Theater For The New City Dream Up Festival 9 September 2025
In Search of “True Love” was a remarkably refreshing piece of theatre. It was bare. It was simple. No flashy lights, no soundtrack, no audio tricks, no set: just one woman in a black box theatre bravely standing centre stage and baring her soul. And it all felt so genuine that I had to ask the creator of this show if she was even working off of a script at all.
This show was written, directed, and performed by one person — Ayaka Yamamoto. And it could not have been easy to do because everything came down to her. With no lights changing, no scenery, no other actors to work off of — it was just her talking with the audience. She is a Japanese immigrant who is living in New York City because theatre is the dream. Like many of us, it’s not the path that her parents would have chosen for her — she even has a mother who would love for her to come back to Japan and enter into an arranged marriage. But that isn’t the type of “true love” that she wants.
What is true love? That is what this show asks the audience and that is what the one character (who is the actor) is asking herself. This show is an autobiographical tale about finding that magical thing that is referred to as “true love”. But it begins with the heartbreak.
As love often does, it ends with you hurt and depressed and feeling lonely. Sometimes you may find yourself spending days on end in bed because you just can’t bear to face the morning that day. It is easy for people to say for you to move on or that there is someone else out there — but to actually get back to dating after a break up is hard. You were just vulnerable and open with someone, only for it to end in heartbreak. And then society expects you to just do it all over again despite that fact that you’re now scared to be that vulnerable again.
So you take pleasure in the little things. For Ayaka Yamamoto that little thing was a specific type of Japanese stand up comedy called “Manzai” that she would watch on YouTube. This is a two person stand up routine and quite honestly, it reminded me of British sketch comedy — I could see Monty Python sketches that were very similar to this idea. You have one character asking for advice and the other giving them very normal advice, which the first person then takes very literally and to the extreme, resulting in a hilariously awkward situation. And this comedy was the simple small thing that made getting out of bed again each morning a possibility.
In the next moment, we are with Ayaka on the last day that she is working as a babysitter for a family. She has grown to love this little three year old boy that she has come to know over the past six months, but it’s now time for her to move on to a new job. And this is when she finally realises what “true love” is.
The thing with being a babysitter is that you know you’re going to build a bond with that child, but you don’t necessarily expect that child to grow the same bonds with you because you don’t expect them to necessarily remember things in the long term. You expect, as the adult, to walk away hurt from that job because you know going into it that you’re going to have to say goodbye to the kids one day. You rarely expect the kid to hurt when the babysitter says goodbye because you expect the child to forget you soon. Which in and of itself, hurts — but it only hurts you, not the child.
So imagine the surprise Ayaka felt when the child, a three year old child, expressed sadness at her leaving. She felt needed for the first time in a long time. But more importantly she felt happy. And that’s when the point of this show becomes painfully clear and unfortunately it is a lesson that can be hard to learn.
You simply cannot have “true love” and expect that to mean happiness. You need the happiness first. In fact, happiness, I would argue is “true love” because until you have happiness alone, you’ll never have “true love” because you won’t be happy. And unfortunately, I think people forget too frequently that life isn’t a Disney movie or a Broadway musical — you have to find happiness with yourself before you’ll ever have happiness in any sort of relationship. But it’s a lesson that we all must face eventually.
I am not sure what I expected from this show, honestly. I went into it knowing just the basics — a satirical comedy starring the characters of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin faking the moon landing.
What I got was something right out of Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s handbook and I cannot be more pleased about that!
This show was incredibly self aware, tongue‐in‐cheek, silly, ridiculous, over the top, and I loved every minute of it. It’s clever.
The basic premise of the show is simple: No man has ever walked on the moon, but the Space Race is well on its way and the United States government is desperate to win against Russia — even if it has no idea how. And that is why when two young aspiring actors, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (played by Collins Dennis and Teddy Fischer, respectively), go into an audition for the roles of “Astronaut #1 and Astronaut #2″ for a new Hollywood movie. Only to be told once filming has wrapped that neither of them could continue their acting career because they both signed a contract (which neither of them had read) stating that they must take on the roles of astronaut for the rest of their lives. This leads Neil to fall into a life of depression, desperate to just be an actor — to explore new roles and characters, and into a life of drinking his worries away. Buzz, being more content with the lie, has leaned into his new “job” as an astronaut and has even begun a political career.
Flyer for the Show
The play itself begins at a press conference with the character, who is cleverly named “Mr. Redacted” (played by Christopher Hanks), telling the American public about NASA’s newest mission — the first “manned” mission to Mars! And by “manned”, he means, “Chimpanzeed” because that’s the pilot — a chimpanzee named Mr. Bananas.
Standing next to Mr. Redacted is Buzz Aldrin, who is standing tall, proud, just right for the part and Neil Armstrong… who is clearly drunk. In fact, he is so drunk that he gets into a drunken fight with Mr. Bananas (and loses) prompting the government to place him into a rehab facility — and that is where much of the show takes place.
Other settings that this show has include Buzz Aldrin and his caddy on the golf course and Mr. Redacted at his barbers’ shop — where he just wants his sideburns trimmed to exactly 8 cm.
But it’s really the other characters in this show that allows for all of the ridiculous hijinks to ensue.
There is the character called Nevada (played by Nicole Ponce) who is introduced to the audience as another client in the rehab facility that Neil is sent to. Nevada is a smart character — she’s witty, dynamic, believable, coy, mysterious. And her character, in this silly show, only gets more complex from there. Ponce did an absolutely wonderful job in portraying a character that is so layered and she did so with conviction. Not to mention that the chemistry between the characters of Nevada and Neil must be on point for this show to work and it very much was; it felt genuine. Two angry, smart people having no choice but to participate in childlike forms of therapy (an example of this being the characters forced to talk through sock puppets at the rehab facility).
