Two attractive couples, conversation, alcohol, deep-seated unhappiness and betrayal abounding … nope, it isn’t Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf? It’s Serenading Louie, being presented with quiet style at The American Century Theater. The sniping here is less vicious, the tension thick without the muffle…but there’s still a lot of Albee seen in playwright Lanford Wilson’s work. His writing holds much of the same poetic lushness, and both explores and exploits the human relationship with eloquence. There is a systematic and painful breakdown of the lives of four people here, and it’s keenly felt on all levels.
The setting is Chicago in the swinging ’70s, with two married coupleswhose relationship is unraveling even as the play begins. Faded high school football star Carl (Hans Dettmar) suspects that wife Mary (Vanessa Bradchulis) is cheating. Her biting words emasculate him even without the infidelity, yet she and their young daughter are his whole world. Their good friends Alex (Theodore M. Snead) and Gabby (Robin Covington) are also experiencing marital discord. Alex is an ambitious attorney with political aspirations and secrets, and Gabby is a once confident woman falling apart to learn those secrets. The four lives intermingle until one person is forced to face a reality with devastating consequences.
The standout here is Theodore M. Snead as Alex, the ambitious attorney married to sweet, slightly compulsive Gabby (Robin Covington). Snead’s Alex is at turns powerful, affable, and arrogant. His monologues are captivating, and the audience hung on his every word (and even his every non-word). He would have been equally skillful in the role of Carl…it would be interesting to see the roles reversed.
Hans Dettmar is uneven in his performance as Carl, a faded high school football star turned businessman. Dettmar has moments of brilliance, finding gritty nuances of real feeling in his monologues about how life has passed him by, recounting the story of a little girl fallen into a well as a nation held its breath, pointing out that people used to care about things. He builds a sympathetic character and hits all the right notes when he is quiet and contained. Unfortunately, at other moments, he goes over the top and becomes infantile in his anger, and the authenticity of his performance gets lost. He isn’t quite the right type physically for his former life, dressed and groomed to resemble a 70s era teacher rather than an aging athlete or successful businessman. All of that said, Dettmar’s performance is worth seeing. His rapport with Alex, his tenuous grasp on reality…it all makes for good theatre.
The women here are not given a lot of earth-shattering material…playwright Wilson lets his men shine instead. However, both Covington and Vanessa Bradchulis as Mary give solid, understated performances. Bradchulis delivers, in my humble opinion, the best line in a play full of wonderful lines…”I don’t know if I loved him then, but boy, do I love him then now.” It’s such a perfect example of the pitfalls couples face over time. How the grass is always greener on the other side, and how no one knows how life will turn out, especially when they are young, optimistic, and filled with hope for the future. It would have been nice to see a little more dynamic, a little more vibrance, from both actresses.
The silences employed between the actors are very effective, especially in the first exchange between Gabby and Alex. Alex’s lack of response to Gabby’s nervous monologue was deafening, and painful. Snead kept the focus on himself with his riveting presence without detracting from Covington’s words.
The staging (Steven Scott Mazzola) is excellent. The space in Theatre II isn’t easy, trying to play to two sides of the house, but the audience misses nothing with the unique blocking and natural movement here. There is only a moment of awkwardness right at the beginning, when Carl sits clumsily on the sofa with his shoes tucked under him…it feels a little forced.
Wilson’s play features some truly creative ideas. There are dreamy sequences with intermingled dialogue, cast members appearing where they might not otherwise be, and a balance that frequently keeps the audience off-kilter. The only real trouble spot is the ending…it felt too easy and a bit trite for what was otherwise flawless writing.
The space at Gunston Arts Center has been transformed into a beautiful sunken living room, complete with walls, reworked floor, hanging lamps, picture window, and a marvelous window seat. There’s real craftsmanship here thanks to the hard work of Deborah Wheatley (scenic designer) and Jason M. Beagle (Tech Director/Master Carpenter). At first, it was concerning when both couples treated the single space as their home with no differentiations made between the households. However, it became clear as the play progressed that this was a deliberate move on the part of the designer…to show that the house is just a house, and that the couples, with their trials and tribulations, were interchangeable. That problems exist in every household, and that the decorations and furnishings are merely things, and it’s what goes on and what is said that is important.
Frank Labovitz (Costume Design) does a satisfactory job with the 70s costumes, with a particularly warm and eye-catching palette in the second act. Property Design (Suzanne Maloney) is not quite as successful…there are small details here that could be re-worked to better suit this fine production.
