Indian Summer

Gregory S. Moss is indeed a talented playwright.  In his latest installment at Playwrights Horizons we are treated to a summer romance between two innocent high school kids.  Of course that couldn't be all there is to it - so he threw in a jealous not-so-smart 27 year old boyfriend and a sad widowed grandfather who ultimately offs himself.  The romance was fine.  The 27year old boyfriend was entertaining.  The grandfather was a disturbing and incongruous character with a creepy effect.   Maybe this was what Mr. Moss was going for.  I'm not sure.

What I do know is that the play is slow.  Very slow.  Aside from creepy grandpa, there isn't much you can't see coming.  The set is simple and appropriate.  A pile of sand on the stage.  How could it get easier.  No nails.  No screws.  (sets, Dane Lafferty).  And well lit was this stage and sky behind.  Colorful sunsets and sunrises abound (lighting, Eric Southern).  The extremely talented young actor, Owen Campbell (Daniel), is an adorable, scrawny, smart young man seemingly dumped at a Rhode Island beach for the summer at his grandfather's by his mother.  Elise Kibler (Izzy) is a sassy, pretty, local kid who falls for Daniel all the while being a big-girl with a bullying, dopey, 27 year old boyfriend Jeremy (the sexy, hunky Joe Tippett).  Things amusingly unfold as you might imagine.  Grandpa (Jonathan Hadary) is the anomaly to the trio and the overall play in general.  His unsettling character brought to mind Paula Vogel's uncomfortable How I Learned to Drive.

As a season ending show, it wasn't a zinger, wasn't a thriller, and wasn't memorable.  It was, perhaps, like a summer read of the latest by Mary Higgins Clark on the beach.  Mindless. Easy. Forgettable.

Spamalot

OK, if you're a Monty Python Fan - that goes a long way to enjoying Spamalot. However, as I've seen before, once a play gets "old", you are on the 16th cast change, the director is long gone, the producers are no where to be found and the stage manager is running the show - this is what you get. Garbage-a-lot!

My friend commented during the show - "This won the Tony? I guess it was not up against much competition in 2005!". (for the record it was up against Spelling Bee, Light in the Piazza, and Dirty Rotten Scoundrels). I see the attempt at humor - it's clever in concept, yes. Act II much more so than Act I, for sure. Plenty of marginally funny and stale one-liners abound. The plot is thin, to say the least. Even the "Python-esque" fun and frolicking seems muted and lethargic.

Well - let's look back at the point of this show - - Put on a low budget looking (they spent $11m, by the way) show that perpetuates and extends the cultural phenomenon of Monty Python: The Holy Grail. Entice a new theater audience, perhaps? Have these people gone on to be inspired by the performance and see other deeper shows? (there couldn't be any less deeper shows). I think not.

Lest not we mention the current day annoying, dumb, and culture-less tourists that packed the theater. The requisite gay jokes got many-a-laugh. Of course they would. The mostly white, homophobic, middle American, suburban seat-fillers who paid upwards of $200 for a mezzanine ticket (see, i told you they were stupid) seemed more than willing to accept what they saw as "good theater". Again, I think not.

Let's just say that there are some good "theater" jokes in the book - (of course there would be, it's a Broadway musical!) - but not a one of the idiots that packed the theater laughed at the Wicked parody, the West Side Story music, or the Company spoof. At least the parents (not the kids) got the Fiddler joke - i mean it was a whole scene - how could they miss it?! And then there were all the references to popular culture. They had a big long reference to Senator Craig and the bathroom stall scandal. I think it took a full 5 minutes for the morons (or is that Mormons?) in the audience to get it!! And at that, they didn't like it much. ("He's not gay, you know").

I'm not a Monty Python fan - but let's just say I was less than pleased with what i found both on stage and in the audience at the Shubert Theater. I was right to not see this in 2005 and wrong to see it now.

Awake and Sing!

You may find yourself wishing you were able to do either of the two key title words during the show! Seems strangely appropriate that this would be a Lincoln Center Theater production. Not sure if this one would be able to stand on its own as an independent production.

Unfortunately the cast was a dichotomy - either very talented - Zoe Wanamaker (the mother) or a series of "Broadway debuts". And believe me, you could see the difference. While it was nice to see Lauren Ambrose (Six Feet Under) on stage I didn't get that same "she's deep" feeling as I get when seeing her on "screen". The brother (Pablo Schreiber) seemed slightly over-acted (perhaps that had something to do with the dated and stale plot). It was a treat to see Ben Gazzara - but I was not sure if his speech impediment was acting or the result of a recent stroke. Sad, but true.

Act I seemed to crawl. Act II picked up a bit - and I must say that I truly loved the use of the disappearing walls in the apartment to symbolize the "freeing" of the characters from their "emotional prisons" as time passed in the play. I think that WAS the best element of the show for me. The show progresses to the "obvious" end (most seemed to know where Grandpa was going and what he was going to do). I just didn't think the play had the necessary ingredients to keep an audience interested over 2 hours and 30 minutes.

One other note - it seems that production had to have a special white sheet of paper inserted into the Playbill (like those "Is your Cell Phone off?" pages) to tell you that there would be an additional 2 minute pause between two scenes (in addition to the TWO intermissions!). Apparently, people have been getting up and leaving thinking the show was over at the wrong time. I wonder why?!

Or perhaps they simply took the opportunity to flee under cover of darkness!