College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students new years eve

Theater Beat: ‘Our Town' an unconvincing production

Play doesn't live up to its potential

Staff Writer

Published: Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Updated: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 20:11

  • Tweet

photo: Olivia Lewis | UCD Advocate

This has got to be the sparsest restaurant of all time.

The lesson Our Town really teaches is that if you're using an invisible door, you should always remember where it's located.

The play, set in 1901, is legendary for its lack of scenery, according to the narrating Stage Manager, portrayed by Michael Genovese. Unfortunately, in the UC Denver version, the inconsistencies with invisible scenery were just one part of a good play that never quite reached greatness.

Actor Paul Jimenez, who played George Gibbs, continuously walked into the invisible butternut tree, opened a random door in what was meant to be the Gibbs' garden, and entered a room 10 feet in front of where the "door" was a few minutes before.

Actor Jordan Crabb, who portrayed milkman Howie Newsome, did a little better leading his fake cow, but also walked the invisible cow directly into invisible houses and the butternut tree.

The women of the play redeemed these mistakes. Minor character Professor Willard, played by Quinn Jeannerett, was probably the best actor in the play. Jeannerett perfectly portrayed the professor as an abrasive, obnoxious nerd. Her loud performance stood out among the main characters as a memorable, fantastic job.

Kate Herrel as Mrs. Gibbs and Leah Watson as Mrs. Webb made their invisible kitchens truly believable while adding dignity to the three-meal-a-day housewife characters they portrayed.

Act I dragged its feet, but it introduced the characters as needed and gave some background. While no characters truly shined in Act I, Herrell potrayed Mrs. Gibbs as a very convincing housewife and delivered her lines neatly. She was also the only character whose facial expressions worked in sync with the script.

Jimenez garnered many laughs during Act II's soda fountain scene, delivering awkwardly believable lines like, "Well, I guess this is a pretty important talk we've been having…" when asking Emily, played by Shannon Gambill, to be his girlfriend.

Gambill delivered some convincing lines also, including the innocent, "Mama, were you pretty?" when asking her mother about young love.

Unfortunately, Gambill stumbled through the wedding scene in Act II, appearing to forget a line or two when talking to Mr. Webb, portrayed by Shawn McClellan.

The wedding scene had the potential to be great but fell flat with unconvincing acting. The actors delivered no romance whatsoever. The on-stage kiss between Jimenez and Gambill was obviously forced to the point of glaring awkwardness.

The costuming was a bit confusing, as Mrs. Gibbs wore an old-fashioned dress and Mrs. Webb wore jeans, which certainly were not in style in 1901. Perhaps this is a statement on womanhood and the timeless nature of the play, or perhaps there just wasn't a huge budget for costumes.

The costuming muddled the Americana feel of the play, especially in later acts when some actors were dressed in 1950's varsity jackets, some wore turn-of-the-century farmer overalls and some looked like they just came from class.

The sound effects in the play were surprisingly effective. Disembodied doorbells, birds chirping, and train whistles gave the nearly empty stage a sense of having a set. A full on-stage choir sounded incredible, singing hymns that filled the theatre like a church, which added much needed emotion to the funeral scene in Act III.

While the amateur mistakes of stumbling into invisible doors and trees plagued the play, director Terry Dodd successfully achieved romance and a sweet, small town vibe. The acting wasn't terrible, but it wasn't memorable either. The emotive funeral ending could have induced tears, but never quite got there. Our Town has the potential to be great, but at UCD, it only scraped by as decent.

 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

22 comments

Anonymous
Fri Nov 19 2010 12:40
I'm pretty sure that the "sparsest restaurant" thing was for the purposes of the joke (just look at her other articles, like today's about expensive shoes-the captions for her articles' images are never true statements; she recognizes that there are two kitchens in her article.
Anonymous
Wed Nov 17 2010 21:19
Someone commented:"Its Interesting to note that the reviewer is much more capable of dishing out criticism as opposed to receiving it." Another said, "If the reviewer was offended by the criticism of her review then it serves as a good lesson for all who hang their work out for public scrutiny be it actor, writer, playwright or artist..."

While the commenters assume that the writer is "thin skinned" or offended, notice how none of these comments come from the writer herself. No one here can assume anything, especially since the Advocate this week did not address the issue and Ms. McNamee has not spoken publicly about it.

No one in this forum knows what the writer's reaction to the comments and letters was, as obviously no one here knows her personally. However, seeing as there were so many personal and incredibly insensitive attacks, Ms. McNamee probably has more of a right to be hurt than any of the theater students. There were only one or two actual writing critiques here, while the rest were personal attacks on an opinion. Most of these comments come across as immature, rude and more ignorant than they accuse the writer of being.

