael sneaks in through the back door and up the stairs to his room.  It doesn’t take long for their other son, Elliott, to follow.  Oh, and then there’s the college freshman Keith just met the day before, Janie, who moves in to use his room, which he promised would be okay.

The laughs are centered around the frustrations of finally being free in your own home, but having it invaded again by the sons you finally got out of the nest.  Despite being a comedy, it’s actually short on laughs (until the first half of the second act), but when the laughs come, they’re good ones.

The show is okay, not great.  What actually makes it worth seeing is the cast.  There’s usually a few weaker cast members in Circa’s shows, but not this one.  Every actor is solid, funny and enjoyable.  There are no weakest links here, goodbye.

Brad Hauskins, a Circa regular, plays the father.  While I enjoy his usually dry, sarcastic humor, this performance is a lighter style of comedy and quite good.

Vrenda Lee, fresh off of Smoke on the Mountain, once again plays the play’s mother.  This time, she’s able to stand out, with such humor carried through her non-verbals.  And such great 80’s style hair!

Tristan Layne Tapscott is Keith.  Tapscott was hilarious in Buddy: The Buddy Holly Story and is just as good here.

Michael Butler, who is usually serving you your drinks for dinner as a Bootlegger, really gets to let his brand of humor free in a role well-suited for his style.

Eddie Staver III, who I am not ashamed to say, once again, is my favorite Quad Cities actor, offers a surprisingly slimey portrayal of Elliott, the womanizing son.  It’s a far cry from his portrayals of classic characters with the Prenzie Players, but still impressive.

And then there’s Ashley Catherine Schmitt, the bubbly, gum-chewing, sky-high bangs freshman Janie.  Schmitt has such energy and sparkle, you can’t help but like her, which adds to the laughs she brings to the show.

Also worth mentioning, the set and the costumes.  When we first sat down, I did not like the set, wondering who picked the atrocious style.  Then, when Hauskins and Lee walked on stage in their 80’s style clothing, it clicked and I found the set fantastic.  It’s perfect and, with the spot on costumes, leaves no doubt what decade this show takes place in.

Empty Nest runs through July 19th at Circa 21 Dinner Playhouse in Rock Island.

Posted: June 12th, 2008 under Theater.
Comments: none

I am a sucker for animated features and Jack Black, so “Kung Fu Panda” has me in movie viewing overload, hoping two positives don’t make a negative.

Black is the voice of Po, a panda bear working in a noodle restaurant, who may be the prophesied chosen one to protect the Valley of Peace.  It helps that Po is a Kung Fu fanatic.  It doesn’t help that he’s also the laziest animal in all of China.

The cast is quite impressive, actually, with actors you might not expect behind colorfully drawn characters.  Well, except for Jackie Chan, maybe.  But, there’s also Dustin Hoffman, Lucy Liu and Angelina Jolie.

Yes, it’s another tale of an unlikely hero.  And, yes, it’s another lesson in being yourself is the best.  But, it’s so much fun!  For both the kiddies and the adults.

And, it’s simple.  While it has action, humor and heart, it’s not a whirling dirvish of c-g created explosions and chases that leaves your heart pounding with the stress of the excitment.  It’s enjoyable entertainment at a comfortable, but satisfying pace.

It’s hard to go wrong with animated features these days.  “Kung Fu Panda” is worth a family trip to the theater.  It’s one you won’t mind watching along with your children.

And then there’s You Don’t Mess with the Zohan with Adam Sandler as an Israeli secret agent who fakes his own death in order to move to New York to become a hairstylist.  Skip it at the theater.  It’s a sign Judd Apatow isn’t a sure bet.  But, it’s funny enough to make it worth renting.

Posted: June 5th, 2008 under Film.
Comments: none