The weakness of this particular production is in the lighting design of Andrew Griffin. The colors are beautiful, and the concept is appealing…but it’s just too dark. The ghost lights, the soft yellows casting a wan pallor on everyone beneath them combined with the oppressive heat of this 100 degree Virginia summer to sap the energy of both cast and audience. There were five people asleep…and that in no way was a reflection of the show. It’s long but not overly so, and there is nothing boring about these four people and the action happening onstage. Perhaps in another season, the ideas here would have been fantastic…certainly a lot of detail was given to the design. It just wasn’t a great combination given the heat factor and the crowd demographic. The audience especially deserved to see the expressive faces of the actors, and those faces were often lost in the darkness.
There is a visually stunning moment that involves Covington as Gabby, a diaphanous nightie, and spectacular backlighting. In context, it also garners a few laughs.
Serenading Louie is a seldom performed play that really needs to be seen…the glorious language, and the uncomfortable yet familiar realism in marriage that is showcased here deserves an audience. Great to see a full house on Saturday night…and hope that streak continues for the rest of the run.
Serenading Louie
by Lanford Wilson
Directed by Steven Scott Mazzola
Produced by The American Century Theater
Reviewed by McCall Noelle Doyle
Serenading Louie runs thru August 21, 2010.
For Details, Directions and Tickets, click here.
Reviews:
SERENADING LOUIE
DCTS reviewDavid J. Hoffman . Fairfax Times
- Susan Berlin . Talkin’ Broadway
- Adcock . ShowBizRadio
- John Glass. DramaUrge
- Barbara MacKay . DCExaminer
Live Theatre you are a total doufus;
There is a history to American Theater. TACT (The American Century Theater) strives to present to theater-lovers like my wife and I icons of American Theater. These are plays we would never see except for TACT. You can quibble with the playwrights, you can quibble with the plays, you can quibble with the performers, but you and your combatants offer nothing constructive for theater-goers like me. Please try to become participants in a new world order, and destroy your ultra-negative bias. I find people like you horribly destructive.
Dennis Deloria
Live Theatre–what decade do you live in? Since the 1950’s marketing and advertising types have contorted sound bites to hawk their wares. Look at anything that gets reviewed, from movies, to books, to goods and services, business, restaurants and yes, even live theater. As a reviewer, I have seen my words twisted as you deplore above, and yet, I realize that it is the nature of the advertiser to try to draw business. Basically any review that is less than a full clause–and often even those–is suspect. What is important is that the advertiser links to the full review where someone who sees that sound bite (or I suppose in this case, sight bite?) and wants to see what it means can go to the full review to see what it says. I hardly think that there are many people in this day and age who select a product, service or show from the vast myriad of options solely from a sound byte alone, especially one of only two words. If so, remember, caveat emptor.
And for those who worry about a reviewer’s impartiality, please note that theater in the DC area is a relatively small community. Although casting directors have more power over actors than vice versa, word gets around. Any casting team that shows this type of unprofessionalism in blacklisting a performer for an unfair reason may find that they develop a “reputation” just as easily as difficult performers gain a reputation. And that team may find that they won’t always attract the best talent in the future. Once or twice, maybe not, but patterns are noted. You should hear some of the things that are said about some directors and/or some venues. It happens, but there can be negative feedback for venues that do so.
Live Theatre, if TACT’s mining a of a negative review for a marketable quote nugget is unethical, then every single theatre producer since Thespis stepped out of the chorus (myself included) is a really really horrible person and ought to hang their heads in shame for such audacious lack of ethics. Wet noodle lashings will commence immediately.
There are many far worthier objects of your scorn, LT.
I have never been to this theatre, and I know nothing about the people who run or own it. Theatre is business. Based on what you have been writing, Live Theatre, I personally see nothing wrong with using a couple of nice words from a review to demonstrate that there is some degree of satisfaction to be derived from going to this show. First off, I am one who believes it is the responsibility of the patron to determine whether or not he wants to attend a show. I do not believe patrons should rely only (if at all) on the critiques of reviewers. A critic’s take on something is an opinion, that’s all. I have seen reviews that tear a particular show apart, while other reviewers praise it, and some in between. Is mining a few good words of a review from a mountain of unflattering ones to push continued interest in a show unethical? I don’t believe so. Patrons are responsible for the choices they make.
Mr. Hardee, it’s not that ACT chose to quote just “a few words that don’t represent the totality of one critique.” They chose to quote 2 words that represent the OPPOSITE of the totality of the critique. They didn’t even have the initegrity to quote the whole sentence in which those 2 words appear. It was outright, intentional deception for the purpose of trying to sell tickets and make money.
I appreciate your full disclosure. I have to wonder if anyone totally unrelated to them would defend such deception.
I ask again: Is what they did ethical?
To TACT’s credit, with regards to quoting just a few words that don’t represent the totality of one critique, they did include a link to the entire review.
Full disclosure: I’ve worked with TACT before and hope to do so again at some point in the future. Was that above board enough?