The other actor that absolutely must mentioned is Patrick Walsh, who played the “Ensemble”. As in, he was Buzz’s golf caddy, he was Thomas — the guy who works at the rehab, he was Thomas’ mother, he was Mr. Bananas, he was a reporter, he was Sam the barber, and he was the literal moon! And he nailed it. Walsh even delivers a wonderfully meta monologue explaining what the character of “Ensemble” is and how it still an amazing acting gig!
While this show is about a conspiracy theory — it is also very much just about acting. And not just acting, but how easily an actor can be taken advantage of and the dangers of not reading the contracts you sign. It deals with putting on a role and living with it for so long that you find yourself believing you are that character. This show deals with what it takes to even make a film or put on a production. And this show deals with what it really means to be an actor, a writer, a creative person.
And this is all shown by essentially putting on a movie inside of the show. You see the character development as each character in the show evolves, you see the literal script writing process, you see the rehearsal, and you see the final product.
This show comes down to detail, detail, detail. From the second the audience starts to enter the theatre, they toss their ticket into an astronaut’s helmet. The music playing before the show and during scene changes included songs such as “Dancing In The Moonlight” by Toploader, “Fly Me To The Moon” by Frank Sinatra, and “Rocket Man” by Elton John.
An Attendant holds an astronaut helmet to collect tickets.
And of course, this show delves into what it means to blindly trust — whether that is a person, a contract, a situation, even the government. In a show about government conspiracy, you cannot ignore the parallels to our modern political policies and how much the American people not only have no choice but to just believe what we are told by the government, but even more so, how it is expected upon Americans that we know and accept that our government will lie to us. That knowledge and acceptance that our government will lie to us is just part of being an American citizen.
And this is beautifully shown in a very simple, yet effective way when one of the characters receives an injury to their ear resulting in them wearing a bandage over his ear for the rest of the show. It would be hard to watch a character wearing a bandage on an injured ear and not see the connection to a certain conspiracy theory making its rounds on social media regarding an injury that was allegedly received by the President back in Butler, Pennsylvania.
And what a beautiful, smart way to connect a show about conspiracy to our modern audiences.
Well done.
Theater For The New CityThis show was part of the Dream Up Festival
This show centres around The Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, also known as The Rogers Commission. The entire show takes place within the walls of one room and the audience becomes more than just spectators — we become the members of the gallery/members of the commission that is being appealed to as Dr. William R. Graham, the acting administration for NASA (played by Thomas M. Copeland) tries to convince Dr. Richard P. Feynman, a commission member (played by Chris Jaymes) that there was no way to see this accident coming. The head of this commission is Mr. William P. Rogers (played by Paul Albe).
I think the easiest way to explain this commission, in its simplest form, is to compare it to a criminal trial. Dr. Graham would be the defendant, Dr. Feynman the prosecutor, Mr. Rogers the judge, and the audience would be the members of the gallery.
The show opens with audio clips taking the audience through the entirety of the day that the shuttle exploded. The shuttle launches, the excitement in people’s voices, the news casters announcing the launch, then the panic, the screams of terror, the horror, the news stations reporting that the shuttle exploded, and finally President Ronald Reagan addressing the American public to assure everyone that we will find out what went wrong so that it never happens again.
And it is here that we meet the characters in the show. Dr. Graham is a physicist who is the current acting administrator of NASA. That means that he and his team are the people who do the mathematical equations needed to figure out the risk of catastrophic failure for the space launches. It is worth noting that while Dr. Graham is not the person who is directly doing these math equations, he is the person who signs off on the work and is ultimately responsible in making sure that all factors have been taken into account when putting together these equations and that the math is correct.
Mr. Rogers is the appointed chairman of the Rogers Commission. He was appointed by President Reagan and was a former Secretary of the State and a former Attorney General. He is the man that must give the results of this commission to the President (and therefore may face any wrath that Reagan may have if the results do not shine a positive light on NASA).
Dr. Feynman is a theoretical physicist and was assigned to be a member of the Rogers Commission. He is the voice of reason in this show (and historically) as he is the only one who can see beyond the mathematical equations that are supposed to guarantee safety and understand that lives aren’t promised by an equation because there are always outside factors that an equation cannot account for.
The staging of this show is simple, yet effective. The vast majority of the show consists of the three actors sitting behind desks. However, that is the only type of staging that would realistically make any sort of sense for the setting. There were two beautiful moments that broke from this: the first is when Dr. Feynman shows everyone at the Rogers Commission the risk factor report that breaks down what was used to determine if any components of the solid rocket boosters needed to be replaced (this is vital because a faulty O‐ring was found to be the cause of the explosion and with there being a massive oversight in how risk factors were calculated — mainly the effects of how cold weather changes the ability of the O‐ring to function properly — the whole disaster could have been avoided). The second time comes when Dr. Feynman performs a simple, elementary school level, science experiment to prove his point as the commission progresses. Dr. Feynman (as well as all of the characters on stage) has a glass of water in front of him, with a clear water pitcher next to it, full of ice water. So it makes for a stunning visual for Dr. Feynman to pull an actual O‐ring out of his pocket and show everyone how easily it can be bent and contorted into different shapes. He then fills his glass with water (critically, there was no ice in the pitcher in front of him), walks across the stage to Dr. Graham and very awkwardly, but also with conviction reaches his hand into Dr. Graham’s pitcher of ice water and grabs a handful of ice, which he places into his cup of water. Dr. Feynman then places the O‐ring into the cup of ice water for maybe 30 seconds before being able to show everyone at the commission how the O‐ring, in such a short period of time, became brittle, unable to change shape and now only able to snap if it were forced to try to expand. It was an unseasonably cold day in Florida the morning of the Challenger launch. The effects of cold temperature on the O‐rings was something that should have been and could have easily been tested. But it wasn’t.
