- A Trilogy of Grand Guignol plays: The Lighthouse Keepers, by Paul Autier and Paul Cloquemin, Tics, by Rene Berton, and The Final Kiss, by Maurice Level
- All translated by Richard Hand
- Directed by Lucas Maloney
- Produced by the Molotov Theatre Group at the Playbill Café
- Reviewed by Tim Treanor
So where do you go if you want to see the depravity of man laid out in the raw, with bloody, homicidal doings supplemented by tawdry sexual escapades? Well, there’s the U. S. Congress, of course. But if you wanted to see it done in theatrical form, with fewer windy speeches, you might be inclined to wander down to the Playbill Café and see Washington’s newest professional troupe, the Molotov Theatre Group, stage some plays straight from the Grand Guignol.
Grand Guignol – the Parisian blood-and-sex theater, at one time (but no longer) performed with puppets – seems a counterintuitive choice in a town as stuffy and full of itself as Washington is, but once you accept the premises it can be a good time. It is not great art, or art at all. It is the theatrical equivalent of grade-B horror movies…the kind you watched at low volume when you were a kid and thought your parents were asleep.
Perhaps in recognition, Molotov Theatre engages Anne Nottage as Belladonna, a sort of Elvira-Mistress-of-the-Dark figure who connects the three stories with affably cheesy dialogue delivered in a very lovely bustier and fishnet stockings. Regrettably, the company itself is still finding its sea legs, and at this point does not deliver the gooey deliciousness typical of Grand Guignol, or even of the variety promised by Elvira.
Of the three Molotov Theatre offerings, the best is clearly Tics (subtitled Doing the Deed), a broad sex farce about misdeeds in an unnamed French town in which ViagraTM must have seeped into the drinking supply. Two couples – one played by Robert Rector and Tara Garwood and the other by William Aitken and Leslie Sarah Cohen – go after each other with carnivorous abandon, and a massive, spectacularly ugly maid named Venus (played by Eric Humphries, last seen as a fierce midfielder and a large dog in Keegan’s Alone It Stands) is apparently the town’s resident “it” girl. Unfortunately, all of the male characters are afflicted with pronounced tics which come over them after the act of love. Accordingly, their amorous subterfuges are all laid before us, with good comic effect.
The other two playlets are not as successful. The Lighthouse Keepers, a two-actor play in which Aitken and Rector play father and son, is simply not substantial enough to be satisfying. It is loaded down with high-context dialogue, in which the characters say things which should be obvious to each other in order to explain to the audience how isolated the lighthouse is from the village, how high up in the air it is, and so on. Old pro Aitken handles this difficult stuff well enough, but Rector has trouble making it believable. Once the crisis hits, things move along briskly but the resolution – well, there is no resolution. It just ends.
The closing piece, The Final Kiss, moves along interminably – Bland Guignol, rather than Grand Guignol. A spurned woman (Cohen) has thrown sulfuric acid in the face of her unfaithful lover (Bryant Sullivan), reducing him to a hideous, opium-smoking recluse, locked up in a halfway house. His ruined face is wrapped in bandages – more to protect those who might look at him, it seems, than for any curative effect they might have on the sufferer. His attacker comes to visit him, to beg his forgiveness and to express her gratitude for his intervention in her trial, which resulted in a short sentence. And then they gas on, the criminal and her victim, at a noxiously limp pace. He suffers great pain. She is so sorry. He will have a lifetime of loneliness. She is really, really, sorry. And then, finally, the climactic moment, when he casts off his wrappings and shows his hideous face to the world, and to us. Regrettably, lighting designer Maloney, who is also responsible for the pieces’ somnambulant direction, has the lights so low that we don’t get a good look at how disgusting the victim really appears until afterward, at the curtain call. (He really is awful to look at. The program credits Alex Zavistovich and Jen Tonon for Special Effects and Makeup.)
Let’s talk about the good stuff. Cohen is fabulous in Tics as a lisping seductress. She reminds me of Maia DeSanti’s brilliant turn in Richard Greenburg’s Bal Masque at Theater J a few years ago. Colby Codding is immensely amusing both as a half-witted manservant in Tics and as the world’s most insensitive physician (a very competitive title) in The Final Kiss. Casey Kaleba’s fight choreography is quite credible, especially in The Lighthouse Keepers. And the very presence of Humphries in the role of Village Sex Object is uproariously funny.
