Bailey and Payton and Jacokes, oh my!

Anytime you put Joe Bailey and Richard Payton on stage together, one can expect comedic mayhem to break out. And when you add Suzy Jacokes into the mix – well, you get “Clue on stage” at The Ringwald Theatre in Ferndale, which runs through November 5.

Bailey – The Ringwald’s founding artistic director – and Payton have appeared on stage together so many times that they work like a well-oiled, laugh-generating machine. One only has to glance at the other – a warning sign, to be sure – and a comedic melt-down of epic proportions is sure to follow.

And that’s what happened more than once at this past Saturday night’s performance of the riotous comedy adapted from the screenplay by Jonathan Lynn.

Now, it’s a theatrical legend that the second performance of any run is generally a let-down from the night before; that all the anticipation and pent-up energy generated throughout the rehearsal process is expelled on opening night with little left to power the show the following night.

That certainly wasn’t the case with this production. That’s partly because director Bryan Lark puts his actors through such a vigorously draining pace from start to finish that it’s easy to believe the cast will shed a collective 900 gallons of sweat at the very least throughout the run of the show.

But it’s also because Bailey and Payton took advantage of both their love of one-upmanship and a few goofs to such a degree that I suspect most in the nearly packed audience couldn’t have cared less that a few lines of dialogue were flubbed or props didn’t end up where they were supposed to be.

Instead, we laughed our butts off. And when Jacokes chimed in – she, too, gets that certain gleam in her eye and sly grin on her face when inspiration is about to hit – it became obvious we were watching masters of their craft take the show to an unanticipatedly high level of comedic entertainment.

If there’s a comparison to be made, Saturday night’s performance was like watching an episode of “The Carol Burnett Show” when Harvey Korman, Tim Conway and Carol went off script and the results were hilarious. Yes, The Ringwald Trio were that good!

Also good – no, great, actually – was Donny Riedel, who plays Wadsworth the butler who serves as the show’s ringleader. In “Clue,” an oddball group of people are invited to a dinner party thrown by the mysterious Mr. Boddy. Once there, they learn they all have one thing in common – and that’s when the bodies start dropping. Riedel’s is a masterful performance, one in which every nuance of his character is so thoroughly examined, explored and expelled at such a high-octane level that one expects him to physically and emotionally collapse long before show’s end.

The Bottom Line: So while some nitpickers may find fault with actors who have some fun when things go awry on stage or when one simply looks at another and hilarity ensues, at The Ringwald that means one thing: We’re about to have an even better time than we initially anticipated.

For complete show details, CLICK HERE!

Donny Riedel

What I Love

I love plays that surprise me.

I love playwrights like Lauren Gunderson who take theatergoers on a journey they don’t expect and couldn’t foresee. I love directors like Krista Schafer Ewbank who have a vision for a script like “Ada and the Engine” and execute it with precision and care.

I love actresses like Sarah Hawkins who create such a glorious and vibrant character as Ada Lovelace that her facial expressions alone add several layers to her already-deep complexity. I love actors like Lindel Salow who is his co-star’s equal in telling Charles Babbage’s story through a careful glance here, a brief gesture there and perfectly shaded words and thoughts throughout.

I love actors like Kez Settle, Joshua R. Brown, Cynthia Szczesny and Matthew Wallace who fully support the production through expertly developed performances.

I love it when top-notch designers such as Harley Miah, Eric Niece and Cheryl Zemke come together to create theatrical magic. And I love it when Open Book Theatre in Trenton once again not only meets but surpasses my already-high expectations for a night out at the theater.

The Bottom Line: And I’d love it more if houses were filled for this weekend's final performances.

For complete show details: CLICK HERE!

Sarah Hawkins

Who will YOU believe?

There’s no way Adriane Galea could have known 17 months ago that the script she chose to open Outvisible Theatre Company’s 2018-19 season would be so timely that one could understandably suspect it was sneaked into the schedule to take advantage of the heat generated by the latest news cycle. But the universe works in strange and occasionally miraculous ways, and so the producing artistic director’s decision all those months ago to present the world premiere of Jeff Stolzer’s “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” while Americans are choosing sides in our latest political quagmire can be chalked up to a fortuitous act of serendipity that stamps the production with a “must-see” label as it grapples with a subject that threatens to tear apart an already fractious country.