Which brings us the point of this show — human error is inevitable. Even if humans create machines to do everything for us, it still is only as good as the person who programmed it. It also takes other humans to catch the errors of others. A machine simply cannot reliably take in all potential contributing factors that is needed for operations that can be life or death. So while it is impossible to remove human error altogether, it’s also impossible to exist without humans playing a part in everything. So who should take the blame when things go wrong? Whether it’s humans wrongly assuming they’ve covered all of their bases when putting together a program or a risk factor assessment or simply not checking the work of those below you and still allowing that work to make it through and into the hands of the bosses — it’s the fault of someone and people should be held accountable.
One thing that struck me throughout this show was just how little of a factor it was that there was a teacher on board of that shuttle. In fact, it is only briefly mentioned at all and that’s in one line spoken by Dr. Feynman in which he is admonishing the choice of President Reagan and NASA to even send a teacher to space because it was really done as a publicity stunt to improve relations with the general American public. And that’s horrible — but it isn’t the main point of this show. In the grand scheme of things, her being a teacher and not an astronaut is inconsequential because there were so many times that a human could have stepped in and stopped the launch if only someone had done more than just assume that what was already being done was correct.
The icing on the cake for this show is the press kit. The detail put into making “confidential files” from NASA showing the thought processes and ideas of the different characters (and from the characters’ own perspectives) was simply beautiful.
All in all, this show is deeply thought provoking. I did not expect to be enthralled by this story because honestly, it occurred three years before I was born. I know about it, I learned about it in school, I have even seen the video footage. But I never truly understood how big of a tragedy this was before seeing One In Twenty‐Five. And it is not because of the loss of life — it is because the loss of life could have so easily been avoided.
I find it interesting that this show comes down to the number “4%”. When something goes wrong once out of every twenty‐five times it is tried — that is something going wrong 4% of the time. And 4% sounds like a really low percentage. But once it is laid out as being once out of every 25 attempts that there is catastrophic failure… suddenly 4% is huge.
Breaking The Trust is a dark comedy revolving around four sisters, their recently deceased brother, and the many secrets that both hold this family together and rip it apart at the seams.
Jeff Prewitt on the Poster for Breaking The Trust
The show opens with three of the sisters already at their deceased brother’s home. There is Martha (played by Jane Seaman) who is, at least on the surface, the greediest of the sisters. From very early on all the way until the end of Act I — money and the potential inheritance seems to be what she cares about the most. She is also an entrepreneur and is currently making doggy clothing.
We also meet the character of Donna (played by Deborah Unger) — she is perhaps the wisest of the siblings, at least when it comes to being able to figure out if a person is truly a good human or not. And even more importantly, she is able to accept people for who they are, even if who they are isn’t good.
And in this scene, we also meet Lorna (played by Shauna Bloom) who is the youngest member of their immediate family. She is, as a person, lost and is constantly seeking something — anything — to help make life worth living. She desperately wants to see the good in everyone and struggles to understand not only “how” a person could be bad, but also cannot wrap her mind around the “why” — what could possibly cause a person, any person, to choose to repeatedly do bad things? Lorna also has an abusive husband named Jesse, who is never seen on stage, but who is referenced numerous times.
And finally, there is one more character in the opening scene — his name is Ronnie and he is their deceased brother. He was cremated after his death (a decision that causes an uproar among the sisters) and sits in an urn on the coffee table.
The first scene with the three sisters (who are waiting for the fourth one to arrive) sets the tone for rest of the show. In this scene we get the first inkling that Ronnie was not the stand up gentleman that Lorna so desperately wants him to be. In fact, it is revealed very early on that Ronnie was physically abusive to his ex girlfriend and even killed his ex’s prized horse. Of course, this was old news for Donna and Martha, but for Lorna — this was shocking new information about her brother… a brother that she says, over and over, made it clear that she was his favourite sister, that loved her.
It is also during this time that the audience, along with two out of the three sisters, learn just how wealthy their brother had become — though none are sure on exactly how he became so rich. It is revealed that he had a large number of Krugerrand — a gold coin produced in South Africa and the amount that Ronnie obtained comes to be estimated to be worth around 4 million American dollars.
The Show’s Program
And in true sibling fashion — they wonder how he got the money. Was he in a gang? Did he steal it? Was he murdered over the money? No, no, he got drunk and drove his truck into a telephone pole which killed him.
At this point in the show, the audience finds out that when the sister’s father died, he left every single penny and object to Ronnie and nothing was left for any of his daughters. This, of course means that any and all inheritance left over from their parents, is part of what would be passed along to each of the four sisters. Ronnie, however, has put everything he has into a trust and his lawyer, Jordan Gibbons will reveal who gets what after the funeral. It’s important to note that the only sister who starts the show with the knowledge of this trust is Donna, who is the trustee. She does not know the contents of the trust nor how much is in it, but she signed all of the papers to make her the trustee.
In fact, in a heartbreaking admission — Lorna admits to being in a lot of debt since her husband is unable to maintain a job and therefore she is the sole provider (while she is losing herself mentally and spiritually), so the inheritance money could not have come at a better time. And as children, Ronnie swore to her that he would take care of her. So to Lorna, this is perhaps Ronnie’s way of fulfilling that childhood promise.
Finally, the fourth sister enters the stage. Her name is Nora (played by Wynne Anders) and is the eldest of the sisters. She is a cancer survivor, and is married to a man who goes by the name Perez (played by Michael Gnat) — who has joined her for the funeral.
Perez is a bleeding heart retired college professor who feels forever indebted to the woman who died while saving his life while he was living in Africa — a woman whom he had an affair with and who he clearly loves even though she is gone. Nora is concerned that Perez has Alzheimer’s disease. A very notable aspect of the character of Perez is his insistence in stating the truth — regardless of it is stings or not.
The next character to enter is Byron (played by Jeff Prewitt) — he is Nora and Perez’s son, who was just released on parole from prison after stealing from the art museum that he used to work at. Both of the characters of Perez and Byron are very intelligent characters and both actors — Gnat and Prewitt, respectively, did an excellent job in overlaying the humour, with the wit, and with the subtle jabs that a character of that intelligence needs to be able to dish out.
