What I liked
This review may contain spoilers
Pete Eshewsky’s portrayal of co-presenter Bob had an easy confidence and some fun game that was both charismatic and off putting, all to the benefit of the production, even when his north-midwestern dialect slipped Gaelic.
The sexually charged standoff/exchange between mild mannered Bob and Emily Yonker’s trigger-happy Arden, and its aftermath, was delightfully memorable.
The practical use of the old school slide projector was a breath off fresh air in what feels like an over saturated HFF24 trend for giant projections (which usually camouflage the actor with the background) and the machine’s hum helped set the scene for the 1990s seminar.
Husband and wife costumes were spot on, down to the teased bangs and Casio- esque wristwatch. The prop gun is well weighted, giving a gravitas to its passing among attendees.
What I didn't like
“Tough Choices for the New Century: A Seminar for Responsible Living” is a 1996 Humana Festival piece. But while watching tonight, I assumed it was a collaborative work between Yonker and Eshewsky. I am curious why this team chose this play. As an artist, I must ask, where is the risk? Why this particular work? Why now? And why hand out questionnaires and schedules to every member of audience if you’re not going to use it/refer to it more than as a throw away (pun intended) at the top? Waste of time, paper, and precious production budget.
The moments that were most compelling were when the actors were connecting with each other(shocker), but during those beats, the fourth wall seemed to go back up, negating the conceit of the play. If the seminar presenters are getting caught up in a moment, it would take a lot more than what we saw to make them forget there was an audience watching them. The production would benefit with the use of an outside directorial eye, as only one such
moment was earned.
Cultural references needed to be heightened to be considered satire- at least at this performance, they fell tone deaf on this audience. And speaking of audience, the actors would do well to prepare themselves to be more present with us. There was a beautiful opportunity between Yonker and an attendee, and it makes me wonder if the actor felt confined to the not-quite-memorized script when the improvisational device of “listening and responding” would have been much more compelling and in service of the piece.
Ultimately, in this early run, I didn’t buy it. As the play says, “a catastrophe is nothing personal.” Certainly later in its run the show will have more preparedness under its holstered belt.
(And the gun is never fired???)
My overall impression
Quirky characters and a prop gun fight for the spotlight in this seminar-premised production from 1996.