Written about six years ago after a series of high-profile sexual assault cases caught his attention, Stolzer’s story opens as a young woman wakes up in the bed of a high-profile football star who brought her back to his hotel room after she approached him in a bar following his appearance at a fundraiser the night before. From there, the playwright – in a manner you’d expect of a trial lawyer – begins unfolding the aftermath of that fateful night. And he does so in a way that “we the audience” become “we the jury” – with the first half of the play detailing the morning after and what leads to a charge of rape, and concluding with the court testimonies of Kaylie and Noah.

Jeremy Kucharek and Danielle Wright

Who’s guilty and who’s not is never revealed –and that’s the genius of Stolzer’s concept. Instead, he first gives us insight into his characters’ characters as they go about their one-and-only morning together. Then, in what could be described as the play’s third act (the show runs 70 minutes without intermission), we observe for the first time through their individual testimonies what happened on the infamous night in question.

But is that what we’re truly seeing?

As in most – if not all – cases in which there are no witnesses and little proof-positive corroborating evidence, “we the jury” must make our decisions based on the details we are provided. But as their “he said/she said” testimonies unfold, two things become evidently clear: Each is trying to shape their story in the most positive light; and both aren’t totally truthful.

So who’s right and who’s wrong? What’s true and what’s not? What’s a jurist to do?

Talk. Think. And vigorously debate – which is what we Americans should be doing as the Kavanagh-Supreme Court fiasco plays out. And while there was no talk-back following the opening night performance, I did overhear theatergoers reacting to what they had seen – some whispered in hushed tones – and that led me to believe Stolzer’s evil plan to stimulate a much-needed discussion one performance at a time is succeeding.

And that’s a good thing.

About the production

Danielle Wright and Jeremy Kucharek

Although the above paragraphs provide a very high-level analysis of Stolzer’s script, I focus mostly on its overall theme and the concept he used to tell his story. What I did not do is dig into the nitty gritty of the script; that is, I did not provide any in-depth analysis of it, such as whether or not his dialogue rings true, or how successful he is at creating realistic and believable characters.

I also didn’t discuss the production itself.

There’s a reason for all of that.

It’s called “conflict of interest” – and that’s what prevents me from actually talking in detail about “Unsportsmanlike Conduct.”

How? Why? Because I was part of the process that helped Galea decide to produce and direct the script – and as a member of the American Theatre Critics Association, I believe that disqualifies me as an objective critic of the work, even in a setting such as this.

Back in April 2017, Stolzer was one of five authors whose work was produced as part of Outvisible’s first-ever Detroit New Works Festival, and I was honored to be one of the small team of judges she asked for feedback. As such, I attended all five staged readings and offered verbal commentary at the festival to both the audience at large and privately to Galea. In addition, I also provided individual written feedback to each of the authors. Plus, I was in full agreement that of the scripts given a reading, Stolzer’s was ready for production with little or no additional work needed. (It also helped it was the one Galea really, really wanted to direct herself!)

So while I suspect nothing I contributed made a bit of a difference in the end result, I must refrain from offering any additional commentary about the show other than what’s above and in The Bottom Line below.

The Bottom Line: A timely and thought-provoking show that is guaranteed to generate much needed discussion – heated and otherwise.

“Unsportsmanlike Conduct” continues through Oct. 7. For complete details, CLICK HERE!

Danielle Wright and Jeremy Kucharek

Edited for clarity Oct. 6, 2018

An affecting journey

While many (if not most) plays strive to generate a reaction from its audience, none has been so affecting in recent memory as Kickshaw Theatre’s season opener, “Milvotchkee, Visconsin.” And for many, I suspect, it will hit way too close to home for comfort.

That was certainly case for my friend who accompanied me to the performance.