Headshots of the cast; Shauna Bloom, Jane Seaman, Wynne Anders, Deborah Unger, Michael Gnat, and Jeff Prewitt
Now that all of the cast of character have arrived — the true hijinks begin. The sisters have a conversation about the fact that Donna had Ronnie cremated because apparently Ronnie wouldn’t have like that. In fact, Lorna points out that when they were growing up, Ronnie used to tell her about a nightmare he had about being cremating and his ashes thrown into a river.
As the show progresses, the audience (and the character of Lorna) learn the truth about Ronnie — SPOILERS WARNING:
It is revealed that Ronnie did more than kill his ex girlfriend’s horse — he also killed Lorna’s puppy when she was a child. And the entire family — the other three sisters, Ronnie himself, and even their parents all lied to Lorna and insisted that her dog was killed in a hit and run. It is also revealed that Ronnie had only left anything of value to two out of his four sisters. Donna and Nora are both set to receive 1/4th of the inheritance each, with the rest being donated to a church — Ronnie was far from a religious man and it is clear that him leaving money to a church was solely for the purpose of screwing over two of his sisters.
Learning all of this is something that Lorna simply cannot fathom or comprehend. By the plays end, Lorna announces that by coming to the home for the funeral, she has learned that her whole life has been a lie. The brother that she thought loved her really just liked to use her as a punching bag. She has learned that her beloved dog didn’t die in an accident, but was intentionally killed by her own brother. And perhaps worst of all, everyone but her has known this entire time.
This revelation of who Ronnie truly was, breaks Lorna, who leaves before the funeral can take place. But before she does, when only her and Perez are around to see it — she makes Ronnie’s dream come true — she flushes his ashes down the toilet.
It is also revealed, but only to the character of Perez that Byron ended up doing prison time because he had teamed up with Ronnie to steal an original Picasso painting and they were going to sell it. However, Ronnie told Byron that the buyers tricked him, showed up with guns and not money, and took the painting. However, Byron has figured out the truth — Ronnie did sell the painting and he lied to Byron about it so that Ronnie could keep all of the money for himself. By the shows end, Byron — being rather intelligent — figures out the combination to Ronnie’s secret safe, steals the gold Krugerrand, and drives away before the funeral takes place.
And the only other character who knows about it all is Perez who is now tasked with making a very hard decision. Should he tell the truth, the thing he believes in, even though he knows it will destroy any sense of family and trust in one other that the three remaining sister have or should he stay quiet, let the funeral proceed as normal, never reveal that the urn no longer has any ashes in it and never reveal that Byron ran away with all of the fortune — perhaps letting the blame fall on Ronnie (after all, none of the sisters actually know how the gold was acquired or even have actually seen the gold — maybe they’ll think there simply never was any gold), in hopes that the remaining sisters can salvage any sort of resemblance to a family again?
On the surface, this is a show about grief, family, and greed. But when you get into the more layered aspects, it’s really a show about trust, promises, the need to see people for what they are, the ability to let go, and even the importance of a little white lie at times versus the truth. After all, sometimes the truth doesn’t help anyone or it can cause great harm (while also not changing anything for the better in the long run). Sometimes the truth just makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.
I did find, negatively, that some actors had better control of the stage than others. The three stand out actors in this show were Deborah Unger (who played Donna), Michael Gnat (who played Perez), and Jeff Prewitt (who played Byron).
Unger had to portray a hard, yet very soft character. She needed to be able to be stern and level headed, but not just mean and unlikeable. In fact, her acting reminded me a lot of Kathy Bates, so naturally I am curious to see this actor play a villainous character — I think it would be fun for her to perform and for the audience to watch.
Gnat’s character has to be likeable even though he has stepped out on his marriage. The audience must even potentially pity him at some points. But then at other points, he’s the life of the party, purposefully pushing people’s buttons, and enjoying a good laugh. Perez, as a character, is hugely motivated by the necessity for the truth to be known — which is why it is such a treat to see this character being forced to make a decision: let things just be or ruin the happy facade by explaining the truths.
Prewitt may not have had the most emotionally deep character to portray, but he had command of the stage and was able to grab the eyes of the audience regardless of what else was happening. This was important because especially by Act II, Byron says a lot with body language and facial expressions and very little with actual words.
I must also commend Shauna Bloom (who played Lorna). Her character spent a lot of time being clueless, so when she finally breaks down, it’s quite nice to see the physical and emotional aspects of the character shift and turn into someone who can be dark and angry.
Speaking of Act II — there was no reason for it beyond perhaps the actors safety. Act I ends with a jar full of pennies being opened and the pennies flung about the stage. And then there is a five minute “Intermission”, which I suspect was really only there so that the pennies would be swept off of the stage. However, I found breaking for only five minutes did nothing but distract from the show and mess up the flow/pacing.
Outside of the pennies being a potential slipping hazard — there is no reason (that I can think of) not to just leave them on the stage, wherever they land, for the remainder of the show. The characters are only at this home due to the funeral. And while (most) of the characters can see Ronnie for the man he really was — they are still grieving. It’s still a loss, an unexpected one at that. And that still hurts. So I don’t think the characters would care enough to clean the pennies up. Conversely, if the pennies are being removed out of safety concerns, perhaps it would work better to have one of the sister (most likely Donna) sweep up the pennies, while berating her sister for throwing them.
This show has a lot of really good, really thought provoking sections, but outside of the three actors really spotlighted above, it just didn’t feel genuine. I just didn’t feel the chemistry between the sisters that I so desperately wanted too. The moments that felt like genuine family arguments or even genuine laughter at past memories felt fleeting and few and far between. And that’s a shame because with the right chemistry, this could be a wonderful deep dive on the inner workings of not just the human mind and what makes it change, but also on the human psyche and how far a person can be pushed before their morals and values are put into question, and furthermore, when is it okay to break our own morals and values. Is it okay to do be immoral for the greater good?
