Tribe Theater and The centerRing
December 3, 2005; closes December 17, 2005
Stuttering, run-on dialogue of Mametspeak isn’t easy, but it’s that poetic naturalism that’s essential to the construction of his storytelling. You gotta nail timing and inflection in order to drill down to character subtext — the point of the polarizing story — but less-than-effective direction kept this performance from an emotional hammering.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Focusing on the Portland, Oregon theatre scene in precisely 50-word increments. followspot@hotmail.com
4 comments:
Wow - the Oregonian had a much different opinion.
So did the Mercury and the Portland Tribune. So its 4 to 1 - sorry followspot!
Here to backup followspot. Sadly, I didn't read any of those other reviews, but saw the piece myself and, well, that director doesn't understand Mamet. Or, to be fair, failed to manage to communicate his understanding to the audience through good direction. Never believed for a minute that Teuful was married, and could never have suspected him of making sexual advances on the girl. Lighting was inappropriate and distracting. Rhythm and motivation were sporadic. An attempt to make both characters sympathetic made neither of them believable. I agree that they are both victims, but they are also both victimizers, and that is completely missed. Sabra Choi was very honest and focused.
Michael and whomever else,
First of all, I apoligize for misspelling your name. It was spelled thus in the Portland Tribune article as posted on the Vertigo website, and I don't know how I missed the correct spelling in a million other places. It was unintentional negligence, and I apoligize.
Now, as for "who said you were making sexual advances on the girl," well, she does. Carol, that is. Now, it may be true that, in your production, your character is completely blameless, that he never crossed any boundaries of sexual appropriateness. This, in itself, strikes me as false to Mamet's intentions, but each production in entitled to it's own interpretation, sure. But it still has to be supported by the dialogue, and the dialogue implies that you ARE a flirt, and somewhat uncautious and inappropriate in your dealings with female students. The dialogue tell us this, but we never see it.
Instead, we see a professor genuinely concerned for his student, and a student who seems to be in love with her professor, and lash out at him purely out of jealousy (this I mainly conclude from choices such as Choi's tearful "don't call your wife baby," etc). But your character admits to the charge of negligence, admits that he may have been inappropriate with female students, admits that he may need to change. But the character we see is, as I said, guiltless, and there is no indication of the monster within that attacks a student with unrestrained violence at the end.
As for your acting, and believing you were married, etc, I have no doubt you followed the direction you were given, and I have no basis on which to judge your skill other than this production. I think you were asked to make some difficult choices, many challenging and abrupt changes and outbursts, etc. I obviously was not a fan of the production, mainly because I felt these choices to be unsupported by the text, but had no intention of attacking you as an actor or a person. Please accept my apology if my criticism caused you to feel slandered.
-miles
Post a Comment