Professor Dan Haughey
KCACTF Respondent
Black Hawk College
05 November 2006
A Written Response to the Monmouth College Production:
A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE
On Saturday night, October 28, 2006, I saw and served as respondent to the
Monmouth College production of Tennessee Williams’ A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE. The production was presented in the Wells Theater, on the Monmouth College campus, in Monmouth, Illinois. The front-of-the-house staff was very pleasant and professional. They made me feel welcome. The foyer displays (inside the front main lobby) were very informative and gave me a higher appreciation of the play’s history and the many themes of American social fabric that makeup of the rich fabric of Tennessee Williams’ main body of theatrical work.
Indeed, as I indicated to the Director and Company in an oral response after the performance, this play was an excellent choice for a college theatre program which strives to set a high standard of quality as a leading, four-year liberal arts school This three-act drama, with its poignant themes of Death versus Passion, Madness, Loneliness, Hypocrisy, and Love was presented by a good ensemble cast. Only minor production problems or questions could be discerned. It was a bold selection, smoothly and professionally handled by the Director and Company.
PRODUCTION ELEMENTS:
In general, scenery, costuming, props, sound, and lighting all were well-conceived and coordinated. The props and set changes for the most part were very well handled. The two-story set of apartments, with many logically established acting areas in the lower apartment that belonged to Stella and Stanley, was well-designed, had a very logical footprint, and was intricately constructed according to the period of the 40’s and the locale of New Orleans. The lower apartment gave us the best view of the world of the play. In its Gulf Coast ambiance, it featured bold, warm, passionate colors, traces of textured plaster, distressed walls with surface electrical wiring of day, classic archways,
MONMOUTH/KCACTF/WRITTEN RESPONSE
detailed kitchen and bathroom, all in the style of the French Quarter. Yet it gave the feel of economic desperation as a backdrop to the dilemmas of Stella, Stanley and Blanche. The music was effective, especially the inter-act calliope-sounding “Varsouviana” – lacing scenes and moods together – and including even a live, effective blues-playing guitarist in a cross-over scene. The only exception was a jarring rendition of cops-like, “Untouchables” music at the very end that drew me out of the world that was already so painstakingly established. The sound effects of streetcars passing through the theatre in something akin to “surround sound” was very effective. The student costume designer should be commended for pulling together a vast responsibility on a small budget. Perhaps roughly a third of the costumes looked too permanent-pressed and too clean for the textures and desperate conditions of the l940’s characters in the show. However, the color associations were accurate in terms of reinforcing character temperament; it showed the costume designer had read and analyzed her play. Many of the hats were very well selected. In the makeup department, the main problem was with the style and look of the hair on several of the men: for the period, several had hair looks that were simply too long to be believable. The sum total of the play’s “spectacle” worked and supported a strong core of actors.
ACTING:
The whole ensemble worked as a team that was dedicated to telling the powerful story of A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE. I will refer to each principle actor or actress by his or her character name. First I want to say that Eunice really drew me into the action; she displayed purpose, a strong dramatic attack, and a strong evocative voice in her first scene. I felt she was the first to really “kick-in” the action of the play. Although they looked well-rehearsed, it would have helped the atmosphere of the French Quarter and the world of the play to have heard the same vocal energy and sense of purpose from several of the supernumerary street people who would do cross-over scenes, between the main scenes. Eunice really helped to set a strong, dramatic tone from where I sat (on the right side of the house – i.e. facing stage left); and she established “reality”. Stella, Stanley, and Blanche carried big burdens of action and audience expectations with this production-and all three saw their jobs and did them. Although I was not so sure that her hair style really fit the 40’s, Stella showed clear character intentions, listening, and empathy for Blanche and Stanley throughout. Stella was portrayed with good confidence, concentration and relaxation-as would be appropriate for effective acting and viable characterization. Blanche’s role required marathon acting ability, and the actress delivered a marathon performance, with character consistency. From both Stella and Blanche, it could have benefited the realities of the play if they could have made stronger connections with the passion and desperation of their characters. Although they are underclassmen, those two actresses will continue to grow, eventually reach their potential, and are designed to deliver strong Irene Ryan presentations some day. Stanley delivered good listening and good characterization. The actor playing Stanley gave realistic, well-rounded, believable dimensions and shape to the characterization, and he avoided the two-dimensional, macho-animal cliché that actors of Stanley too often try to represent. This actor in the Monmouth production portrayed the Stanley role with honesty (he too could make a good Irene Ryan representative). His character was built on the pride and masculinity of Stanley, yet more assertion of that well-drawn characterization would have added fuller believability to the desperation and passion of Stanley. The actor who played Stanley truly looked as if he were in the warm, New Orleans heat. He looked as if he were a greasy, swarthy, sweating low society workman. (Could that be effective makeup or effective method acting?: either way, it worked.) Vocally, I thought several actors including the leads, could use more precise diction. However, the leads especially focused and shaped the words of their largest dramatic monologues with clarity. Mitch showed solid characterization and gave a very memorable performance. There were many supporting actors and actresses who were team-players. This was a very big cast to unify and to coach into every aesthetic need of this very challenging show.
MONMOUTH/KCACTF/WRITTEN RESPONSE
DIRECTING:
The overall direction showed a good awareness of focus and of style. It was easy to see which character should be prominent at any given moment. The pacing and rhythm of the performance was effective, and I believe an outcome of solid directing. Again, the ground plan was very effective. The supernumeraries in the cross-over scenes needed a little more direction, yet some were more effective than others. In the second or third act, a very effective portrayal was given by a couple that included a young girl of the street who was very drunk. In general, the set had a tendency to dominate over the acting of the show. Yet I was drawn into the world of the play by the appealing and dynamic acting across the board, which seemed to be very honest on the whole. All seemed to respond well to the Director’s main themes (with only a few exception, more passionate motivations would have helped) and the general appearance as evoked by the hard work on stage was that the entire ensemble should be commended for their commitment to the idea of doing this play, and for their commitment to tell this Tennessee Williams’ story, regardless of its big expectations. I tip my hat to Professor Doug Rankin and the “Crimson Masque” of Monmouth College. The standing ovation I witnessed from the audience of October 28, 2006 should be the ultimate measure of this show’s effectiveness.