Theatre Review: 3/17/09

Dust
Director: Christine Young
(3.5 out of 5 stars)

March 17, 2009
by: Aileen Pagdanganan

You know the story of creation?

God creates man and woman. God names the man “Adam” and the woman, “Eve.” Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden where God forbids them to touch the Tree of Knowledge. Eve refuses to listen and takes an apple from a sneaky serpent hidden in the tree. Eve takes a bite of the apple. Then Adam follows. God gets mad. Then all hell breaks loose and the first two representatives of human kind are punished. Thanks to Eve's temptation.

But really, can we only blame her? She has to have a logical reason as to why she did it, right?Christine Young, the director of “Dust,” the recent USF Performing Arts Production, tackles that exact question. Incorporating different views and aspects of Eve's behavior, the stories portrayed in the play sometimes challenge and sometimes illustrate the assumed “reasons” as to why Eve took a bite.

Could it be because Eve wanted fame? Love? Or was she just a victim of desire? Fear? Pride? These are just a few examples of the reasons depicted in the production.

In the first half of the play, with only stools, a chalkboard and 12 actors, the mood was set as if you were in a classroom. With one of the actors leading the scene as the teacher and the other 11 as the students, the idea of “love” as Eve's motive was presented as if it were a Physical Education class. With a “coach” and his whistle, girls with apples in their hands, and boys with bananas in their lap, the portrayal of sex education was mocked. That much was clear. The coach kept lecturing his class of young girls to use “S.N.A.K.E.” whenever a man tried to take their apple. He told them to “Say 'no' and kick everywhere!” To illustrate his lecture, he brought in one of the boys and asked “Eve” to defend herself. When the boy tried to take her apple, she screamed and kicked him in the shin. Then when she saw that the boy was actually hurt, Eve consoled him. Then the scene immediately ended and the actors were onto another scene, another explanation.

At this point, I was thinking: “What just happened?” I mean I could understand what went on, but I didn't know how that scene justified the idea that love caused Eve to share the apple with Adam. It ended too soon, and the setting didn't make sense to me. I felt it was more humorous than explanatory, at least when it came to Adam and Eve.

The way the actors chose to illustrate subsequent reasons such as “pride” and “desire” through elementary school skits were too immature and ineffective. The production could've reached out to a college audience more if the ideas in the first half were more than superifical jokes.The classroom setting worked at first but it got old real fast. This is a college show. It needed to be smarter, especially on a topic like “Eve,” which is supposed to explain how disease sin and death came into the world.

Which is weird, because in the second half I had a different reaction. This time I had no idea what was going on. The material in the scenes being thrown at me weren't so straightforward rather complex, which made the production more interesting.

As the actors tore up the stage and created havoc by pulling off the lights and the rugs on the floor, the transition into the second half had me on the edge of my seat. When the lights turned off and actors with lighters began to pop out of nowhere around the crowd, my heart started beating. I admit I got excited and a bit scared at the same time. Then when the actors jumped on stage and created a strobe light show with just cigarette lighters, I felt a bit of adrenaline rush through me. Even though I still didn't know what was going on, I thought this was probably the best scene in the whole show. It was creative, innovative, and definitely crowd pleasing, whatever it meant.

But after the light show ended, I found myself even more in the dark. Not because the lights turned off but because of the deep interpretations that began to mesh together. Watching scenes with just constant actions, I felt myself stuck in confusion. I kept turning to my friend next to me hoping he understood what was going on but when I looked over, he looked just as confused as I did. This is the part of the play I wish they could've elaborated more on to give us at least a hint. The scenes were entertaining, but they were mind boggling.

This is when I felt the production strayed away from the creation story and what was told in the Book of Genesis. Instead of being intrigued by their inspiration of the story, I was more intrigued by the way the actors utilized the stage. Chalk and apples were being thrown everywhere, but I didn't know why. I'm assuming imagery, metaphors, and personification were intended through this part of the play, but I couldn't understand them. In turn, I began to become more intrigued by the stage set up instead of the stories. Unlike the first half, I spent the whole time trying to decipher what the actors were trying to tell me and trying to come up with a conclusion of my own. I spent more time thinking than watching.

