Freshman One-Act Festival
Plays written by various authors
Acted and directed by various freshmen
Feb. 7-9 at 8:00 PM in Murray-Dodge
The Freshman One-Act Festival here at Princeton, as the name would suggest, provides the opportunity for freshmen to direct and play roles in one-act plays. The festival features a line-up of four different performances, each offering their own flavor to the evening. It is a kind of four-course meal if you will – not at a renowned establishment exclusive only to the upper echelons of society, but a homely meal at your local diner. The entrées are short contemporary plays.
For those who derive pleasure from the works of late twentieth-century American playwrights, the evening likely proved to be rather enjoyable. For the rest of us, offered below is a mercifully brief synopsis of the plays.
The Universal Language
Written by David Ives
Directed by Adin Walker
The performance features con artist Don Finninneganegan teaching Dawn di Vito, a reserved young lady with a stutter, the universal language, Unamunda. The language school is a confidence scheme Don runs to cheat his victims out of $500, which is the tuition cost for his course. Dawn masters the gibberish and in so doing loses her stutter. An emotional relationship is established between the two, and Don, in his unbridled guilt reveals he is a fraud. But Dawn maintains that the language is real, as they can both speak it to each other. In what could only be described as the most groan-inducingly clichéd moment of the evening, the two begin to kiss. The new couple is then interrupted by a presumably insecure young man seeking lessons in Unamunda. The lights fade out as Dawn and Don agree to take him on as a student. And by the way, I suppose I should mention that the director took the liberty of exercising his creative license by changing the gender of Dawn – an unnecessary maneuver that adds little to the play.
Interviews with Loneliness
Written by Ann Wuehler
Directed by Oge Ude
The play consists of three females on stage ranting via monologue about the emptiness they feel at the lack of a male figure in their lives. The script is full of terrible writing; it’s overly repetitive and bland. Take this gem for instance:
Why do those women always go back, why do I keep going back for more. As if they had a choice. What’s my choice – hooking? Working two jobs? Shit. Why do they drum it into our heads that it’s better to be beaten than be alone? That they can change, that we can change them. Makes the world go round, you know?
What Wuehler lacks in style, she makes up for in vulgarity. Now, one can make the case that the use of such crude language and such a boring style are intentional writerly decisions used by the author to convey the sense of how dismal the lives of these three women are. The problem is that there is no variation in writing style. The three women (all from different backgrounds) speak like the same person. Again, one could argue that this too is intentional. It solidifies the oppression of females by males and no matter what the background, the end result is the same as these women try to live in a patriarchal society. Perhaps, but then all one gets is twenty minutes of droning, and whatever deeper meaning Wuehler is trying to convey could have been done in five. The acting helped a little bit, but not by much. One of the actresses, whom I shall not name, couldn’t even get her lines straight and had several lapses of memory – but then again, given how bad the play was, I could not tell if that was ultimately due to the writing or the actress.
Chicks
Written by Grace McKeaney
Directed by Nathalie Ellis-Einhorn
This one is not much better. The acting was much better than in the last, but the writing was still meh. We find a kindergarten teacher having a mental breakdown over the course of the semester. Four different actresses portray the teacher, each with her own interpretation. And that’s about it, really: one could sit through this play for twenty minutes and get nothing much out of it other than what I have already told you in a few sentences.
And yet, we find that there is hope:
The Drunken Sisters
Written by Thornton Wilder
Directed by Rachel Wilson
Bravo. This was truly the highlight of the evening. The writing in this one was stellar – and should be considering three-time Pulitzer Prize recipient Mr. Thornton Wilder is the wordsmith of the piece. The Drunken Sisters is, as director Rachel Wilson puts it, “the ancient Greek tragedy of Alcestiad, reinterpreted by a twentieth-century American legend”. The acting, too, was on a level which exceeded my expectations given the previous three acts. High praises must be given to both Matt Volpe and Evelyn Giovine for their portrayal of Atropos and Lachesis respectively. The latter, might I add, was unsurprisingly good given her lovely performance as Desdemona in Othello earlier this academic year. Volpe’s role as Atropos of the Three Fates required him to don woman’s clothing, and this only added to what proved to be twenty minutes of almost continuous laughter. The Drunken Sisters was a good way to end the otherwise disappointing evening.
Pingback: The Death of Nihilism | The Nassau Literary Review
While I still disagree with many aspects of your review, I found your reply to be a well-argued and well-written piece. I admire your opposition to the “everybody gets a gold medal” mentality and I want you to know that I am with you on this point. I feel that the Princeton community would have benefited more from a discussion of acting and directing because those are the aspects of the show that these freshman had an impact on. I look forward to reading reviews on any student-written shows; I just felt that a discussion on the text was irrelevant as that ship sailed whenever these plays came out (minus Adin Walker’s reassignment of Dawn). Best of luck with that JP.