That being said, this article has nothing personal about actors besides the part they played and how they played it, which is expected of a play review. If you can find a "personal attack" on an actor in the review, please, point it out. These critiques above express no anger or cruelty the way almost all of these comments do. There is nothing legitimately wrong with this review, except that you all appear to disagree with opinions expressed here. So, you can attempt to tear apart the writing the way Ms. McNamee supposedly tore apart the acting here, but this is a fairly solid piece of writing.... much more so than the critiques in the comments.

To all those bashing the "ignorance" and lack of theater knowledge that the writer allegedly displays, at least note that this review is an entirely unbiased opinion. While a theater background may help, you got the reaction of a person who went into the performance with no prior knowledge. Even if the results weren't the expected reaction, it was entirely unbiased, which none of you can contest.

Anonymous
Wed Nov 17 2010 20:11
Its Interesting to note that the reviewer is much more capable of dishing out criticism as opposed to receiving it. It seems that the mass response to Ms. McNamee's article is a result of the fact that it is lacking of any real substance. Number one, in an effort to put the imaginary butternut tree to rest. She makes basic mistakes about the show as outlined in a letter sent to the editor of the Advocate and posted on this website. The most glaring of which would be her repeated mentioning of the imaginary butternut tree, which was placed in the audience making it impossible for the actors to walk through it, others include a mis-caption, stating that some scenes took place in a restaurant...a place setting that never occurred to the show. And while she does mention the acting, her descriptors are so vague and generic that its barely worth noting some of which include: "Delivered Lines neatly", "Delivered convincing lines" "Facial expressions worked in sync with the script", "Romance was forced". Remarks like these which tatter the article, and lack any real critique whether it be positive or negative. Its this type of shallow and mistake ridden writing thats makes me question whether Ms. McNamee paid enough attention to actual give a legitimate review of the show.

So, while it is certainly the reviewers right to like or dislike a play, as a consistent reader of the advocate, I feel like blatant errors and vapid reporting are not the type of "elementary" mistakes I think belong in a article where the author is expected to come from a place of knowledge.

p.s. While I certainly agree that the costumes may not have been effective, it seemed to me that the costuming was attempting to make a point by having a wide variety of decades on stage...so yes, its very astute of you to realize that jeans were not in style of 1901, however the obvious mix of leather jackets, turn of the century attire, varsity jackets and the like seemed to be a blatant attempt at symbolism on behalf of the design team...not historical inaccuracies
: )

Anonymous
Wed Nov 17 2010 19:52
The term flaming is an interesting choice of words given some of the remarks posted here. If the reviewer was offended by the criticism of her review then it serves as a good lesson for all who hang their work out for public scrutiny be it actor, writer, playwright or artist. The sting of negative criticism can be painful especially if it seems carelessly and personally pointed of which some of the statements here are and as well, some of Ms. McNamee review was. I hope McNamee has learned the importance tone in her writing and the impact it can have on interpretation. If as you say she was displaying her off beat and dry sense of humor then I say that this was the wrong place to do
so, especially if she was soft skinned about negative reaction. On the other hand If the cast and crew were deeply offended by this review then public performance may not be the best place for them.
Anonymous
Tue Nov 16 2010 20:47
I think that the reviewer's highlighting of the actors' unconvincing interactions with their invisible set pieces raises the type of perspective that you rarely see in theater reviews; Ms. McNamee probably is not a regular drama reviewer/writer. You'll see that she has written several satire pieces for the Advocate most recently, and her dry humor comes through here as well.

Clearly, she is the type of audience member who is bothered enough by the mistakes that she mentions such that it completely detracted from the play for her, and she has a point: mistakes like missing marks for set pieces, invisible or not, are absolutely elementary and you definitely do not see that kind of blunder in productions at, for example, my own university.

That all being said, She doesn't only mention the set design/interaction as it is! She very specifically discusses the acting, sound production, and singing. I don't understand why commenters have chosen to put it off like she didn't notice anything besides collisions with invisible trees when it's very easy to see that she did not (made possible by scrolling up and re-reading the review, especially the parts after the first paragraph, which you skipped the first time).

Needlessly flaming Ms. McNamee is useless; her review is honest, however curt, and she expresses exactly what she thought of the show and its actors. Sometimes (I'd like to say often), the best criticism comes from more outside than you see more often (i.e. friends of actors, their parents and fellow cast members, etc). You tend to see superfluous self-love in the realm of theater, song and dance and this review is perhaps a much-needed hand-raise.