So overall I'd have to say I enjoyed the play. It was my first time watching a USF Performing Arts Production, and I felt the Ensemble did very well. I loved the unique set up of the stage, the enthusiasm, and the energy the actors were giving but I'm not sure if I throughly enjoyed their explanation of Eve; simply because I didn't begin to set a coherent sense of what that explanation was. It was a strong attempt to create a unique show accompanied with great acting, but I still wasn't jumping out of my seat. I instead spent my time scratching my head in wonder.

TV review: 2/23/09

The Office
(5 out of 5 stars)

February 23, 2009
by: Aileen Pagdanganan

“Hi, so it's my birthday today. No big deal. I had a whole lobster to myself. It cost me zero dollars because I caught it with a spear in my backyard. Yeah, I raise lobsters. No big deal. Do I invite my friends over? No, because they didn't help me raise the lobsters. Plus cupcakes are my favorite. Who's ever heard of sharing a cupcake with your grandparents and your cousin? It's very unpractical.”

Do you think you need to read that again? You're probably thinking “What did you just say?” Exactly. You have just tasted a piece of what I'd like to call the distinctive humor that characterizes the NBC hit series “The Office,” now in it's 6^th year.

It's short, sweet, with no distinct point other than being a random joke. With no screaming punchlines or cues to laugh, “The Office” has a witty and clever way of grabbing your attention and making you laugh. Based on the successful British series of the same name, “The Office” pokes fun at the bland daily lives of office workers through a mockumentary-style sitcom with outlandish characters who just radiate fumes of ignorance.

Michael Scott (Steve Carrell), an oblivious man who views himself as the coolest worker of Dunder Mifflin, believes his position as regional manager of the paper company deserves all the praise all the time. Lacking the natural common sense and courtesy of a normal human being, Michael's exaggerated authority creates an always hilarious and always awkward tension among the workers at the office.

The only one who succumbs to his illogical way of running a company is Dwight Schrute (Rainn Wilson) who regards himself as the most correct and efficient employee at the office. As the assistant to the regional manager, he is convinced that his position holds prestigious importance. Working under the erratic and intsensitive demands of Michael, he takes his job seriously and prides himself on working hard to suck up to his own boss.

In season 4, Dwight says, “I have been salesman of the month for 13 of the last 12 months. You heard me right. I did so well last February that Corporate gave me two plaques in lieu of a pay raise.” No matter what the situation is or who he is arguing with, Dwight never fails to convince himself that he's the one that's right. Almost just as oblivious as Michael is, he is blinded of his own arrogance and always does things his own way – the way he thinks it's supposed to be done.

However, his co-worker, Jim Halpert (John Krasinski), always finds a way to tease him. Despite Dwight's confidence in himself, he has difficulty in retaliating against Jim's antics. A lovable character, who is probably the one the average reviewer relates to, Jim possess a personality opposite of his two bosses. Unlike the other two, he creates a connection between the audience and the office.

It seems as if he represents a character that depicts how it would be if the audience were actually in the office setting. With his random glares toward the camera, he smirks at the audience as if to cue them of the absurdity that just happened in the office as if they could feel it through the screen.

It's obvious this show isn't your conventional traditional sitcom, in which the majority of the characters represent “us.” However, the humor in this show, once it is understood can be addicting. After watching just one episode of the show, I couldn't help but want to watch the whole season. Then after watching a few more episodes, I couldn't help but try to talk like Dwight Schrute, which leads me back to his comments at the beginning. “The Office” contains a unique type of humor that only some can fully appreciate. And I believe it is those few who can appreciate this kind of humor and this kind of show to be people who possess the best humor around.

I rate this sitcom a 5 out of 5 just because I feel nothing obvious is wrong with this show. I enjoyed, I loved it, and I want to watch more.