Theater For The New CityThis show was part of the Dream Up Festival
John Proctor is the Villain isn’t just a show — it’s a lesson. And being a lesson, it is fitting that the show takes place in a high school located in a rural, small town in Georgia. It should be noted that the playwright (Kimberly Belflower — making her Broadway debut with this show — and what a debut it was!) is from a small town in Georgia, but more importantly is an educator herself. And her education background shows!
The Billboard outside the Booth Theatre
Many of us know the story of The Crucible and we were taught about how noble and heroic and honourable the character of John Proctor is… except realistically, he’s not. And this show exemplifies this not just by explaining it to the audience in the context of students learning about the play, but also within the characters themselves.
This show centres around a few main characters: Shelby — a girl with a reputation of being promiscuous who has been away for roughly six months and no one knows exactly why. Carter Smith — a teacher at the school that the students attend. Mason — a boy in the class. Raelynn — a girl dating the character of Lee and is the main character of this story. She is best friends with Shelby, who has had sex with Lee. Lee — Raelynn’s aggressive and sex hungry boyfriend. Ivy — a student whose father is accused of having an affair on her mother. Beth — an innocent student who is rather religious and very trusting who only wants to see the good in people. Nell — a new girl who moved to this small rural town from Atlanta, Georgia and is therefore meeting and learning about many of the characters at the same time as the audience (and therefore is able to provide an outsider’s perspective to the other characters). And Bailey Gallagher — she used to be a student at the very school that these characters attend and she now works there. It must be noted that she also knew Carter when she was a student.
The Stage
This show takes place in 2018, with an emphasis on seeing the world through the eyes of high school girls, who are learning about the world — a world where the “Me Too” movement has started and the society is beginning to listen to the victims. It deals with very intense themes including, but certainly not limited too, power dynamics in relationships/abusing that power dynamic, engaging in sexual acts with minors, the internal struggle that many people feel when someone they personally know and trust is accused of something heinous and how hard it can be to accept those accusations as true, blaming the victim, and unfortunately, the likely outcome in far too many cases.
The show opens with Carter Smith teaching a sex education lesson to the class. He is not a sex ed teacher, but rather he teaches literature. He has no choice but to teach sex ed due to budget cuts (a thing I am sure the playwright is very familiar with). The students are not particularly interested in the sex ed lesson — in part because they are old enough that they already know about sex and realistically should have been receiving this class for years. But also because in small town, rural Georgia sex education is not the most important thing and there is a heavy emphasis on abstinence only. Between the religious nature of many of the families in the town and being generally conservative on the political spectrum — anything that might be seen as even remotely controversial by the parents in the school district is a challenge for this school to actually do. And that means comprehensive sex education is just not a thing.
But the students know better. Or at least, as the play progresses, the students learn better. And for an extra bonus — this show is very aware of the pop culture during the show’s time frame including quoting Taylor Swift and giving the audience (and the character of Nell) a recap of past events ending with the phrase, “And that’s what you missed on Glee”.
John Proctor is the Villain does a wonderful job of paralleling the actual play of The Crucible with the students (especially the female students), the teachers, and even the parents in the town that are never actually seen on stage. Once the opening scene of the sex ed class ends, the teacher — Carter Smith, begins to teach the class about The Crucible and explains how John Proctor is the hero. This sparks Shelby, you has just returned from being on a “sabbatical” for six months to disagree with Mr. Smith.
It is at this point that the show really takes off because for most of the audience — we have only ever known John Proctor as the hero. But Shelby points out numerous things: Abigail was John Proctor’s employee, she was a virgin with a crush on her boss, he never apologises to her, nor does he ever apologise to his wife, Elizabeth. In fact, John Proctor dies without ever even saying that he loves Elizabeth. Realistically, in the time period of The Crucible him dying damns his wife and his children to a life of poverty and hardship — and for what, really? To preserve his name. Just a name. Not a person, not the many lives he destroyed along the way, but the concept of a name. And honestly, I don’t know how many people in the audience had ever thought of John Proctor and The Crucible like that before.
John Proctor is the Villain also takes care explain some potential reasonings that the characters in The Crucible do things that we would think of as odd like dancing in the woods even though it is illegal and lying about why. And then we see our lead female characters reach their breaking points and just need to scream and yell and dance. And it puts it all into perspective.
Towards the beginning of the show, some of the female students decide that they would like to start a feminism club as an extracurricular activity at the school. However, this is denied because it would be too controversial for the town. This is when Mr. Smith steps in and offers to be the faculty advisor for the club and even offers to frame the club with works of literature so that it wouldn’t be seen as just as feminist club and therefore would be acceptable for the parents in the town.
In order to delve into this show further — I need to put a SPOILER WARNING:
The character of Shelby (played by Chiara Aurelia) is a very intricate one. Shelby has a promiscuous reputation in part because she had sex with Lee (played by Noah Pacht in this performance) who is Raelynn’s (played by Amalia Yoo) boyfriend. This, of course, causes tension and awkwardness between the characters of Shelby and Raelynn. However, with the help of Nell (played by Morgan Scott) Shelby and Raelynn are able to rekindle their friendship. A lot is revealed about Shelby — her reason for leaving, her past sexual partners, and why she even feels the need to be “promiscuous” (realistically, she is not a promiscuous character — she was groomed). It makes for a character that is by no means perfect, but also not at fault either. I imagine this is a difficult role to play — the actor has to be able to be liked enough for people to not instantly judge her character from the limited information we start with and then transform the character into essentially a hero.
