By Karen Aney (The Cascade)
Cell phones are an ever-present, ever encroaching sickness that permeates our everyday experience and emotions. This is the condition examined by Pulitzer prize nominee Sarah Ruhl in her play Dead Man’s Cell Phone.
The play follows the accidental protagonist, Jean, starting when she answers a fellow diner’s cell phone for him, only to find out that he is dead. She then keeps his phone, answering its calls, meeting his family, and basically carrying out his unfinished business in the way that she thinks best. Unfortunately, her actions are often met with shock and confusion, as her mousy yet kind demeanour doesn’t quite jive with Gordon – the dead man’s – personality.
Jean was played by Renee Reeve, who embodied the character quite well in a physical sense. Her attitude and appearance matched the character she embodied. However, at times her lines seemed like just that: lines that she was reciting. The instances of this were few and brief, yet combined with the general detachment that the character’s nature dictated from the audience, made for a jarring experience.
The males in the show – Gordon and his brother, Dwight – were both superb. J.D. Dueckman, who played Gordon, played the personable salesman perfectly. He was engaging and inviting, and his monologue which opened the second act was a highlight of the show. Brandon Mindel, who played Dwight, was charmingly awkward. His sincerity as a character grabbed the audience, right down to his movement on stage—hesitant hands, stiff running—all aspects of his portrayal spoke of the character. His performance accentuated that of Reeve’s, and lent strength and humour to the show in its entirety.
Mention must be made of Virginia Cooke, one of UFV’s English professors. She played the mother of Dwight and Gordon, Mrs. Gottlieb. While her acting at times seemed rather rehearsed—like that of Reeve’s—it was somewhat perversely pleasing to hear a professor being so overtly profane. That alone is worth the cost of the ticket.
Gordon’s wife Hermia was played by Colleen Plenert. Unfortunately, this character fell somewhat flat. Though she was meant to be awkward and stiff as a character, it unfortunately initially translated as being awkward and stiff as an actress. Her performance was saved somewhat by her portrayal of inebriation, though she was the fastest, clearest drunk speaker I’ve ever heard. Though the theatre medium necessitates clear diction, a more accurate portrayal could have been achieved by drawing out lines or changing pitch and inflection in odd places. During this performance, these tactics were not used. “The Other Woman”, played by Natasha Ray, fell into the same category as Plenert. Though Ray’s character was clearly meant to be an overtly sexual and confident woman, the presentation of these attitudes was not quite complete. Though the lines were delivered well, what seemed to be scripted facial expressions often felt very – well, scripted, and did not appear to embody the character entirely.
Part of the doubt in Ray’s portrayal may have come from her costuming. The first costume she wears on stage is a navy raincoat. Costume Designer Catrina Lewis stated that she was “constantly drawn back to a 40s silhouette for both men and women,” as dictated by the film noir inspiration used in the show. However, the coat had silhouettes that were neither modern nor 40s-inspired: in actuality, the coat looked like it belonged in an early 90s sitcom. It was ill-fitting and left the audience confused: the music suggested sex symbol, but the coat suggested a farcical take on the trench coat mafia. This carried through to the costumes of other characters: small details like tight, straight-leg pants on swing actors and a misplaced belt on the female lead lent a general air of confusion over just what era this play was set in, and why some characters adhered and others did not.
That being said, the film noir inspiration in its entirety seemed fairly anachronistic. The inspiration made for a lovely and simplistic set design, but this easily-recognizable influence is just that: easily recognizable. Unfortunately, that also means that it’s easy to recognize when it’s done well and when it isn’t. As the costuming and sound design suggested, this is sadly a case of the latter. While the costuming could be overlooked sometimes, the sound design could not. The songs used during set changes and as background sound were not coherent – some fell under the film noir inspiration, but others were just odd.
However, the biggest shortcoming of all was towards the end of the play. During a certain scene, snippets of cell phone conversations were heard. However, the words were indiscernible and cluttered. Though the script is not the fault of the crew for this performance, the show itself lacked a poignant moment that reinforced the play’s theme. This particular scene – with the snippets of conversation – could have overcome that shortcoming and driven the point home. Unfortunately, it instead came off as irritating and left the audience wanting more.
All in all, the show was entertaining. Well performed—at times brilliantly performed—and mildly amusing, it is not a bad way to spend an afternoon. More importantly, it’s a great way to support your fellow students. Most importantly, it’s inspirational to watch the swing actors, who somehow manage to carry tables, backwards, down stairs and in heels, without tripping. Shows run for the remainder of this week, with the finale on January 22nd. Tickets are $9-$20. To purchase, call the box office at 604-795-2814.
