The Skriker
Written by Caryl Churchill
Directed by Rebecca Zellar
Produced by Greyzelda Theatre Co.
Featuring Lisa Wilson, Kelly Yanoco, Kathryn Daniels & Ensemble Cast
Good theater is about communication - in the most obscure and dense pieces, without a sense that the piece is saying something worth hearing, all you have is the meandering "experience" of people moving around, making noise and creating atmosphere. I'm all for the highly experimental (I'm a NeoDadaist, after all) but communication of something is the key to success - even in our WNEP DADA Soirees, each poem, sound or movement is motivated by an attempt to communicate something specific to the audience. The one true strength of Off- and Off-Off Loop theater is the actor. If the actor can read the script and interpret the text effectively, everything else is just cool bells and whistles. If the actor cannot, you got problems.
The last Greyzelda production had no problem - the acting was excellent on all levels and the problems encountered were that the bells and whistles (the onstage video) just didn't work. Overall, it was one of the best productions of A View from the Bridge as you're likely to see. But Churchill and Miller are as different as you can be in terms of execution and Zellar has the opposite problem with The Skriker.
The Skriker of the title is a venomous and seductive creature capable of changing character and shape as she time-travels across the centuries seeking the essence of humanity to feed her. She is a timeless creature who craves the fertility of human women (babies being in pretty high regard in the Underworld of Churchill's design). She speaks - when not in disguise - in a sing-songy sprechsinge comprised of nonsense free associated from her actual communications and lords over of a host of fairies, beasties, and lunatics.
Churchill is one of my personal favorites and although I prefer both Cloud Nine and Top Girls to her later works, her use of surrealism and current politics is something I've always been inspired by. The Skriker is, by far, the furthest along those lines and is a frustratingly difficult piece to pull off as the demands she places upon both actors and audiences are particularly intense.
Zellar does a lot of things right in this low-budget Greyzelda production (I point out low-budget not as a criticism but to illustrate that in spite of the lack of money, the few bells and whistles they were able to invest in were top notch). The simple set designed by Heath Hays, moody lighting by Erin Lapham and beastie/monster masks created by Jeff Semmerling are all used to great effect. Zellar's staging is simple and clean, with the requisite contact improv movement and Twyla Tharpe-ish crawling around coached by Joseph Ravens. The original music and sound design by Robert Filippo is effective and Jana Liles (as both Dance Captain and in the all dancing, nonspeaking role of the Passerby who gets pulled up onstage and is trapped in constant dancing throughout the entire piece) is excellent.
In fact, Zellar's use of her backstage personnel is on par with some of the best work I've seen Greyzelda produce (aside from a few dimestore magic tricks, her stage pictures are pretty awesome). It is, unfortunately, in both the one-note direction of the actors and the utter lack of ability in the three leads that undoes the piece.
A malevolent Underworld, filled with scary creatures in bizarre masks should feel - well - malevolent and scary. As it stands, with the exceptions of Taylor Mauch and Jamie DesRocher, the ensemble of fairies are constantly shrieking and giggling and portraying less malignancy and more a third grader's view of what "mean fairies" act like. The overall effect is shrill and irritating rather than haunting and creepy and made the piece feel more like a bunch of pre-teens dressing up and rolling around on the floor than a surrealistic portrayal of Churchill's dreamworld.
Topping that off are the three ladies who carry the story. Kathryn Daniels (as Josie) spends much of her time onstage performing soap opera emotional responses and communicating none of the genuine gravitas necessary for a woman who has possibly killed a child and been put in an asylum. Daniels isn't bad, just a bit forgettable - I'm sure that will improve as the run continues - but she has enough natural "watchability" that I'm sure she'll pull it off with some practice. Kelly Yanoco, on the other hand, is like a void of charisma, deadpanning every line without the faintest hint that she is doing anything other than reciting words she memorized from a script and, when she does attempt to act out her emotions, it's like watching a high school kid awkwardly pretend to lie for the very first time.
Wilson, who plays the most demanding role in the play, fails to competently communicate through the bizarre language games Churchill has provided her character and gives every word and phrase, regardless of it's import in the underlying meaning, the same weight until her wonderfully written monologues become incomprehensible noise and her broad, almost "bad farce" characterizations of a Woman from Texas, a Lisping, Obnoxious Little Girl, and a Strange Stalker Guy aren't even interesting enough to compare to Brendan Frasier in the remake of Bedazzled let alone anything better.
Zellar's bells and whistles are really very good. Her actors are not. She's got problems here that a bit of table work might fix. Given that they're at the beginning of their run, there's no time like the present.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
REVIEW: The Skriker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)





Stumble It!

14 comments:
Now if only Tony would apply Critiquing the Critics to this review maybe the Chicago theatrosphere could lead the way with some artistic truth-speak among peers.
If I were one of the actors or director in this play, I'd waiting outside the stage door of Don Hall's next play with my NYTimes bodyguard George Hunka. His ass would be grass.
Heh heh ... what's funny is Don didn't share any of this with me after the show and did the customary "great job!" routine, though I would have certainly welcomed the conversation, as would our three leads who can certainly fend for their lady-folk selves. It's funny how the truth comes out in blogs, but not face to face. I prefer the face to face because then a discussion can occur whereas now it appears that the director doth protest too much.