The character of Ivy Watkins was played by Maggie Kuntz and I found her performance fascinating. The character of Ivy has to be conflicted. There is a rumour going around town that Ivy’s father had sex with one of his employees — which means he cheated on Ivy’s mother and again, this town is very religious. This leaves the character of Ivy very confused and unsure what to do — should she be angry at her dad? Should she feel better that the cheating was supposedly consensual? Can she love her father and hate him at the same time? And worst, as the show moves on, the rumour begins that her dad also had sex with Shelby and that’s why Shelby was away for so long. The character has to learn the kind of man her dad really is and it’s heartbreaking to watch.
Bailey Gallagher is another conflicted character (played by Molly Griggs) because she grew up knowing Carter Smith the teacher. She trusted him as a kid, even developed a little crush on him, and now she works with him at the school. But Bailey had heard rumours about Carter before… and she always dismissed them because she knows Carter and he’s a good guy. Which makes it even more important and powerful when she finally realises that’s she’s been dismissing the wrong people.
Perhaps the most interesting character, in my opinion at least, is that of the teacher — Mr. Carter Smith. Carter is played by Gabriel Ebert (who was absolutely amazing). What makes this character so difficult to play, I think, is that he isn’t a straight forward character. The audience and many of the characters believe he is, but he has dark secrets that are not revealed until we are well into the show. These secrets have to come as a surprise to the audience in order for the message of this show to be loud and clear — so when the audience gasped when everything came to light — I was thrilled.
The character of Carter starts off as incredibly likeable, charming, progressive even for someone in Georgia. He’s for feminism, he wants to help… but does he? Carter is the John Proctor of the show and the fact that it takes the audience by such surprise is beautiful. It is revealed that Carter has a habit of not only cheating on his wife, but doing so with girls that are not only minors, but who are less powerful than him. Often, he goes after his own students to groom them. And as this becomes evident throughout the show, the audience has to turn on Carter. We have to hate him. And there is just something so amazing about watching a likeable character becoming so detestable by the shows end. It takes a special kind of acting ability to sway an entire audience’s perspective eight times per week.
I was able to ask Gabriel Ebert after the show, how it felt to play someone who has to become so hated by the time the curtain falls. He simply smiled and stated, “it’s necessary”. And he’s absolutely correct.
Once it is revealed that Carter had seduced Shelby (and that she was not his first victim nor will likely be his last), the audience gets to learn the fates of Carter, Shelby, and Raelynn (among others, but these are the most important). Carter is forced to take a short leave of absence. He is allowed back into the classroom to teach. Shelby is forced to take classes from another teacher. The town, as a whole, the school, as a whole — does not believe Shelby (even if many of the characters do by the shows end). In fact, Shelby gets punished as if she were the problem.
And finally, the show ends by cutting to black at a pivotal moment — the character of Beth (played by Fina Strazza) has a decision to make. Beth is a very conflicted character who very much trusts Carter. She doesn’t want to see the bad in Carter. But she is also likely to be Carter’s next (at least attempted) victim. Throughout the entire show she cannot wrap her mind around the idea that someone she trusts so much could be a bad person. At the show’s end, most of the students have come around to believe Shelby and take a stand against Carter — even Bailey. But Beth, right at the end, runs towards center stage before the lights cut to black. It must be stated that it is very much up to interpretation if Beth has run to join Raelynn and Shelby and the other students against Carter… or if she was rushing to stand by Carter’s side. I like to think she joined the other students. But I cannot say for certain.
I really wish this show was running longer because it is an excellent work of theatre that is really able to flip a very well known play on its head and make it relevant for a modern audience.
I was not exactly sure what to expect from The Boys From Kingsbridge — I knew it was a “gritty police drama” framed against the success of the Yankees baseball team and their success in winning the American League Championship Series and thus earning the team a spot in the World Series.
I was honestly, a bit concerned that this may be a very pro‐police show — which could be a rather hard thing to pull off in today’s society where the police officers themselves are often the ones taking the criticism when a cop does something wrong. And I am not saying that the individual police officers who do morally wrong things (and especially the police officers that do take it way farther than a situation needs to be taken) should not be held accountable — they absolutely should. But this show points out that while yes, bad cops should absolutely be punished, but also the people in the charge, the politicians making the laws, need to be held accountable, too. Because, as this play states, most of the police are trying to uphold the law, whether they agree with that law or not. They are given quotas to meet and sent to impoverished areas to enforce crimes that are often not really important just so that the police force can keep bringing in money. This is a system, it is argued, that the good cops, the average cops, are essentially stuck in the cycle set up by the higher ups.
There is of course, some truth in the fact that the police forces, as a whole, are systemically broken and racist. And for a lot of police officers, just like people in any other job, they comply with the orders they are given — not because they necessarily agree with the orders or the policy, but because if they refused it would be career suicide, at best, and perhaps even criminal at worst. That being said, the system being broken doesn’t absolve the individual police officers who do go too far. In fact, it should inspire the police officers to work to make change, but I fear for most, it’s just about keeping their jobs and not making waves. I imagine that at least for some, the endless cycle of being forced to do things that you don’t believe in morally would hopefully inspire change and not just beat the person down into submission. But I’ve always been hopeful. The show does take special care to point out the high suicide rate among members of law enforcement and takes care to explain that it is often due to being overworked, having broken or faulty equipment, and having no choice but to do things that they feel are wrong.
The show includes two actors — Steven Sarao, who is also the writer, playing the character named Steve. And opposite him, as his police partner and best friend, is James Lorinz portraying Mike.
Steve is a book smart man (having attended Harvard), driven to make a positive change in the world, wants to see reform in law enforcement, but struggles in feeling that he is nothing but a work horse, a lackey, for the more powerful who do not have the best interest of the innocent members of society in mind, but rather they are interested in cutting corners and lining their own pockets.
Mike is much more of a streets smart type of guy. He knows he has little ability to change the system that he works within. Mike (and Steve) have both been studying for the Sergeant’s exam — to see if they could be promoted. Mike has failed this exam multiple times, but Steve consistently passes it. However, Steve never takes the promotion and instead works with Mike in hopes of Mike being able to pass it too.
