|
| |
OF MICE AND MEN
ICT Mainstage
*REVIEWED 01/15/10 PERFORMANCE
_______________________OF MICE AND MEN______________________
Reviewed by Clyde Berry
ASSOCIATE THEATER CRITIC: John Garcia's THE COLUMN
PLEASE NOTE: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS PLOT SPOILERS
ICT Mainstage's latest production, John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, is a
classic piece of theater programming; a title that should bring in school
groups, and theater fans alike, to see what a skillful company can do with
the
meaty script. The characters and story are an important piece of American
literature, capturing attitudes and a time of our country in flux. There are
themes of race, sexism, the American Dream, and even ageism in the piece.
Steinbeck's novel was quickly turned into a play in less than a year, with
the
first movie treatment (of four total) to follow the year after. There is
even an
opera version of the story by American composer, Carlisle Floyd. The
characters
are such a part of our cultural heritage that even Looney Tunes alludes to
the
story with their Abominable Snowman character, who grabs Daffy Duck,
mistakes
him for a rabbit, and with his childlike personality and strength, pets him
into
a knot while calling him George.
The novel's title comes from a Robert Burns poem and refers to the line "the
best laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley (often go wrong)."
At this point in our country's history, the Great Depression, folks were
disillusioned with the idea of the American Dream and were facing an
upcoming
war and current economic struggle. Specifically, the story has every major
character discussing their "dream" or the way they think life should be, and
nobody gets what they want.
Knowing that no character will achieve what they want at the story's
conclusion
very much changes the way the audience will experience the show. Even
Shakespeare tells the audience that Romeo and Juliet won't live to the end
in
the first sixteen lines of the play. So if we're supposed to know about the
impending doom of ideas, what are we supposed to get out of the piece, how
it
could have been prevented? How these plans could have come to fruition?
There is
great potential for some dramatic choices and dynamic storytelling; but not
every planned part of this production succeeded, either.
The story concerns the scheme of migrant workers George and Lennie to buy a
ranch of their own and "live off the fat of the land". Lennie and George
travel
together on the workers circuit. George acts as a parent/friend to the
mentally
unique Lennie. Lennie is an oversized man with a childlike innocence and
giant's
strength. His inability to monitor his actions and lack of understanding of
consequences often gets him into trouble. The boys land at their next ranch
gig,
where they try to figure out the dynamic of the local ranch hands and
management. While they acclimate to the local hierarchy, an accidental death
proves to be the undoing of the men, and their dream as well.
Jason Leyva is the standout performer in this production. His George Milton
is
the best rounded character. Leyva easily navigates George's lengthy rants in
the
beginning and makes the dialog seem perfectly natural. George carries the
show
and Leyva effortlessly shows us George's reactions and decisions in a
sensitive
and subtle way. It is hard for actors to distinguish between various levels
of
frustration and impatience in a character when those emotions are so
prevalent,
but Leyva paces himself and allows events to build to an exciting and caring
conclusion.
Lennie is an incredibly difficult character to portray. Both the actor and
director have to decide what his mental faculties are: is he mentally
challenged, an overgrown child, or something else? The entire story hangs on
why
Lennie does what he does. In this production, Dustin Sautter portrays Lennie
as
more of a childlike innocent. This portrayal is standard, and Sautter very
solidly and consistently holds his character together. There could have been
more moments when we see Lennie getting the ideas to do what he does;
Sautter
seems to know where he is going already for everything and loses a sense of
spontaneity. Sautter and Leyva have great chemistry and are an excellent
anchor
in this production.
Randal Scott is a very energetic Curly, boisterous, bullying, and running
all
over the place. His character brings a very different dynamic to every scene
he
is in, and it should. Scott is very natural and comfortable onstage with
dialog
and his physical action.
A surprise standout was the character of Whit, as played by Patrick Lynwood
Henry. Whit is a smaller role, but in the hands of Mr. Henry, it has become
a
high energy scene stealing presence. Henry uses his full body in his
characterization, and is quite animated vocally as well. Without him, there
would be some serious drag in a key scene.
Also very strong was Justin Lucas' portrayal of the elderly Crooks. This
young
man was playing a character well beyond his years and life experience, which
is
no easy task. Lucas easily moves around with Crooks' physical impairments.
He
holds his own against the older performers and no one questions his
authenticity. That says quite a lot, about a newcomer to keep watching.
Walt Marts' Carlson is a seasoned ranch hand. His Carlson is much less
caustic
than other takes on the role, and the choice works well for him. This also
brings a welcome sense of levity.
David McCalib's as The Boss, has a brief appearance. McCalib doesn't quite
make
the transition from business to casual as needed in his scene, but is
otherwise
believable.
Slim is the veteran ranch hand (Mule skinner), the seasoned one who really
is
the boss behind the scenes. This Slim doesn't convey that knowledge or
authority. Duncan Rogers' Slim is a nice enough guy, but a great deal more
is
needed from the role. Rogers ' unusual vocal delivery, a paced monotone,
doesn't
help build any dramatic tension in his scenes.
Likewise, Dennis West's Candy was also weak. West comes off as a side
player,
when in fact he has a major role. West does not seem to carry with him any
emotional burden from scene to scene, and stumbled over lines at the
reviewed
performance.
Lastly, Cassidy Crown portrays Curly's Wife. She is the woman stuck in a
fresh
marriage that has stripped her of her perceived opportunities in film. While
in
each scene Crown has a game plan, she strangely comes off as a different
woman.