Yeah, Don's certainly welcome to his opinion. I, however, disagree with a lot of it (predictably) and am immensely proud of all my actor's portrayals and think they were able to create performances that a lot of lesser actors wouldn't even consider taking on.
RZ
Actually, Rebecca, after the show I mentioned the masks, the lighting, the movement and the stage pictures to you in complimentary terms (as I complimented in he review).
You didn't ask me if I had any criticism about the show, so I went out for a smoke and then Dave, Bob and I split. If you had asked me for criticism, I probably would have given you a general sense of my thoughts on the acting.
Bottom line, it's an opinion. Take it for what it's worth to you (which may very well be nothing at all).
Finally, you should be proud - The Skriker is a fucking difficult piece to do. As I wrote, there were plenty of strong choices made and effective ones at that. But bad acting is bad acting and rather than "fend for their lady-folk selves" perhaps working on that would be a better way to go.
Yeah, I'm not really one to fish for either compliments or critiques because that just looks like the Dude's landlord in The Big Lebowski and is pretty lame. In the future, though, if you want to bother with the niceties, please feel welcome to throw in the not so niceties as, hopefully, our communication has moved past that.
RZ
All that is in regards to "face to face communication". I don't smoke nor hang out with smokers these days ("pregnant" and all) so I wasn't going to follow y'all down to dig for more dirt and had other people wanting to talk to me. "Whaccha gonna write in your blog, Don? I must know!" Nah, again, that's lame-o and you were welcome to stick around for a few more seconds while I finished talking to one of my actors instead of running downstairs to light up ... it's a show I'm proud of and, you're right, you're welcome to your opinion, my friend. I just don't take kindly when my actors are taken to task in a snarky manner. It doesn't matter if it's you, Joe Stead, or Kerry. It pisses me off. Come at me and blame me for the acting choices because I'm, ultimately, the last word on it. I cast them for their ability and capability to do the roles and they did everything I asked them to do and then some. You may not have liked it. That's fine. But, I can still bristle at it because they're a part of the ensemble and we all back each other up.
RZ
Fair enough.
To be honest, the whole "tell me now what you thought" aspect of your smack at me makes me realize that I probably would not have given you the same thoughts immediately following the piece. I knew at the time the things I enjoyed about the production but also knew that I had some real problems with it.
Things didn't start to solidify for me until the car ride home as Dave, Bob and I talked about it and then I sat down in front of my computer and started slapping out my general thoughts.
If you think my opinion is snarky after taking some time to write, edit, read, and rewrite, you really don't want to hear my kneejerk in the heat of things.
And you're absolutely right. If the performances given were exactly what you were after, then the criticism should definitely be yours to think over.
Oh, yes, and ... I lumped your positive critiques into the "Good Job!" category and appreciated your nice compliments about me. But, we're all a unit here, so I'm not going to separate myself from what you considered "Bad".
RZ
I'm might be a bit masochistic, but ... I would have welcomed the knee-jerk reaction.
Again, no worries. I just consider our actors "family" while we're working with them and, more often than not, when we're not working with them and that's the trigger that gets me hot under the collar.
Have an excellent Saturday.
RZ
Dude ... and how am I smacking at you? If it's a smack, it's just me smacking in defense after taking one for the company?
As Chris says, I need to take off my boots, get off this contraption and go outside.
Hugs and kisses,
bz
"Where there is truth, there will be no peace. Where peace abides, you will find no truth." -- Pontius Pilate _The Gospel According to the Son: A Novel_ By Norman Mailer
I saw this Saturday and you are dead on, Don. This show was awful!!!
I think you were way too nice about the messy staging and the Star Trek convention ear tips. I found it too be embarrassing how bad this production was.
I want my money back.
Jerry
Send me your address, Jerry, to greyzeldatheatre@yahoo.com and I'll make sure you get your money back, though I can't quite figure who you were ... we had a group of students there and I know their University paid for the show, two parents, two comps and a guy named Adam, so ... get back to me on that, will ya?
Thanks,
Rebecca
I didn't catch this until RZ commented last...
"Jerry" -
I think my review was pretty balanced (things I thought were very effective, acting I thought wasn't) so I can't go along with either you or Rebecca in your assessment that I thought the show was "awful."
The fact is The Skriker is getting quite a few very positive notices for the show and most of them thought both the production values (which include the ear tips) and the acting were all great.
I understand the need to feel insulted by harsh criticism but in an artform driven by both constant rejection and the need for constant affirmation, it's par for the course and thick skin is completely necessary.
I figure there are two types of theater people when it comes to this sort of thing: people who take themselves very seriously and people who take the work very seriously. Those that take the work more seriously than themselves can handle harsh criticism.
That said, if you have a criticism at least back it up with more than just an anonymous swipe.
Erm - just read the review and then the comments, and feel like I ought to defend Don Hall here (!) Without having seen the show (I know the play), his comments seem very far from snark to me. Whether or not you agree with his judgments, he's considering the production, relating it to the text, with which he's clearly familiar, and giving an honest and thoughtful response. Harsh maybe and arguable, as all reviews are, but not unfair. Criticism, if it's decent, isn't personal. Mind you, art isn't either: you might put your heart and soul into it (and I hope we all do) but in the end, it's work.
Post a Comment