The oddly titled “Milvotchkee, Visconsin” (which will make total sense as the plot unfolds) tells the story of a woman’s descent into dementia (likely Alzheimer’s disease) vividly told from her point of view. A mother and long-time tour guide, Molly finds that she can no longer remember the detailed facts behind the rather unusual park at which she’s worked for many years. And as her story unfolds, that’s not all she doesn’t remember.

Anyone who’s ever watched as a family member, loved one or friend slipped away as a result of a dementia-related disease will likely nod their heads in quiet acknowledgement as Molly’s world slowly slips away. It’s a frustrating experience, not just for her daughter, son and others with whom she must interact, but also for Molly herself. Especially for Molly.

Michael Hays, Nancy Elizabeth Kammer

And that’s what playwright Laura Jacqmin’s unorthodox approach to the subject matter excels at revealing. Subtitled “a comedy about a tragedy,” Jacqmin presents her story as seen through the eyes and deteriorating mental state of Molly herself. As such, the audience observes what transpires in Molly’s life as interpreted by a brain no longer anchored in reality. Hence, her mental state becomes the result of a hole in her head caused by lightning, while her children interact with her in rather unflattering ways.

It’s the disease, then, that is telling the story, not Molly. And it’s not a happy or hopeful one.

Luckily, though, it’s a rather well staged and acted one. In conceiving her production, director Lynn Lammers embraced the odd-ball nature of the script, yet maintained within her concept a sense of realism to the world inside Molly’s head.

As such, you almost want to smack her son and daughter (played so well by Aral Gribble and Sonja Marquis) for how poorly they seem to treat their mother. And you begin to wonder why the family would allow such a quack of a doctor (brilliantly played by Dave Davies) to treat their mother. But then you remember: That’s how Molly interprets their actions and behavior; we’re not privy to what was really said and done.

Although additional fine character work is provided by Michael Hays and Brenda Lane, the focal point of the show is Molly. If you don’t believe she’s experiencing a breakdown in her mental faculties, the show falls apart. Simply put: Nancy Elizabeth Kammer nails it.

And I think that’s what disturbed my friend most on opening night. What Molly revealed through Kammer’s spot-on facial expressions, tone of voice and behavior mirrored those of his parent who’s been living with dementia for a handful of years. It’s been tough for him, and this night at the theater was not what he expected. (I knew he was troubled by the show when he didn’t want to stay after and visit with one of his favorite actresses.)

However, I think he’d agree that Kickshaw’s season opener is a powerful one. Just come prepared for an experience all of us – especially those of us getting up in years – may face in the not-so-distant future. It just won’t be as humorous or well executed.

The bottom line: I went in to the show knowing nothing about it – I didn’t read the press release beforehand – and left impressed by the care and creativity the author, director, technicians and actors put into presenting this most difficult subject.

“Milvotchkee, Visconsin,” which runs through Oct. 7, is presented through the generous support of Glacier Hills Senior Living Community and Saint Joseph Mercy Health System. Also participating are Michigan Alzheimer’s Disease Center and Alzheimer’s Association. For complete show details, CLICK HERE!

Brenda Lane, Dave Davies, Nancy Elizabeth Kammer

All photos by Sean Carter Photography

Not so lost at Slipstream

As I posted on Facebook last night, I was at the Friday evening performance of “Lost in 3 Pines” at Ferndale’s Slipstream Theatre Initiative, which is playwright Maxim Vinogradov’s second script to win the prestigious Hopwood Award and the Dennis McIntyre Prize from the University of Michigan, where he currently double majors in English and film, and minors in playwriting. (Given the tough competition he was up against, winning one of those awards is amazing enough; winning both twice is stunning.)

So on the way home, my guest – who frequently joins me in my theater travels and who especially loves Slipstream – asked me, “So…what are you going to say about this one?”

“I haven’t a clue,” I replied.

As we drove back to my house, he said he was on the fence about the production, mostly because he hadn’t figured out how all the pieces fit together. “I just didn’t understand it,” he said with a deep sigh.

To be honest, I didn’t either – at least certain aspects of it. And neither did many (most? all?) of the patrons who stayed around after the performance to participate in an informal talk-back – which I normally don’t do. But since I was there as a theatergoer and not a critic, I decided to see what everyone else thought of the production. What I learned is this: My friend and I weren’t alone in our confusion. Or more accurately, I suspect, is this: Everyone interpreted what they saw through their own lenses and filters and viewed the results a bit differently. And that includes the actors and the director.