In isolation, each scene is pretty good. Still the character arc created is
confusing. There seems to be a conflict between multiple character
interpretations.
Charles Ballinger clearly had several strong ideas in mind when he directed
this
production. With such interesting plans, it is surprising that their
execution
is uneven. For example, some scene shifts happen in full view of the
audience,
while others happen in black out. Act II opens with a scene shift that could
have easily happened during intermission. Why do we have to watch a scene
shift
at the top of the Act (or any of the others)? I'm not sure I got the
message.
Background sounds appear suddenly, and are cut off sharply. If I didn't know
it
was a horseshoe game going on offstage, I don't think I would have heard
enough
to know it. Everyone leaving the barn in Act II seems to run smack into the
same
eavesdropping horse who whinnies in complaint. Why can't these sounds become
part of a constant background instead of coming and going? Richard
Frohlich's
choice of sounds is good, as is their balance and directional nature, but
the
execution is off.
Thematically, there are several threads that were let go. The relationship
between George and Lennie is clearly the most important, and this one is
very
well handled. Still, Candy struggling with the futility of aging was lost.
The
death of Candy's dog is the impetus for him to ask to join George and
Lennie's
plan to buy a ranch. He wants to be useful in his old age, to have a purpose
instead of being aimless. Likewise, Curly's Wife is trapped in a marriage
that
has stripped her of her dreams; is she really the tart the men gossip about,
or
a lonely girl desperate for any friendly company. There is no clear
distinction.
The African American Crooks feels very strongly about position and status on
the
ranch. Why doesn't he get more upset when everyone invades his room? Lennie,
in
his innocence brings about the demise of everyone's plans. He kills Curly's
wife, invades Crooks' space, robs George of his dream ranch, and traps Candy
into fading away into obscurity.
The final scene, in which George confronts Lennie after Lennie has killed
Curly's wife is the most tense scene in the play. Will George, after years
of
cleaning up after Lennie's messes, shoot him to not only put him out of his
misery, but save him from a painful lynching?
How will he do it? While I applaud new innovations & interpretations, I
found
the staging of this scene to be disappointing. After all of the dialog
recapping
the dream ranch that we know they'll never seem come true, George sends
Lennie
to the other side of the stage to "look at the ranch in the distance".
Lennie's
last lines are that he can see it. Yet, both men are strongly lit by a
downward
special, which obscures both their faces, and removes them from each other
about
as far as one can get.
For a story that focuses so strongly on the men's relationship to each other
and
the frustrations it caused, why isolate them at their last moment together?
Not
only do we lose any facial expression, but Lennie's "I can see it!" rings
very
hollow because we can't see it, or him. Had there been more of this type of
staging in the rest of the play, I could understand it here, but the picture
presented was unlike anything else in the rest of the piece. This
inconsistency
bugged me.
Other choices work quite nicely, like Ellen Mizener's set design. It is a
minimal design that is black and white in palate. A back wall of pickets
make an
excellent bunkhouse and barn setting. Move a doorframe, juggle some crates,
and
with a small wagon, we now have Crook's room. The scene changes flow
smoothly.
Combine that with equally minimal yet smart lighting by Sam Nance, and some
delightful stage pictures appear. The color palate shifts into Sepiatones
and
quite nicely establishes a Dust Bowl feel. The sky peeking over and through
the
picketwall was a stunning look.
Blending into all of this was Karen Peirce-Burks costume design. At first I
was
distracted by George's baseball cap, and then decided he was a trendsetter.
Everyone looks good, also in drab colors, excellently distressed on all
sides.
Hats abound, causing some shadows on faces. Curly's Wife is the only one
with
color in her attire. Her red trimmed outfit stands out, establishing her
fish-out-of-water status. Still, I'm not sure her frilly shoes would survive
long running around on the ranch, and these folks do lots of running in this
show. With her heels, I'm not sure she could be climbing on hay bales
either.
But no one said Curly's Wife was logical in her wardrobe choices.
Fernando Lara's props are minimal but effective, I wish the killed puppy
wasn't
thrown around, it really shows that it is a stuffed animal. The tack in
Crook's
room is appropriate, though a few newer pieces stand out.
Keith Kubal's fight choreography is great for Lennie's crushing of Curly's
hand.
The actors pull it off realistically and quickly. However, Lennie's murder
of
Curly's Wife isn't quite as smooth. Kubal has laid an excellent path for the
fight sequence, it increases slowly but steadily in intensity, as it should.
There's even a break where Curly's Wife almost gets away. But, there are two
crucial points where Lennie's body blocks what's going on. In a fight like
this,
where the character's motives are going to be in debate, the audience needs
to
see as much as possible.
If you haven't seen Mice and Men, you should. It is an important part of our
literary heritage. What this production focuses on most, it does well, even
if
subplots get less attention. There are only two more weekends of this run in
Irving .
Reviewed by Clyde Berry
ASSOCIATE THEATER CRITIC: John Garcia's THE COLUMN
________________________________________________________________
OF MICE AND MEN By John Steinbeck
ICT MainStage
Through January 30, 2010
Dupree Theater, Irving Arts Center 3333 N. MacArthur Blvd.
Fridays & Saturdays at 8 pm.
Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 8pm
Sunday January 24, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Tickets:
Friday – Sunday: Adults $20 and Seniors/Students $18
Thursday- Adults $17 and Seniors/Students $15
Student Rush- $5 cash 5minutes before curtain if seats
available. Box Office: 972/252-2787
www.irvingtheatre.org
|
|
