(no subject)
this is where i sit in the computer lab and write about how i can't write a review for a final for a class i'm almost passing. what can you say about urinetown the musical? other than the sound was messed up, i couldn't understand the lyrics to any of the songs, the characters were...well, the characters were alright, but the set design was all fouled up, the actors were wound tighter than a rubberband about to snap, and the spinning house that made up most every part of the set reminded me more of the wizard of oz than anything else relevant to the play itself. that said, the strobe lights/slow motion scene was very intense and wonderful, the lead female was so amazing i left the theatre wanting to marry her, and the man who played officer lockstock still retained the next day when i saw him outside of the little theatre so much of the character that i thought to watch my back lest i be shipped off to urinetown myself. indeed the most attention grabbing "you are a part of this" moment came in the last five minutes of the musical where officer lockstock reveals to little sally that the lifestyle we (everyone, not just the characters) are living is not sustainable, and no matter the happy ending you're expecting something else comes up if you aren't being aware. aware of your actions, aware of your opposition without better solution, aware of your being so caught up in fighting for (or against) something that you don't realize you're making the same mistakes, just on a different side of the battle. as for the other hour and 50 minutes, i was so distracted by the foggy transmission of voices through speakers that i wasn't really...grabbed by the show. i found myself distracted, not interested, and rather bored to be honest. but this isn't to say that the play in itself failed to do anything, it's just that all of these distractions (big clunky sets, not enough room for the actors to interact, crappy sound, too loud orchestra, and sometimes empty acting) were so much stronger than the underlying message (which itself is sort of vague and unclear) and so anything that *could have* been conveyed by the storyline was lost. and please, tell me, what purpose does the monopoly theme serve if only to confuse the audience as to why the villain looks like the monopoly man, the amenity is a monopoly-green house, and benches are monopoly cards when NOTHING about the story relates to monopoly (except the "monopoly" of the toilet system)!!! aside from this, what is the play really about? is it a love story? is it a political statement? is it a comedy? a drama? a blatant satire? it seems as if the play is trying to be all of these things at once but leaves so many of these myriad themes undeveloped that it doesn't succeed in being any of them, really. the result is just "entertainment" and a few jokes, albeit with pretty damn fine musical numbers, but nothing much beyond that. acting wise, everyone did a fairly good job of being their character except unfortunately for the lead male who didn't quite embody his bobby strong as strongly as he could have. vocally, there were some real challenges because even though people were talking really loudly i still couldn't understand what the words were that they were saying (this is un-"miked" delivery even). you'll be delighted to know that only one or two people really pronounced their "z"s and "s"s correctly, and listening to most of the cast speak it was clear that they had little support or freedom of breath behind their voice. patsy rodenburg would have been cringing to hear it.