What I liked
I normally hate talkbacks, but the talkback portions made me think about the value of entertainment. (With high stakes, because Agent Spicer is going to interrogate every thought you dare to express.) Is something worth preserving just because you enjoyed it, or does it need to have a deeper meaning to earn value? How does that work when artistic and aesthetic value is subjective?
As I try to think of specifics, I realize that I can’t single one performer out, as all of them had uniquely significant moments and the entire fabric would have dissolved if anyone dropped their guard for a second. They also all seamlessly shift between their roles as reserved and stoic government agents and drastically different performers in the selections of Charles Mee’s work. Julia Finch absolutely nailed that disturbing mixture of folksy charm and militant conservatism while playing some of the most empathetic characters in the Mee productions, Jonathan Brooks was a pitch perfect version of a type of person I love in the theater but would hate in real life and gave one of the most powerful Agamemnons I think I’ll ever see, Will McFadden is a master improviser and an absolute joy to watch (particularly as an Italian nonna), Brandon Blum brings the audience in and adds crucial empathy while hitting all the right notes for some of Mee’s classic young men and women, and Lee Hanson—-the audience lifeline—-keeps the spine of the show intact while delivering some of the most impactful passages from Mee’s ouvre.
While the improv was definitely a highlight, Hanson’s and McFadden’s script is punchy, relevant, and strong. It is able to withstand audience participation and actor improvisation.
What I didn't like
I don’t know that this is something that could be improved, exactly, but I feel like people who are not into audience participation might be uncomfortable, as the fourth wall is non-existent and, indeed, though we are told our input doesn’t matter, the audience does still sway the events of the show. You can likely avoid participation if you really don’t want to (I was practically in the front row making direct eye contact with the actors and I wasn’t called on), but it is still a possibility. Perhaps during check-in, the Juror numbers could be dependent on one’s level of comfort in audience participation? i.e. The 1100s are comfortable with it, the 1200s are OK with being called on but not called up to the stage, the 1300s aren’t comfortable at all? I dunno. I’m really rambling and grasping at straws because I loved this show so much.
My overall impression
What the Chuck?! is a brilliant work of theater made for the theater kids, by the theater kids, but still with strong mass appeal. Before the show even starts, the characters are clearly defined and sparkling, bringing my excitement to a boiling point. The show is funny and silly on the surface, but like the best funny/silly material, that disarming veneer harbors deep, existential thoughts and theories. Many of them brought to light by the audience. This is boosted by the performers being extremely sharp improvisers, performing the scripted material spontaneously and also responding to audience comments with whip-smart retorts.
I have no idea if Mee is aware of this production, but I hope he is and I hope he’s honored. This production is a great example of why art should be shared, and shared widely. It shows that art is not an exhibition, it’s a conversation.
I had extremely high expectations, and they were blown away. Do yourself a favor and see this show!
