09/17/2004: "Published"

music: Robbie Williams
mood: Shocked and perturbed

Now I know how the celebreties must feel like. The following is the review I sent in to the PA weekly to be "edited", in otherwords I was less than 100 words over, I didn't dugar coat, and I felt my style and pacing were entertaining and fluid.... Not stellar, not my best writing but the play didn't inspire particularly and well...a critic needs to be honest... so here's what I REALLY WROTE...

Review for the White House Murder Case, by Susannah Greenwood

Picture this. Six middle aged Caucasian men, receding hairlines represented, conservative suits, power ties, notepads, charts, code names, finger pointing, the phrase “ I didn’t do it” echoed by the majority, forced confidence overshadowed by sweaty brows, nervous twitches, ticks and timely repositioning in chairs. Posturing, interruptions, continued refusal to admit fault, a cover-up, an investigation, and an end that is far from where the facts once were. And you suddenly realize you have seen it all before. Are you watching TV? Are you sitting in Congress? No, you are at the theatre.

Palo Alto Players opened an exciting and diverse 74th season this past Saturday with The White House Murder Case. This rarely done political satire was written in 1970 by Jules Feiffer and is set a mere six weeks from the presidential elections with the current administration embroiled in a most unpopular war (what a shocker)… in Brazil would you believe. With the discovery of a major military blunder (surprise, surprise) the core members of the cabinet start to dig for the truth and then once discovered, abruptly start to bury it again. By the end of the first act, their trouble and woes have increased ten fold as someone close to the President is discovered skewered to death in the Oval office. Death by protest sign. What to do, what to do. Indeed.

Chock full of amusing oxy morons such as “peace riots” and “peace arsenal”, the play, written prior to Watergate and set in a nonspecific future, has uncanny, and frightening similarities to present day political circumstance, proving that the political climate has not altered so very much over the last 35 years. The pointing of fingers, the refusal of accepting responsibility and the process of creating a kinder, gentler, truth rather than revealing it spin free, all contribute solidly to the plot and provide, strangely enough, a large part of the humor in this production.

Ray Doherty easily delivers some of the most amusing comic relief as the half paralyzed, blind military representative General Pratt. Ray milked every moment and was rewarded with the audience’s applause afterward. The audience cringed and squirmed along with the nit picking, whiney Professor Sweeney (Don DiMico)a man obsessed with statistics and enamored with someone he ought not to be. Fred Sharkey brings life and depth to the Post Master General easily meriting his own sequel and Mark Rawlins president possesses far more skills of deduction than most leaders of the Free World in my opinion but he does so believably. If I were giving out the awards, Ted Hatrak (Secretary of Defense Parson) would win best scene with a chart by a landslide. Paul Braverman is cogent as General Cole and Mary Moore delivers a refreshing blast of much needed estrogen to the spineless group as the liberal first lady bent on torturing her husband with dreaded morals and social conscience (gasp). Her Hilary hair-do and Vern’s’ brassy, progressive rhetoric is a perfect match for Ms. Moore.

The most entertaining scenes for me showed the delightfully twisted decline and deterioration of Captain Weemers (played by David Hundsness) and Lieutenant Cutler (Jonathan Ferro) in the jungle of Brazil. Their philosophical banter builds nicely, and is reminiscent of Beckett’s, Waiting for Godot. Their relationship is absurd at times, surreal and wickedly aberrant, but somehow convincing and on all levels enjoyable.

Though the individual performances were strong I did find it hard to buy into the idea that these men had worked together for 4 years in an administration and that in some cases had known each other for years. The chemistry between the President’s wife and the few characters she encounters while snooping about, stand out much more in my mind as the type of ensemble piece this wants to be. Line flubs were apparent as some of the actors were seemingly as nervous and unprepared in their acting at times as their characters and this is maybe the reason I dismissed the flaw as easily as I did. The bumbling administration seems almost more real to me by their unexpected flustered state, intentional or otherwise.

One of the highlights for me was the ingenuity and commitment of director Dave Sikula teamed with the talents and imagination of scene Designer Ron Gasparinetti. They conquered the difficult staging of the play set both in the Oval office and the Jungles of Brazil with set and staging that is simple, effective and clever with a few excellent surprises along the way. The sound design, though terribly loud in places, scored the dramatic and melodramatic edge of the play quite nicely and the costuming and lighting complimented rather than upstaged.

This growing trend in bringing serious issues to light through satire and comedy, though not new, is certainly more prevalent this season across the theatre community than in past seasons. The undeniable increase in this trend begs the question why, but the only answer we get from this play is, because it’s funny. And maybe laughter is the best medicine or at least the best deterrent when democracy runs into some glitches.

What: Palo Alto Players presents, The White House Murder Case by Jules Feiffer.

Where: Lucie Stern Center, 1305 Middlefield Road in Palo Alto.

When: Through September 26th, Wednesday to Saturday at 8pm and Sundays at 2pm.

Cost: Tickets are $18-$27; savings are available for youth, students, seniors, group of 15 or more and season ticket subscribers. Call (650)329-0819 for more information.



and HERE'S what got published. Edit the shit out of it. Wow. And even though it's not a major publishing accomplishment, even though I knew there would be some edits, and even though I wasn't privy to the changes before reading it, I have realized I am in fact taking this very personally...I hate someone else having creative control over something with my name on it. This was not collborative or consultative. This was CHANGING the spirit and rhythm of my writing. The amount of WWork the Editor had to do just to essentially ruin it would have allowed her to write the whole thing her self....and I still haven't seen money for it.

Live and learn.