So as everyone compared notes and shared their observations, the puzzle pieces started coming together for me. But not totally.

The picture got clearer as my friend and I got closer to home. As we talked about things one or the other of us weren’t sure about – again, something that’s verboten when I’m functioning as a critic – more lights came on and Maxim’s vision got clearer. But so did something else.

As theatergoers, we’re used to being rather passive when we’re watching a play. Yes, we laugh or clap or sing along, but rarely do we exercise much brain power as the story unfolds; we simply sit back, observe and let it all soak in.

With plays such as “Lost in 3 Pines,” however, Maxim challenges his audience to not only watch and observe, but also to actively concentrate on every word that is said – even words or lines that seem unimportant at the time. To miss even a syllable could lead to confusion as the story roller coasters its way to its unexpected conclusion. As such, it’s part cryptogram, part word seek and part mental acuity test all rolled into a 90-minute dilemma that the great Sherlock Holmes would surely deem to be not-so elementary as he attempted to sort through its many piece parts.

By now you’re probably wondering what it's about. Here’s the best, basic, one-line summary I can think of: A young, married woman who feels trapped and lost in the life she’s living is asked a not-so-innocent question by a stranger she meets at a dinner party – “What do you do for a living?” – and the resultant existential quest to answer him takes her on a personal journey (real or imagined) she never expected.

Yes, that’s vague. Purposely so. But bear with me.

As I was shaving this morning and processing what I had seen the night before, a thought popped into my head that doesn’t really explain the details of the plot, but rather the show’s unusual concept and the form Maxim uses to tell his story. So here goes:

Imagine you’re a young college student sitting alone in a dimly lit, somewhat-seedy bar located in an old, run-down neighborhood few people frequent. It’s early evening, the sun has just gone down, when in walks author L. Frank Baum. He stops after taking a few steps inside, and once his eyes are adjusted to the darkness, he spots fellow-author Lewis Carroll sitting alone and nursing a drink. So he walks over, is invited to sit down, and the two begin a quiet, yet animated conversation. Within minutes, from another room inside the bar, walk Anton Chekov, Henrik Ibsen, Bertolt Brecht and Samuel Beckett. The two groups spot each other immediately, say their hellos and quickly grab a large, round table close to where you’re sitting. As the night progresses, drinks flow freely, tales tall roll off their tongues, and – thanks to the liquor taking its toll – an amusing challenge is suggested. "Just for the fun of it," one says to the others, "let’s take the archetypal characters of Dorothy and Alice on a self-exploratory journey unlike any other, one in which she’ll find herself surrounded by people and set in unique situations and places only those of us at this table could concoct for her." They all love the suggestion, of course, and the ideas quickly percolate. As the evening gets later and the stack of empty booze bottles grows larger, the story takes shape. Intrigued by what he observes is a lone figure sitting at the bar. But when the authors hit a stumbling block, the gentleman stands up, pays his bar tab, slowly saunters towards the group, offers a suggestion, and leaves. “Tennessee Williams, you’re a genius,” the six laugh. At dawn, the now-sleepy men rise from their now-filthy table and walk out into the sunlight, pleased with themselves and the story they created – knowing and accepting that it would never be told again. What they don’t know, however, is that the young man sitting nearby absorbed every word he heard. And he knows a time will come to bring their unusual tale to life.

While that scenario didn’t actually play out, of course, it helps explain what happens when concepts and elements of such childhood favorites as “The Wizard of Oz” and “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” are ripped apart and reshaped through the lenses of authors who worked in a handful of different, specific genres of Maxim’s choosing. The result, then, is a story told through four short acts staged and performed in four very different styles of theater.

As such, like every absurdist play you’ve ever attended, patrons will leave the theater unsure of what they’ve seen. They’ll have questions – possibly lots of questions. But that’s what good theater is supposed to do: challenge you and leave you to resolve unanswered questions for yourself.