Memo to all area critics: if you think it’s uncomfortable sitting still in a hot theatre with a pen in your hand, consider the comfort level of the actors running around for two hours plus while wearing heavy costumes.
There will always be people falling asleep at plays; hell, I’ve done it even during good shows. TACT tends to draw an older demographic, and my personal experience (admittedly backed by no hard data whatsoever) suggests that older people are more likely to fall asleep at a play than younger people, regardless of temperature or the quality of the play. I’ve been to plays where I’ve heard snoring 5 minutes into Act I. Sleepy people doesn’t neccessarily mean bad theatre, nor should it be directly attributed to it being too hot, too cold, or too dark.
OK, here’s the latest display of ethical behavior from American Century Theatre related to their production of Serenading Louie.
The website ShowBizRadio.net has a review. It is negative, to say the least. Don’t take the word of an anonymous coward such as myself — you be the judge. http://www.showbizradio.net/2010/08/01/review-act-serenading-louie/
The reviewer sums up his distaste with this final sentence, “Wilson’s kvetching quartet goes on and on for over two hours — which exceeds tolerable limits by about 120 minutes.” That’s just a sample.
It’s just one person’s opinion — you may agree or disagree. But how does ACT represent this review on their website? Well, the least negative sentence in the review says, “The current American Century Theater production of Serenading Louie is at least solidly crafted.” That’s the only good thing the reviewer says. So ACT represents this horrible review on their website by taking the two positive words totally out of context. Yes, the totality of the words they reprint from the review are “…solidly crafted…” That’s all.
Does that misrepresent the review? Absolutely!
Is it ethical? You decide. http://www.americancentury.org/reviews_louie.php
Dear LT: A couple of points…
Professional ethicists are not certified. It is an area of expertise. Artistic directors aren’t certified either.
If someone at TACT behaves unethically, we flag it, fix it, and apologize for it.
You presumed in your remarks that bias entered into TACT casting. It does not. It is one of the few professional companies that still has open auditions, and we take pride in being fair to the auditioners. The exception is a handful of actors who have behaved unprofessionally in TACT productions, and who are not welcome. Other than that, we would cast Satan of he was the best one for a part.
Your idea of a conflict of interest would disqualify reviewers from acting, and actors from reviewing. There is no way to tell when or if someone might want to audition for a company in the future, and having been in a show in the past creates no basis for a conflict unless something caused the reviewer such a strong emotional reaction that she couldn’t get past it to render a fair review. I directed McCall in the show in question. The show was fun for both of us. It wasn’t THAT much fun.
TACT has a well-acted, serious, provocative play that requires a lot of its audience’s attention and intellect. Falling asleep during a performance raises issues about the sleepers (health, attention span, age, rudeness, brain pan), but not the play. We’re proud of it, and don’t consider the fact that it isn’t everybody’s cup of tea a problem at all. Doing plays like “Serenading Louie” is what we exist for. The theater is cool, the play is well-written, directed and performed, and it is boring only to dull minds.
Anonymous comments, particularly critical comments, are unethical.
Cowardly, too.
My original comment was directed mainly at DCTS, and I’m still hoping that it will respond with their policy regarding having reviewers who have worked for or with the reviewed and/or hope to do so in the future.
Mr. Marshall, just so you’ll know, my real name is not “Live Theatre.” I’m glad I could clear that up for you. And I appreciate that you admitted that I raised a legitimate point. I had never heard of a professional ethicist, and I have to assume that it means that you have been “certified” to know what is, or how to determine what is, “ethical.” But nothing can certify one to actually BE “ethical.” I am reminded of the lawyers of the Watergate scandal. They were all licensed to know what was legal, and quite a few of them went to prison.
Having ethical principles in your bylaws is great, but you can’t be so naive as to believe that everyone working at ACT always behaves in an ethical way. Can you guarantee that every producer and director at ACT is immune from human emotions and never acts on the basis of personal feelings about potential cast and crew? No.
You state that, “I don’t know of any local company that would penalize an actress/reviewer for a negative review?” Well, all you have to do to find one is to ask Ms. Doyle. She wrote that, “I also panned an actress who was directing a show I was auditioning for the following month (at another theatre)…and I stuck to my guns, and she kept me out of the show…it’s just a pitfall of being a performer as well as a critic. ”
I agree that my use of “just” being in the show is questionable when it was 17 months, but it also wasn’t “a few years,” as Ms. Doyle chose to portray it. My real concern is the future. If Ms. Doyle does not plan to try to get a job in the future at a theater she reviews, then she immunizes herself from questions of conflict of interest. I don’t think she can promise that.