While this evening of blood and sex is not entirely successful, Molotov Theatre has enough elements to one day put together a consistently guilty pleasure, and I hope we give them a chance to do so.
— By way of full disclosure, I must tell you that I’ve acted with and directed Zavistovich, Molotov’s Managing Director and who is responsible for the special effects and makeup. I do not believe this has affected the objectivity of my review, however.
- Running Time: 1:20 (no intermission).
- When: Wednesdays through Saturdays at 8.00 p.m. and Saturdays at 11.00 p.m., through Feb 2.
- Where: 1409 Playbill Café, at 1409 14th St. NW.
- Tickets: $10 on Wednesdays, $15 otherwise. All tickets at the door.
- Information: Visit the website.
“It is loaded down with high-context dialogue, in which the characters say things which should be obvious to each other in order to explain to the audience how isolated the lighthouse is from the village, how high up in the air it is, and so on.”
As the person who introduced the term “high-context dialogue” as it applies to drama (I borrowed some of the idea from anthropologist Edward T. Hall), I have to say that this betrays a misunderstanding of the term. True high-context dialogue does NOT explain what characters already know. It is high-context precisely because what they know is understood. Check my book THE DRAMATIST’S TOOLKIT to get the full drill on this technique.
No need to argue.. I was offering gentle sarcasm 😉
I would argue that Managing Directors commenting on their own companies reviews is not exactly a desired trend. Reviewers have to reflect on the performance as they saw it and a production should feel confident to stand on its own merits. Of course you disagree with slightly negative comments in a review about your show–it’s your show! Theatre companies have to allow for this type of criticism when they invite reviewers, right? When someone visits a site to complain about a review they received it leaves a reader like me with a bad taste in my mouth.
I respect Tim’s opinion as an informed and well-researched writer. I had looked forward to seeing the show, despite the review, but seeing comments from the company make me uncomfortable and less enthusiastic to support them with my patronage.
Perhaps there could be a place for such comments? A place to openly discuss the plays and the criticism it receives…but for this discussion to directly follow a review feels like bad form.
Wow! As the former President of this fine website I have to know how they are getting the managing directors of companies to comment now (smile) First Jack, now Alex.. How come you guys never commented on reviews when I was on board (Laugh)..
(from Lorraine – The author of the message that foloows asked that his comments be submitted here)
I must say, as a not-disinterested audience member, that either I have been watching different performances of this fine production from Molotov or am a bigger fan of the form, but I have rarely taken greater exception to a review than I have with this one.
I will be the first to admit that the classic scripts of this
criminally-neglected genre may sound stilted to modern ears, but
contemporizing the scripts or truncating their expository structures would be contrary to the intent of staging such a production to begin with. (Would we criticize Shakespeare for the exposition in his monologues? Don’t mock the comparison. Both Shakespeare¹s works and the scripts of the Grand Guignol were written for the lowest common denominator. They have more in common than one might be willing to accept.)
Regardless of what comes out in exposition rather than subtext, I believe the words in this production are elevated and made more than credible by the uniformly strong talents of this powerful acting ensemble.
The reviewer¹s comments regarding pacing are, of course, opinion and must be respected as such. Nonetheless it might be informative to note that in Professor Richard Hand¹s excellent textbook on the genre, actors in the original theater company noted with some measure of pride that the words came out of their mouths as though with great difficulty the better to draw out the inevitability of the conclusion.
The notion of inevitability is also fundamental to a true appreciation of the form. No Grand Guignol script ³just ends² with ³no resolution.² These scripts end without apology or the fakery of deep-diving into resolution.
It is an artifice of modern theater that playwrights often feel obliged to “explore the human condition” when they deal with issues of violence or depravity. Grand Guignol feels no such obligation, nor does it require its audiences to play that tawdry game. Grand Guignol has its own tawdry game to play. People kill people. Actions have consequences. Why ask why? Nothing more needs be said. The finality of each play’s action typically physical is more than foreshadowed in its early moments. Anything more would run
counter to a connoisseur¹s appreciation of the purity of the genre.
I applaud the reviewer¹s keen insight into the stronger elements of the production. I hope the restaging of this desperately under-appreciated genre will give theater-goers a better appreciation of the form.
Warmly,
Alex Zavistovich
Managing Director
Molotov Theatre Group
[email protected]