Okay. I’ve tried very hard to restrain myself from responding to your lovely and insightful comments, but this is going too far. If you would read the review carefully, you would see that nowhere do I “dump” on any particular student. The thing I, in my opinion, found to be sub-par was the writing of some of the plays, and hence I questioned the decision to incorporate said plays into the festival. I make objective statements. Was it not true that there was a person who had a lapse in memory and forgot her lines? I thought that this was worth noting. There were some subjective statements made which seemed to offend. I thought certain parts were lacking, and even some of you agreed.
It seems then that there is a confusion, and indeed there is. You see, when you charge the general public money to see a show, there is a sort of expectation. It need not be very high, but a person will go in to a show expecting something, and it would seem that your only defense of OAF’s existence is that is a dress-rehearsal/training-grounds experience for aspiring actors/directors, and hence all non-favorable remarks are rendered obsolete.
I found the acting to be mediocre, which is not a bad thing. I apologize if you disagree, but this was simply my opinion. Was I to change what I genuinely felt and lie to readers and recommend them to sit through a 2 hour show that had more downs than ups?
The Nass Lit online review’s raison d’etre is not to be a free publicity machine doling out superficial praises from my pez dispenser of compliments. And while you are most certainly entitled to your own opinions about the show and review, I must point out that making comments such as “then again, I suppose we shouldn’t expect much more of a junior in the mathematics department who probably took a grumpy two-hour break from his JP to write about freshman theater” only makes you sound immature and discredits your opinion. Now, that being said, comments criticizing my tastes, or lack thereof are totally acceptable. Pointing out errors in logic and inability to explain a point is appropriate and even encouraged. Bringing your own views to the table is a wonderful way to spur conversation about the arts and is better than making the not-so-subtle implication that math majors are uncultured troglodytes (which might I add will offend future potential audience members if they happen to be math majors). It is almost as bad as saying that a person who is a politics major (for example) is only so because they lack any true talents to pursue another major, which is entirely untrue. A person’s choice of major should have no bearing on their credibility. That being said, there are a few things which need to be addressed.
“This review reeks of insecurity on the part of the author.” Yes. This explains why I am posting a review under my real name as opposed to hiding behind an anonymous comment.
“Who cares that you find the kiss in “Unamunda” “cliched and groan-inducing?” I care, which is why it’s in my review and not yours.
“But you’re fighting an uphill battle if you expect Intime to change its niche and encroach on another group’s territory for your entertainment.” Nowhere do I suggest this. The disclaimer made at the beginning was to say that those who automatically like contemporary plays will have no problems, and for those who sometimes enjoy them, I merely gave a brief overview of what to expect. Perhaps this is my fault for not being clear enough. The message I intended was that if you are not a diehard fan of contemporary plays, don’t go to the OAF since you probably won’t have 2 hours of fun.
“Why not spend this space talking about the strengths and weaknesses of the performance rather than complaining about the writing.” Hmm, why would a literary magazine article focus so much on the writing? Again, the point of these reviews are not aimed at giving advice to performers. I do not have a MFA from the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, nor am I a director. I’m just a student who did not enjoy certain parts of the show and thought that others could be warned.
“Also, you used ‘meh’ in the second-oldest college publication in the country. Really? Meh? You want us to take your opinion seriously? If there’s a shortage of thesauruses down at the office just let me know and I’ll personally come down and offer an actual word anytime somebody feels like printing ‘meh.’ ” I could have said ‘exemplar of mediocrity’ or ‘if it were any more average, theatre schools would use it as a gold standard to gauge whether a play was above or below average’, but I felt ‘meh’ was entirely appropriate here.
And so you can see that I was never mean to any student, nor was it my intention to do so. However, I felt that for instance, it was entirely appropriate to comment on Wuehler, and Ms. Wuehler is definitely not a student here according to her LinkedIn account. One last thing I would like to mention is that it would seem that some of my critics are part of the movement which aims to praise everything under the sun. This rising trend is to give a standing ovation for everything. No more is a standing ovation given when one experiences a truly once in a lifetime type performance, but rather, everyone and everything must be considered good, and nothing is ever mediocre.
And with that, I must return to working on that JP.
This review is just lame. It seems that the reviewer entirely missed the purpose of the Freshman One-Act Festival on a very fundamental level. As another commenter mentioned, OAF is a get-to-know-you and get-to-know-Princeton-theater crash course of sorts for freshmen. Many have little or no prior experience, and the directors are given zero budget to work with.
More importantly than the reviewer seeming to have no grasp of the purpose of OAF is the unnecessary meanness of the review. I personally liked some of the plays better than others, but it’s wholly unhelpful to the cast or the consumer of this review to call moments “meh” or “bad.”
It’s a shame that this reviewer was assigned to cover OAF because it can be an exciting and relatively low-stress introduction to Princeton theater when there isn’t a reviewer dumping on the entire show. Then again, I suppose we shouldn’t expect much more of a junior in the mathematics department who probably took a grumpy two-hour break from his JP to write about freshman theater.
