As the frequency with which I go to the theater has expanded from casual attendance to OCD levels of attendance (that some may say required professional intervention,) I have made it a conscious decision not to just attend the traditional theatrical performances of a known quantity/quality, but to widen my scope to include what some would call "fringe" productions; of course a production is only fringe until it's successful critically and financially; Rent is a good example of such a transition. This is how I came to be a frequenter and often admirer of Synetic Theater productions; this is a group that is not afraid to push boundaries and take risks that other theater companies are less inclined to take. It is one of my favorite things about them but this is also my way of sugar coating a bitter pill.
With risks there is always the danger of failure. If I'm being kind I would call this production "uneven;" if I'm being less than kind I would have to say it fell more into the category of "hot mess." I'm not sure if this is a failure of material or method but as in most things it's likely a combination of the two; although I'm not sure anyone could make this material work.
The material was tough. The conceit of the show was that a budding drag queen finds an abandoned baby on her door step and in an attempt to calm the baby she reenacts the majority of the movie of "A Tale of Two Cities." Something that complex with that many characters and backstory being relayed by one person, that's a lot of acting. Thanks goodness she wasn't reenacting the book we'd still be there,
Dumas Dickens was not known for brevity. If you were not familiar with the story being depicted, I'm not sure at all that you would have gotten a handle of it from this material. I think greater clarity would have come from brief periods of narration to help ground the tale; this show seemed to rely on the assumption that audience was familiar with the characters and their relations to each other. Granted, I'm assuming the retelling A Tale of Two Cities was not the point of the story but what was is not quite clear to me. If I was digging for some relevant modern day meaning, one could draw parallels between the persecution of people (not just the aristos) during the French Revolution with the persecution and marginalization of LGBTQ community, that's not a difficult reach.
As far as the execution of the work goes, it definitely did not feel...what's the word? settled? gelled? fully formed? any and all of those really. I appreciate keeping the show with-in it's 2 hour run time, especially with no intermission, but the entire production felt rushed and frentic and it needed a better construct to help contain all the characters that inhabited that stage. Alex Mills, who's work I've enjoyed at Synteic and elsewhere, cannot be faulted for lack of effort, he's selling those characters as fast as he can but he can't seems to find a good rhythm with which to progress the narrative. I am curious if the decision to make the baby character interactive was part of the original off-Broadway production or if that was an invention of Synetic to give Mr. Mills a foil to play off of on stage. The Vato shaped baby-head worked better than I would have expected had anyone forewarned me of it; it was simultaneously amusing and just little disturbing.
It was not an awful production and there were a couple of instances where Mr. Mills landed on one character long enough to create a moment that was quite good but then we were off to the races again. It was obvious by the paucity of attendance that the concept of this show is not appealing to their typical audience but I must admire Synetic Theater's willingness to take risks and I will likely meet them on that limb again.