For as it became clear at the talk back, no one – not even the actors in the play – viewed or interpreted the script the same way. Identical conclusions were never drawn. And I suspect absolutely no one in the audience anticipated the show’s final act.

Although our discussion about the play took us almost all the way home, my friend sat quiet as we drove the last few miles. As we approached my driveway, he looked at me and said, “I’ve changed my mind. I really liked the play.”

I did, too, although I still haven't resolved all of my unanswered questions. I also loved the performances – all of them, none of which I’ll talk about individually because it would be unfair to discuss one or two and not the others. Plus, this isn't meant to be a review. But I will say that because of the style changes required of each act, each actor was faced with the difficult task of figuring out how to negotiate each new change without negating what went on before. And they did so quite masterfully. And entertainingly.

Now, there’s only one question left to answer: Will YOU like the show? Maybe. Maybe not. One person I talked to hated it. But I suspect anyone one who loves theater that is different and unique and is open to work that challenges its audience to pay close attention and sort through its many details will find it intriguing. And fun. And thought provoking. And timely. And well acted. And well costumed.

Or: Just go to see ripped Brenton Herwat in a very shiny, skimpy, revealing outfit. I'm OK with that, too. (How Tiaja Sabrie kept a straight face at certain times is beyond me! A WILDE-r Award would surely be given them if such a thing still existed!)

“Lost in 3 Pines” runs through Aug. 5.  Show details can be found here:

(Photo at top by Jan Cartwright; all others by Nick Rowley.)

Platonic critics break up (but still remain good friends)

We tried. We really did.

For quite a while fellow-critic Jenn McKee and I have been trying to come up with creative ways to provide both theaters and theatergoers with an alternative platform for theater news and criticism. Our first proposal (a unique, twice-monthly, online-only theater magazine that focused on news, previews and interviews rather than reviews) went down in flames for reasons too detailed to go into here. Other ideas we explored together or separately, such as short video reviews, podcasts and a weekly half-hour video series, all bit the dust, as well.

Then, Jenn had an idea she thought would be fun: Since we sometimes found each other at the same shows, how about co-writing reviews – but as a conversation between us rather than the same old tired format we’ve all become accustomed to?

And thus was born the Platonic Theater Date series. It debuted at the end of March, and the immediate feedback we received was very encouraging; apparently, some found reading our chats was as much fun for them as it was for us writing them.

But after nine dates, Jenn and I have decided to break off our engagement (so to speak); that is, to end our little experiment.

It’s not that we didn’t enjoy doing them. Rather, we looked forward to sitting down – her at her house in front of her computer and me at mine doing the same – and letting our “chat” on Facebook Messenger travel in whatever directions our conversation took us. There were never any discussions beforehand; what you read is how the conversation transpired (with a couple rounds of editing and polishing, of course).

So why, then, are we discontinuing the series?

In part, for the same reason the above-mentioned projects never took off: We haven’t found a way to get paid for all of the time and effort we put into the project.

Pretty much every media outlet today is struggling to figure out how to monetize online content. Not even the big behemoths have discovered the solution, and for new endeavors like ours, it’s especially tough. And forget advertising; we’re too small at this point to be noticed, even by Google. Nor will we consider asking theaters to help fund this project due to “pay to play” and “favoritism” concerns.

But more importantly, we face the paradox Jenn recently discussed on Facebook: because mainstream news sites have neither the resources nor the will to feature much local arts coverage, those of us in the “flyover states” are largely left with only blogs. And unless artists and companies share these obscure blog reviews via Facebook, websites, social media, or email blasts – which many won’t want to do when the assessments are critical, of course, which just makes sense - we can’t gain traction in the marketplace and build something more sustainable.

Bottom line: very few people are reading our reviews. Of the first eight published, only one made it to four digits; the others averaged a measly 347 views. And our last one? It finally hit 122. We’re expending all our energies for only a handful of readers, the numbers of which are trending downward.

So we’re calling it a day.

We sincerely thank the theaters that reached out and invited us to their shows, who gave us free tickets, and seemed to appreciate our efforts on their behalf. And we also thank our readers who offered words of encouragement, or said positive things about our work.