Mike and Steve go way back, having known each other their entire lives and really only ever parting ways when Steve attended Harvard University. Their friendship is truly a codependent relationship and as the play unfolds, it is revealed that it has been this way for a long time. The two friends have had a hard life growing up complete with abusive parents, rough neighbourhoods, and fist fights having to be a way of life.
The show opens with Steve telling the audience about his friend Mike and how they will never see each other again. He continues to monologue about growing up in Kingsbridge, and his love for the Yankees, and most importantly about Mike.
Then it is Mike’s turn to give his opening monologue in which he gives his point of view on the same things that Steve spoke about. And finally, the audience see the two characters interact — they do act like long time friends, giving each other a hard time, cursing each other out, and just chatting like close friends do.
As I mentioned before, this show only had the two actors. Therefore all of the other characters — a police sergeant, a couple being arrested, etc. were either not present on stage at all or the two actors mimed moving the other people around (an example would be placing their hands on the arrested couples heads and leading them into the police cruiser). While this worked for the majority of the show, there was at least once where it was not made clear that two people were being arrested and not just one until a good minute or two after the event happened and it was the dialogue that gave it away.
The sets were simplistic; the front of a police car, a podium, a bench, a radio, a desk… nothing elaborate, but the show simply did not call for extravagance, in fact, it called for simple and worn down.
The costuming was also pretty minimal, really only consisting of the two actors wearing their police uniforms. I did find it odd that neither of the uniforms had any sort of badge on it anywhere and the guns that the officers carried having bright red tips was a bit distracting. But I have to wonder if legalities of some sort prevented the usage of more realistic uniforms and firearms.
The show did have one glaring problem that is hard to overlook. At one point, the two characters are in their police cruisers, just chatting, but it’s during a “sacred time” where the characters get to enjoy their coffee and relax a little bit before the day really starts and they start receiving “jobs” (911 calls) that they have to respond to. It is during this scene that the audience see both the characters of Mike and Steve with open books in their hands. I thought that the characters were parked, reading books, enjoying the quiet part of their shift… until they mention the need to pull over. It was then that I realised that these character were not parked and enjoying a book during a slow part of their shift — the actors were reading their lines from the script. Unfortunately, this was not lost on other members of the audience because I was asked immediately upon exiting the theatre by another patron if the actors were still on book.
There was one other thing that I found odd about this show…and WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD:
The show opens with a radio talking about the Yankees and immediately after is the opening monologue spoken by the character of Steve. This is the monologue in which Steve tells the audience about how hard it is to be a police officer. This is when the audience is informed of the high suicide rate among law enforcement and how the police officers also get the short end of the stick. And it is in this monologue that it is mentioned that Steve never sees Mike anymore.
It becomes apparent on this opening monologue that one of the two characters is not going to survive this tale. And since this show opens with Steve, I would have thought Mike would unfortunately lose his life. In fact, a major plot point throughout the show is that Mike is desperate to tell Steve something, but he struggles to actually say the words. I was sure that perhaps this secret that Mike must tell Steve was going to be along the lines of him being sick and terminal. So it was a huge surprise to me when Steve is the one killed in the line of duty. And then the show ended. With the choice of Steve being the one to die, I felt there needed to be an additional scene where, heartbreakingly, Mike cannot handle it anymore and takes his own life — harking back to the words that Steve spoke in the beginning.
There is a lot to be said about this very downplayed work of William Shakespeare. The entire show is incredibly political and there are certainly themes that can easily be seen as parallels to the modern day political regime in America… I’m just not sure if the show exemplifies that in the way that is necessarily intended by this production.
My first question — if this is a parallel to the current administration, who is the Trump‐like character in King John? Is it King John himself? The character who is seen in a positive light by his fellow Englishmen (eventually, at the end), but also as someone who flip flopped on their standards and killed at a whim for power. Or is the Trump‐like character supposed to be The Bastard, Philip Faulconbridge? A character who just kind of falls into place, in line for the throne. He rambles, he has asides to the audience, but he never really says much. However, he is violent, he is there to take the glory, and most importantly, he doesn’t actually do much — everything happens around him and he gets the benefit of it. In fact, his defining characteristic is his lust for power.
The political nature of this show goes down even to the colouring of the costuming. The English wore red — mostly in the form of sashes and the French wore blue, also mostly in the form of sashes. Were these colours chosen specifically to match the colours typically associated with the Democratic and Republican parties in America? I can’t say for certain, but I’d suspect so. It must be noted, however, if the French are intended to be representative of the democrats and the English representative of republicans — the political ideal of the show falls apart. Shakespeare, being an Englishman, who had to write a certain way to please the crown had no choice but to make the French be as violent or even more so than the English — which undermines the entire idea of the political nature because it was written with bias. This leaves me to wonder, perhaps the point is not one is better than the other. Perhaps the point is that they are both equally bad and that the influence of religion poisons power.
I do find it interesting that the character who causes the most actual harm is that of Cardinal Pandulph. He is the mouthpiece from the Vatican and he pushes the war between Louis the Dauphin and King John forward with a slithering snakelike ability. Interestingly enough, he wears purple. Purple is of course, the colour of royalty in Ancient Rome, but it is also the colour that you get when blue and red are mixed.
The colour scheme can of course be interpreted that the church or religion is the real issue behind politics as everything that happens in this show is a direct result of interference of the (in this case) Catholic Church. And this would resonate with modern politics as it is not uncommon to see religion become involved.
The rest of the costuming was simple — all black. This was particularly wonderful during scenes of battle, which was done with a bit of a choreographed fighting and dance. However, most notably, was the decision of the actors (minus a few main characters) being completely covered with only their eyes showing. The names of those covered characters are not important. They are nothing more than unnamed casualties in a meaningless battle.
The mostly black costuming went well with the black box theatre and minimal set pieces (mostly consisting of multiple black boxes that the actors could stand on and an all black throne).
