Let me preface this post with a
statement: This is a young a group with a lot of energy. I respect
their efforts and encourage them to explore further. And I am glad
they came all the way from Florida to share their work.
Now for the hard part:
There are many strands that could stay,
but they are obscured sometimes by technical mistakes and sometimes
by a certain lack of appetite and desperation. I think the show
needs an experienced director to push each performer further
(technically and emotionally) and make this group into a cohesive
family with an identifiable hierarchy. As it is, these performers
have little to do with one another, which keeps the show from gelling
into anything that I could sink my teeth into, emotionally. Part of
it is the setup: a clown, a breakdancer, and a dancer do pieces and
have almost no interaction at all. It reminds me of another show
with a similar setup I saw 15 years ago in Minneapolis called,
“Triple Espresso” (which pays all over the place with a big
rotating cast.) In that show, a mime, a sensitive lounge pianist,
and an abrasive magician (played by Mark Mitten when I saw it)
recount their history as a performing trio (I think—it's been a
while.) That show was long on individual solos and short on comedy
that grew out of the relationships, but it did hold together as a
story because of the consistent relationship between the three and
the emotional journey they took together. It's actually not a great
model to aspire to;, as the show is a little tame; a better one
would be the Dingbat Show, Chiche Capon, or any of the other
successfully zany families that have graced the stage at The Brick.
A few things that I think need more
work:
Costume: I do not think the costume of
the clown serves him at all. I don't mean to be precious about it;
clowns can get so weird about what they wear and how they choose it.
However, the costume should somehow indicate ridiculousness,
contradiction, naivete. This big suit on this big guy does nothing
for him. It just looks like a suit. He has no relationship to it.
It's not even clear that he likes it. This is not helped when he
changes into jeans, a well-fitting colorful shirt, and colorful
shoes. It just looks like everyday clothes.
The Clown: I am not sure this clown has
arrived yet. There are a few things that work, such as the teaching
moments with the whistle (although those do feel like a pale
imitation of Bob Berky's use of his duck call). His walk is too
cute, not vulnerable enough (and this is tough, of course, because
his walk might be fine on someone else who WAS actually that naïve
and cute.) For him it is a “sign” of clown, but does not feel
fully lived-in. Perhaps there is someone else underneath? Someone
more desperate?
The Dancer: The same could be said
here. She moves very well, but the cat-lady piece goes nowhere.
While technically clean, there seems to be a lack of compelling
character or story: what is the character that informs the logic of
this performance? Also, there is no real payoff in this bit. The
magic tricks later on fare better, in terms of structure, but the
character still needs work to transform it form something cute into
something emotionally compelling.
The Breakdancer/Graffiti Artist: This
guy has some dance chops! And the piece is cool. There is a
technical problem, however, involving the engine of some of the
movement. First, I think it was supposed to look like the spray
paint can moved the dancer around. This did not work very
convincingly. Second, the can was attached to his hand with some
sort of fishing wire, and there is a bit where the can rotates around
his hand. I think this is meant to look like the can is weightlessly
rotating around his hand with a mind of its own. It doesn't look
like that. It looks like he's swinging it around his own hand. I
know this sounds nitpicky, but it seems like a lot of the
choreography is built around the central illusion of the can moving
the dancer, which is a GREAT idea. But it is not executed clearly
here.
Logic problems and lack of dynamics
deflate many of the games. For example, there is a rather long setup
that involves the Clown trying to have a picnic lunch while litter
keeps getting thrown behind him. Frustratedly, he finally picks up
the litter, but can't manage to hold all the pieces simultaneously.
So, he decides to get members from the audience to help him throw
them in, in a sort of classic, “watch me as I do this, then you do
it,” game. Sounds fine. Except that none of these bits are taken
to their logical extremes. The Clown should ONLY go to the audience
for help when he has tried every way imaginable to pick up and hold
all the pieces of litter and spectacularly failed. That is a bit that could go on for ten
minutes! Then, once he initiates the teaching scene with the
audience members, THAT is a bit that could go on for another 10
minutes, hitting the highest highs and the lowest lows. The teaching
and the subsequent frustration with an audience member who does not
understand is an opportunity to push the clown's buttons and get him
riled up (as in David's Shiner's classic variation on this theme),
it's not funny in and of itself. This is what I mean above when I
refer to things in this show feeling like “signs” of clown. The
setups are right, but they are not lived-in yet. Every setup should
be an opportunity to push both the dynamics of the bit – its use of
space, timing, surprise, shape, etc. - and the EMOTIONAL dynamics of
the clown. The real humor is to be mined there, not just in creating
a scene with audience participation. The coffee cup lip-synch piece
suffers from some of the same problems.
One final note: while the
brick-breaking contest with the audience member was better and more
lived-in than some other parts of the show, it was not handled
responsibly on the night I went. Again, the setup is great, but you
can't let the audience member ACTUALLY try to break a brick over his
knee. That is not cool. The simple rule for the audience should be
(and yes, rules are meant to be broken) that the audience wins, the
clown looks more foolish that the audience member, and NO ONE GETS
HURT.
I'd love to see this show again after
some work with a hard-assed director who focused in clarifying the
logic of the bits and pushing the emotional range of the characters.