But now it’s time for us both to move on to other things.

For Don, he’s limiting his reviews to brief comments on Facebook for the time being. Future blog entries will occur when the spirit moves him. He will, however, continue writing show previews and interviews for Between The Lines and elsewhere as opportunities arise. And he’ll continue to think about ways to promote theater in this new age of media uncertainty.

Jenn will still write occasional reviews for Pulp, We Love Ann Arbor, and any other sites that will pay for her work, in addition to a couple of Patreon-funded indie reviews for her blog per month. Otherwise, she hopes to dive further into the script she recently starting writing - when she’s not carting her kids around to day camps and working part-time shifts at her local library.

Platonic critics: Characters bloom in Rep season closer

As the final installment of Jenn McKee and Don Calamia’s Platonic Theater Date review series, the two critics attended the same performance of Detroit Repertory Theatre’s “Ghost Gardens” on June 7, and followed-up with a conversation about the show. Here’s their joint review:

New life, especially in the face of hard circumstances, always offers hope.

This is the reason people are happy to see baby pictures in their social media feed. They provide a break from the anger, posing, and tragic news that otherwise clog our daily lives; and they suggest that no matter what, life will out. Steven Simoncic’s play “Ghost Gardens,” now playing at Detroit Repertory Theatre (directed by Lynch Travis) through July 1, builds its story around this notion.

Set in a Detroit neighborhood that stands in the shadow of an old, chemical-spewing plant, “Gardens” begins with Lorelie (Leah Smith) at her baby’s grave on what would have been her tenth birthday. Lorelie’s been trying to get pregnant again for the intervening years, without success, and she’s not the only one. No children have been born in the neighborhood in years. So when Lorelie, on this tenth anniversary, announces that she’s pregnant, her underemployed husband Tryg (Aral Gribble), sassy best friend Myra (Jenaya Jones Reynolds), ailing mother Helen (Linda Rabin Hammell), and the local pimp-turned-preacher Powder (Cornell Markham) rejoice.

Indeed, a man named Lonnie (Will Bryson), just released from prison, who’s now working alongside Powder, hatches a plan to use social media to raise money and hopes around Lorelie’s good news. But as Tryg continues to sometimes go missing for days at a time, and Helen grows sicker – despite her new, blossoming relationship with Powder – Lorelie begins to buckle under the pressure of her community’s collective hopes.

DC: In my opinion, the Detroit Repertory Theatre is ending its 61st season with the type of show they excel at: stories about ordinary people struggling with their everyday lives. And what they also do quite well is cast their shows with a mix of longtime favorites and new faces to keep their shows fresh and energized. This show embodies both ideals.

JM: This was the first time I'd been back at the Rep since I last reviewed a show there a few years ago, and it reminded me of how focused they are on telling the kind of stories you describe.

DC: It's also a theater I love going to because of how welcoming it is. At how many theaters can you find the founding artistic director still manning the bar after 61 years? And another cheerfully greeting you in the box office? And where else can you buy tasty cookies freshly baked based on recipes from yet a third co-founder?

JM: First, WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE COOKIES?! And second, these touches are definitely part of what charmed me most the last time I visited Detroit Rep. But we should get to talking about the show. What were your overall impressions of "Ghost Gardens"? I wasn't previously familiar with the work of playwright Steven Simoncic.

DC: That makes two of us – at least I don't recall seeing any of his other plays. I enjoyed this one, though. While it didn't have a really big dramatic arc, it was filled with numerous intimate moments in which we got to learn about the characters, their hopes, their dreams, their problems - and what happens when a community unites together for a cause despite their differences.

JM: For me, the play spreads itself a little thin. Though everything's connected, the sheer number of stories within the play results in them all getting short shrift. We have the story of a beleaguered blue collar marriage, an ailing parent, a mature romance, an ex-convict finding his way in the world, an unexpected pregnancy, the deep friendship between two women, an examination of how hope gets commercialized and marketed online - there's a lot. Maybe too much.

DC: While I can see your point, it didn't particularly bother me. We had a lot of characters and relationships to sort through and understand, and I thought we were given just the right amount of information we needed about each character’s story arc to follow the plot and keep all the interconnected dots straight.