And no, jeans certainly were not the style in 1901.

Anonymous
Tue Nov 16 2010 18:49
K, so criticize the review, not the reviewer (since everyone's already done that). Btw, saying the review "sucked" is a pretty "pathetic" review in and of itself.
Anonymous
Tue Nov 16 2010 16:40
"Theatre is for fags", "the play was boring", "Don't mud-sling the reviewer", Don't blame the advocate" Pathetic! I'm the reader and I thought the review sucked. Whats wrong can't take a little objective reader criticism....
Anonymous
Mon Nov 15 2010 02:33
Theatre is for FAGS
Anonymous
Mon Nov 15 2010 02:27
BORING!! The play was boring. The actors were boring. The invisible scenery was invisible and boring. The article was boring. These comments are boring. What is this? Boringville. Gosh. I'm so bored. Why are you all so boring?
Anonymous
Mon Nov 15 2010 01:15
I'm astonished that so many detractors here are talking about a lack of integrity and "ignorance" while simultaneously mudslinging Ms. McNamee and shaking their fist at a student paper for an objectively presented review. She's the reviewer, and she didn't like the play-- get over it and grow up. If a dissenting opinion causes you that enough grief to launch such attacks, you might want to avoid reading newspapers altogether.
Anonymous
Sun Nov 14 2010 17:49
Stop blaming the Advocate newspaper for one writers opinion. Talk about ignorance....
Robert K. Herrell
Sat Nov 13 2010 20:26
Ignorance can be cured with education. Stupidity can't. Let us hope the critic is only ignorant.
Anonymous
Sat Nov 13 2010 19:22
Saw the show last night and was very moved by the last act.

"Our claim, our hope, our despair are in the mind – not in things, not in 'scenery.''
Thorton Wilder on Our Town

Anonymous
Sat Nov 13 2010 19:00
So...what is the reviewer actually reviewing? The placement of imaginary objects....or a show, because it definitely seems to be about imaginary objects :/

And I think Wilder's point was to NOT limit the actors by scenery its position in time etc, not to limit them. If he was super concerned about where all these things should be, he would have just made them a part of the scenery. Overall I had similar problems with the costumes, but felt that the show in general was rather good. But what do I know, I'm not a college reviewer or anything :-p

Bill Hust
Sat Nov 13 2010 14:07
Finally someone who sees this play for what it is! I agree with all your detractions but I think you should have mentioned the INCREDIBLE actor who played Simon Stimson. His performance blew me. Oh and maybe you should clarify something for me. When I saw the play I thought the point of not having scenery was so the actors were limited by its position in time and space. Could you explain to me, the cast, Thornton Wilder and the world why this is wrong?
Anonymous
Sat Nov 13 2010 11:30
I'm wondering if the Advocate ever actually advocates for anything...
Anonymous
Sat Nov 13 2010 11:02
I saw it last night, and was curious to see what others had said about it. I loved it, acting, costumes and all. I think the reviewer totally missed the mark on this one...
Justice
Sat Nov 13 2010 03:43
"An unconvincing production"? After every show, there are always many audiences who step out of the theater and compliment about how "enjoyable and wonderful" the show was. Sounds like a very "convincing production" to me.
I agree with Rael Thompson about the fact that, if Kait McNamee didn't focus on the imaginary scenery, she would see the great performance in the actors and actresses. The actors and actresses did a lovely and wonderful job. There were real tears during the last act as well. Paul Jimenez wasn't the only one who shed tears, but Kate Herrel did too.
The costumes were the way the were for a reason just like the scenery was imaginary so that the audience can focus more on the actors.
By the way, the photo that Kait McNamee has for this article and was taken by Olivia Lewis has such a funny comment at the bottom. It shows a lot about how much the writer paid attention to the play. The set in the photo was not a restaurant but actually two separate and different kitchens.
As a result, I am disappointed in UCD Advocate... again.
Lucy Valdez
Fri Nov 12 2010 19:27
The Advocate yet again fails to support The Arts at UCD and continues to sound more and more like a recycled, poorly produced, high school publication. Time for the reviewer to find a new work study...Hmm maybe the costume shop since she's such an expert.
Anonymous
Fri Nov 12 2010 19:25
Although I will agree, Act 1 was a bit slow and the ending could have been more powerful...aside from that, I thought the actors were much more stated than you give credit for here.






log out