The show used a nice mixture of what I can only describe as some sort of tribal/battle music and religious hymns which mirrored the war and religion beautifully throughout the entire show.
I cannot even begin to discuss the talent of the cast. Some of the more notable cast members were Bellamy Woodside Ridinger who played King John and had an amazing death scene, among many emotionally powerful displays of both fear and success. Mateu Parallada who played The Bastard Philip Faulconbridge who is linguistically able to navigate the often complex language of Shakespeare with ease. Ruby Rich who played the character of Constance with such emotion — she really gave this performance her everything! But perhaps the actor who caught my eye the most was Martin Challinor who played both Cardinal Pandulph and the character of Hubert.
Martin Challinor was able to transform from the slimy, sinister Cardinal into the scared knight unable to bring himself to actual harm Arthur. And most impressively, he seems to do this with ease.
This show relies on a cast of eleven actors to play a variety of different characters. And this show nails that.
There certainly were parts of this show that could have been cut without having a major impact on the story and still maintaining the integrity of the story. That being said, I would personally love to see a live production of Shakespeare that has not been cut at all — bring on all five acts
This show is very cute. It tells the real life romance of Gene Wilder and Gilda Radner, actors known best for their comedy performances – one for his movies including Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Young Frankenstein, and See No Evil, Hear No Evil and the other most notable for her numerous Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. The show is framed by being an intimate interview between an unnamed interviewer, voiced by Dick Cavett (this character is never seen, only ever heard), and Gene Wilder (played by Jonathan Randell Silver). The interviewer asks Gene Wilder to discuss his romance with his late wife, Gilda Radner (played by Jordan Kai Burnett). Gene is initially reluctant to discuss this because it is a “private” matter, but Gilda appears and urges him to tell their story. From then on, the show alternates between Gene Wilder talking to the interviewer and seamlessly drifting back in time through his memories bringing the audience with him to relive the experiences.
The chemistry between Burnett and Silver is hard to deny. The budding romance feels genuine and the witty dialogue between the two characters felt almost as if you were watching two people actually fall for each other for the first time. And that was absolutely delightful. Silver, especially grabbed my attention (for the record, I am much more familiar with Gene Wilder’s career than I am with Gilda Radner’s) with just how much he sounded like the late Gene Wilder.
The part of the show that just felt off to me was the parts where comedy was supposed to be the main focus… whether it was Gene Wilder being so neurotic that it felt like we were watching someone doing their best “Leo Bloom” impersonation or a monologue that cycled through all of the characters that Gilda Radner played on Saturday Night Live — it felt forced. Those moments felt like I was supposed to be watching someone who was supposed to be acting silly. It just didn’t feel genuine.
I also found this happened whenever the show would start to get too serious. When the characters of Gene and Gilda were intimate with each other, for example, the show would go into a dance motif. It was clearly meant to be a lighthearted way to say that the characters were making love, but it felt as if the show was simply trying too hard to be funny.
This shows best moments come when the characters of Gene and Gilda bounce off of each other and the comedy stays focused on the developing relationship. The story is a romance — I just wish it didn’t try so hard to be a comedy. The romance, the grief, the loss, the wisdom learnt is enough… everything else began to feel like an imitation of the titular characters. Love and loss are emotions that almost all humans have felt at some point in their lives. Whether it’s losing a person, a pet, or even an opportunity — the grief of losing someone or something can be beautiful. This show has the chance to really show the audience the beauty of humanity through the eyes of a man who has loved and has lost that love, which is something everyone can relate to.
I loved the use of the entire theatre, the simplistic, yet intricate set and staging. The actors were able to really bring the story to a modern day light, without it being silly (they used knives and no one was shot with a gun literally labeled “longsword”), which was very much appreciated.
Kit Conner and Rachel Ziegler were both wonderful and convincing and made the performance come alive in both seriousness, but also the youthful vibe. Seeing Romeo’s transition to loving Juliet was very adorable and the perfect showing of kids “falling in love”. In fact, the whole cast did wonderful and I was glad to see such a diverse cast play a wide range of characters.
I could have definitely lived without the blaring techno music for the entire time that the theatre doors are open until the show actually begins. It doesn’t just vibrate your chair or the walls, but also your literal eardrums. I also felt the full out singing numbers felt out of place. Most of the time it could be excused by it being at a party (portrayed pretty much as a rave), but at least once, that was not applicable and it stood out.
The logistics. Holy crap, the logistics. The amount of things that have to go right for things to go wrong! And the ability to keep the audience at the perfect amount of participation needed for the awkward moments, arguing with the audience, and many many other off the wall moments. Very well done. As someone who enjoys camp, things going awkwardly wrong, and the meta-ness of having the tech guy pull pranks on the actors – this was well done. For those who haven’t seen it, think Clue meets Noises Off (and throw in a clever play within a play playbill) and this is show is the love child. Luckily, I love both Clue and Noises Off.
Suzie’s performance was wonderful. It did get a bit confusing towards the end of the show, especially in the final scene, to keep the many, many characters being performed on stage completely straight. Plot lines were changed (Shakespeare is in the public domain), so Hamlet was sent away to England later on that expected, but it worked. The most notable change perhaps being the “What a Piece of Work is Man” soliloquy performed in the first act of the show (the show was done in two acts), in the graveyard, but without Hamlet having found the skull of Poor Yorick yet. In the second act, Hamlet returns to the graveyard where he discovers Poor Yorick’s skull and he discusses his memories of Yorick. The change in the timing some of the plot points may have contributed to some of my confusion. Obviously, I don’t expect anyone to be putting on all five acts of any of Shakespeare’s work, and truthfully the changes didn’t really impact much. I’d love to see Suzie do Romeo and Juliet. I think she would have a lot of fun with it. She is an impeccable actor and person.
I always have great expectations when I see Suzie Eddie Izzard perform. My great expectations were not only reached, but very much surpassed by her one woman show of Great Expectations.