Please note that I did not say that the review was biased. In fact, Ms. Doyle’s review convinced me not to see “Serenading Louie.” Rarely have I seen a single person sleeping through live theatre. Five sleepers in one show (and that’s just the ones she saw from her vantage point) is a pandemic, caused by either poor atmospheric conditions in the theater or an incredibly boring play. You can’t blame the weather outside the theatre for people sleeping inside.
Mr. Marshall, I believe you have more urgent problems that someone who’s trying to ensure that theatre reviews are fair.
Live Theatre (if that indeed IS his–her?– name) raises a legitimate point in an obnoxious way. “How would TACT react if McCall were to audition for a show after panning a company production?” Well, as the objective of our auditions is to cast the best talent to fulfill the company’s mission and present the caliber of theater our company owes area audiences and the great playwrights of the past, and not to settle scores, we would obviously choose not to sacrifice the quality of a current production as misplaced vengeance on behalf of a past one, and cast McCall IF, and only if, she were the best actress for the part. To which I must add, “Duh!” Anything else would be unprofessional, unethical, and dumb.
McCall knows, I believe, that TACT is the only area theater company presided over by a professional ethicist (me) and also the only one with a statement of ethical principles that it has attached to its by-laws and that it actually refers to and follows. I don’t know of any local company that would penalize an actress-reviewer for a negative review, but there’s any company that is a sure bet never to do what ol’ Live unfairly implies we would do, it’s the American Century Theater.
For the record, McCall was in one TACT show 17 months ago (which I would hardly call “just” being in a production), and we called her in. Is she supposed to be still so full of gratitude that she cannot be trusted to do her duty as a reviewer? Is there any reason to doubt her integrity? Why would being in a show over a year ago constitute a conflict of interest? I don’t see any, because there isn’t any. Real possible conflicts: Friends in a show. Enemies in a show. Relatives in a show. Creditors in a show. But if the reviewer is up front with her publication and genuinely believes that the possible conflict in no way interferes with her independent judgment, her assessment that she can be fair and impartial should be respected, not questioned.
Now another local critic of yore, who will remain nameless, continued to review TACT’s shows while lobbying the company for a role in future production, and while seeking help from the company’s management in finding gainful employment generally. That critic should not have reviewed our productions at the time, but did. That was inappropriate. What McCall did, however, was not.
And a few more things..not only did I pan a show of TACT last year (their response was to not put it on their website as publicity…while inviting me to review their next show), but I also panned an actress who was directing a show I was auditioning for the following month (at another theatre)…and I stuck to my guns, and she kept me out of the show…it’s just a pitfall of being a performer as well as a critic. 😉
Hi Live Theatre…thanks for your concern. I did appear in a Christmas musical with TACT in 2008, two years ago. And in the first review I did for them back in January, I DID put a disclaimer at the bottom of the review that I had been in a show with them.
The theater has working a/c, but even with it, the warm temperature outside definitely makes me sleepy overall. I mentioned that the dark lighting really didn’t help with that…my criticisms were more a concern of the dark lighting than the heat. It’s the kind of critique that I hope encourages the tech people to “lighten up” and give the actors and audience members what they deserve for the next several performances.
I also criticized the props, and had some criticisms of three out of four of the actors. It wasn’t a perfect production, but it was well done, and it’s a great play that’s rarely performed. I surely hope more people go to see it, especially since it would appeal to people who miss more traditional language and a small cast show.
It’s a fact that I have worked with a lot of people in the DC Area…since I started performing in the area five years ago, I’ve been in over 30 productions…that means that I know a lot of the actors, directors, etc. involved in each show. If there’s a theatre I’m dying to work with, or a show I have auditioned for and didn’t get into, I absolutely excuse myself from reviewing it. If there’s a close friend involved and I do happen to review, I do put some sort of disclaimer. Because I have not worked with TACT for a few years, and I don’t know anyone personally in the cast/crew, I felt completely unbiased and justified in reviewing their production.
I live out in horse country Manassas, so it’s difficult for me to get to a lot of the professional shows in DC and MD, so my editor is kind enough to give me as many VA assignments as possible.
Bottom line…I am fair and honest to a fault. Please see the show for yourself…I really hope you go and enjoy it. 🙂
Didn’t the reviewer just appear in an American Century Theater production? I know that it doesn’t mean that the review isn’t objective, but I do wonder how the reviewer would be greeted the next time she tried to audition for ACT if she criticized one of its shows.
To her credit, she did criticize the lighting, and she did mention that at least 5 audience members fell asleep (a record?). She blamed the sleeping on the 100 degree heat. Does this mean that the theater is not air conditioned? If that’s the case, it should have been in the lead paragraph.
Based on its Fringe coverage, DCTS has plenty of able reviewers. Couldn’t it find one to review ACT who doesn’t have a conflict of interest. If not, why not disclose that the reviewer is a sometime employee of the reviewed.