What I liked
The premise of each play was thought-provokingly good:
(1) The guilt from the Catholic church’s pedophile-priest scandals is not atoned either institutionally or personally by ordaining female priests — it merely morphs into a new form;
(2) The guilt from a rigid man’s past sin torments him in a new form that his soul can deal with more concretely, but confession doesn’t heal — it merely ricochets the guilt from him into another family member.
The acting was good to excellent, as was the directing; the minimal set design forced the actors and directors to display their talents instead of relying on nonessentials. In both plays, the acting largely overcomes some flaws in the writing and execution.
In particular,
• In the first play, both actors use the space extremely well. The overwrought language (see below) is largely overcome by the actors’ unself-consciousnessness.
• In the second play (“Man Vs. Armadillo”), the father does a superb job of portraying three kinds of tension — with his demons, with his true self, and with his son — comically, realistically, and movingly.
In the second play, innovative lighting was effective in drawing boundaries, both real (the fourth wall), “real” (the property line), and symbolic. However, …. — see below.
What I didn't like
Two technical things require change:
(1) The percussion accompaniment was too loud, drowning out actors’ line in some cases when drama and emotion were high — but the audience can, in such moments, focus on the theatrical language of face, body, and movement and not lose the thread. Less avoidable was the loudness before and between plays. I had to cover my ears.
Those who enjoy rock concerts (as I do not) might not have the problem I had. The directors and instrumentalists should know that my aural pain soured my mood and my reception of the evening.
(2) In my opinion, no actor should ever point a gun into the audience. In my opinion, a play should never shine a laser into an audience. If either of these is deemed essential to a play, then audiences should be warned in advance; once you’re seated, you can’t get away.
More generally:
(A) The writing of the first play, “The Holy Name of Apostasy” (a title seemingly unrelated to the play), needs to be further developed. The premise and setup are quite good.
Unfortunately, the denouement is telegraphed within the first few minutes, partly because the arc of the priest’s character is so compressed. I wish the playwright had trusted the audience to reach a slowly dawning understanding of What’s Wrong with This Picture, instead of having her hand it to us in fifteen seconds.
The lines given to both characters are often overwrought: the actor playing Mother Dawn resisted the temptation to overact, but Dylan succumbed to some extent. The play would, in my opinion, benefit from muting its lurid emotionalism — especially with actors as good as these two are.
The biggest flaw is that there is no payoff. The final tableau is neither conclusion nor revelation of any kind. The theme, as best I could tell (new trappings can change old guilt’s form, but not its substance) seemed to get lost.
(B) The writing of “Man Vs. Armadillo” goes on a bit too long. Although the actor’s delivery of the father’s well-written monologues was superb (and the opening-night audience ate it up), the same character development could be achieved in far less time.
The transition from one-man comedy to family drama suffers from too much exposition; it is difficult to suspend disbelief during the son’s reminiscence of a past incident when his only reason for his remembering and discussing it with his dad at 3am seems to be the author’s wish to explain something to the audience.
The plot event that occasions the climax is symbolically satisfying but utterly unbelievable as staged; this could easily remedied by a small change in the pointing of a prop or, more dramatically but perhaps not possible in the confined space and time, by moving the father beyond the fourth wall so that he temporarily becomes the Other before stumbling back into the son’s world. Such a change would further highlight the theme: Guilt transferred is not expiation.
My overall impression
Original and thought-provoking premises; excellent acting; needs polish.