I have to say, these type of comments focused on spreading useless insults like “we shouldn’t expect more of a junior in the mathematics department…” are not only unwarranted but detrimental to the arts culture on campus . While you say that the reviewer seems to have no grasp of the purpose of the One Act Festival, your comment implies you have no grasp of the purpose of a review. A reviewer’s job is to give his/her perspective on the event, describe it (good AND bad aspects), and provide an overall recommendation based on individual perceptions. And since when has it not been constructive to point out that certain portions of a show weren’t as good as they could have been? Isn’t the point of a “theater crash course” to crash sometimes and have people tell you what went wrong? If people really loved the arts, they wouldn’t write comments like this that completely discourage discussion, especially amongst people (like math majors or engineers) who may not normally be engaged.
Also:
“For those who derive pleasure from the works of late twentieth-century American playwrights, the evening likely proved to be rather enjoyable. For the rest of us, offered below is a mercifully brief synopsis of the plays.”
Theatre Intime’s raison d’etre is, by and large, to produce twentieth and twenty-first century plays written in the English language. PUP fills the musical theatre niche on campus; PSC does Shakespeare; PSAT, BAC Drama, and Princeton Chinese Theater do minority culture-specific works; and Triangle does musical comedy. All the theatre groups do different (and equally artistically legitimate) things, so if you would prefer to see another type of play, go right ahead.
But you’re fighting an uphill battle if you expect Intime to change its niche and encroach on another group’s territory for your entertainment. Sorry I’m not sorry.
This article was just so bafflingly illegitimate. What’s the point of spending three quarters of this article bashing one-act authors instead of evaluating the acting, directing and overall presentation by the class of 2016. Who cares that you find the kiss in “Unamunda” “cliched and groan-inducing?” All in the timing is a wildly successful collection of one-act comedies; of course a kiss in a comedy is going to be cliched. Why not spend this space talking about the strengths and weaknesses of the performance rather than complaining about the writing. This article shouldn’t even be titled “The Freshmen Flunk” because all that is said about the freshmen is Adin Walker didn’t add anything by switching the gender of Dawn in his show and Matt Volpe was in drag and really funny. Also, you used “meh” in the second-oldest college publication in the country. Really? Meh? You want us to take your opinion seriously? If there’s a shortage of thesauruses down at the office just let me know and I’ll personally come down and offer an actual word anytime somebody feels like printing “meh.”
Yeah I lol’ed at the “meh” and Charles’s defense of his review as full of “objective statements” about the writing. Of course they’re subjective. I agree with Charles that we need more critical reviews, but I think they should also be detailed. Saying something is poorly written is not that helpful. Where Charles gave an example of this “poor writing,” the review was stronger. Overall, not a very great review.
Seriously?
I think there’s a way to frame the fact that you found certain aspects of the performances and production lacking without completely dumping on some inexperienced freshmen. OAF is an opportunity for freshmen to explore Theatre Intime and develop their creativity with little to no intervention from the Board. Many OAF plays are not “good”, per se. However, it is always such a treat to see these earnest, fresh-faced freshmen taking center stage and attempting to flex their wings. Recognize it for what it is– a superficially entertaining way to get to know the names and faces in the freshman class, not an off-Broadway production of Shakespeare.
This review reeks of insecurity on the part of the author. I hope you feel better about yourself having been non-constructively mean to a bunch of freshmen you don’t know.
I really couldn’t disagree more on most fronts.
I find most of David Ives’ writing, while often a bit too focused on the concept and short on character development, to be generally very funny and clever, and The Universal Language is no exception. The language itself is kind of hilariously perverted English, just close enough so that the audience can catch the gist of it (“English’ -> “JohnClease”, “great”->”krakajak”, “stutter”->”Tonguestoppard”). The acting was quite good, and both actors had an impressive grasp of the made-up language. Although the production didn’t quite manage to sell the transition to romantic interest, that’s certainly as much or more the fault of the play (lack I said, high on clever, low on character) as the directing or acting. The gender switch, while perhaps unnecessary, certainly didn’t detract.
Interviews with Loneliness was great. I didn’t read the script, so I don’t know how it reads, but I thought the performance itself was very well directed and acted. I’m not sure what you saw, but I saw three very talented and attractive freshman girls playing three different aspects of women in a play dominated by absent men, and playing those very, very well. Anna Aronson in particular was hilarious and heartfelt, and took me somewhere fun but sad every time she spoke, but
Erin O’Brien and Emily Fockler were both excellent as well.
I was disappointed in Chicks. There’s not much substance to it, as you said, and it drags on for a good 40 minutes, where the longest of the other plays is about 30. I disagree that the acting was better than Interviews with Loneliness (which I thought had the best acting on average of the night). I found a couple of the teachers quite good, and the other two fair, but without any plot or character-to-character interaction to speak of, they were utterly painful to watch.
I agree that Drunken Sisters was a great way to end the night, although I’m not sure it was my highlight. I think you may have overestimated the writing since it carries the name Thornton Wilder. I found the play itself to be just okay, but the production really sold it.
Anyway, I guess that’s just my two cents. I thought the festival was generally quite good considering the time and budget limitations that these sort of festivals have and the fact that it was entirely directed by freshman, most of whom have little or no experience in directing.