JM: There were some really nice moments between the actors, but the script itself felt like someone throwing all kinds of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. My point is, with so many different elements, I never felt invested in any particular one of them.

DC: I'll agree with you on that last point. Because of how each character is given so much time in the spotlight, you're never quite sure whose story is the primary one. I think it’s Lorelie's because it's her pregnancy that starts the ball rolling, but there's some competition for that honor. The focus; not the pregnancy! (laughs)

JM: Right. And that's the driver of many events and conversations. Oh! I forgot that the play's also got a public health thread, by way of the chemical-spewing plant located near this neighborhood. The surprise and hope her pregnancy provides everyone stems from that.

DC: But like you said, the story meanders across so many plot threads, that it takes focus away from Lorelie. She almost becomes a sub-plot in her own story.

JM: Yes. I agree. That having been said, what performances did you find most affecting?

DC: That's a tough call, since this was a pretty strong cast. Personally, I loved Cornell Markham as Powder, the pimp-turned-preacher. He had such honesty in his characterization, always with a twinkle in his eye. Jenaya Jones Reynolds as Myra was the show’s comic relief, yet you could totally feel her love for Lorelie, her best friend. And who couldn't love Aral Gribble's very convincing Tryg? He plays these “blue collar everyman” roles to perfection. And Leah Smith, one of my favorite actresses, brought such sensitivity to her role!

JM: Yes, and the actors have an extra challenge because filling in a lot of blanks (regarding character) in the script is ultimately up to them. That's one reason why Gribble wowed me. He wasn't on stage all that much, but when he was, he poured way more into his scenes, just by way of his choices. Similarly, Hammell imbues Helen with an irresistible feistiness that made her, as a character, come more alive, too.

DC: That's why it's so tough to pick a favorite or highlight a specific moment to discuss. They all do such great jobs filling out and giving heft to what the playwright gave them. There are so many little touches...

JM: I loved Reynolds' no-nonsense sassiness, and Smith has some really powerful moments. But again, unfortunately, it didn't add up to cumulative impact.

DC: That's indeed a problem when a playwright uses somewhat of a scattershot approach to storytelling: the focus becomes the many rather than one or two clearly defined lead characters, so you’re not sure whom to root for.

JM: What did you think of Harry Wetzel's set? It looked as if the "garden" of the title had taken over every inch of this world, including its interiors.

DC: Yes, indeed. I interpreted it to mean that seeds planted in the hearts and minds of this neighborhood took root and spread throughout the entire community. But I could be wrong. (laughs)

JM: Huh. I saw a darker meaning - which may just be my twisted personal filter at work. But it seemed to me to emphasize how in this neighborhood, there was no separation between outside and inside. What's happening "out there" - with the nearby plant, and the harmful things coming from it - long ago infiltrated everything. Though things are verdant and green, and somewhat beautiful, there's also something haunting about the way the greenery is pervasive.

DC: Could be. I didn't see that, but I guess I didn't give it that deep of a consideration. I just know it’s another of Wetzel’s well-executed designs.

JM: Meanwhile, Thomas Schrader's lighting design had a colorful, watery quality at times.

DC: It sure did. I was quite impressed with his work.

JM: Quite a lovely effect. And Sandra Landfair Glover’s costumes place us more firmly in this blue collar Detroit neighborhood – but the real stars of her work were Helen and Lorelie’s red dresses, of course. Both frocks convey an air of individual defiance and pride.

DC: I loved the scene where we see Gribble’s Tryg quickly change clothes to show his life’s progression up to this point. It was very creative and required some careful planning on Glover’s part, since he had to get in and out of various items very quickly. So overall, what's your bottom line?

JM: Some good performances, with solid direction from Travis, but there's only so much the artists can achieve with a scattered script.

DC: I found it to be entertaining, more so because of the performances, direction and tech work than the script, which is ultimately not a very memorable one. But overall, it was yet another enjoyable evening at the Rep, and I can’t wait to see what they have on tap for season 62!


For complete show details, CLICK HERE!