When you love the show but hate the play...

This is a conundrum.  I've run into this issue several times while going to see plays in the city.  I love my fellow actors (almost always, especially this season, I've been very surprised and pleased by everyone's work) and I usually really like the direction.  But plays, especially contemporary ones, have a hard time deciding two things...
1. What the entire point of the piece is
2. What the play is trying to do

Last night, I saw Flashpoint Theatre's production of The Fat Cat Killers with Sean Lally (Michael), Robert DaPont (Steve), and Damon Bonetti (Dave Russel), beautifully directed by Noah Herman.  I thought the production was very well done.  The sound was spot on, use of 2001 alt rock such as Beck and Soul Coughing was definitely the correct choice, splicing each transition with a spattering of nostalgia and moodiness.  The lighting was great too, it seemed as though the room was breathing along with the scenes and actors.  Fantastic.  The actors, while this was a small piece, did some of the best work I've seen them do.  All three were loose and acting on impulse.  No one was rigid or making bizarre choices just for the sake of it.  I empathized with all three characters very much.  It made sense and I would say that the first 60 minutes of the play landed.

Then there was this odd "false ending" as I'll call it.  Robert, playing the part of Steve, came forward with a monologue that really made the audience go "ah!  Yes, this is the point of the piece! Yay!".  It was quite "Heathers-esque".  While his monologue was outrageous, it worked with the rest of the play.  Because of the nature of the piece, an obvious commentary on the 99% and corporate greed, having the play "end" with a monologue about taking control and doing something dangerous and risky worked for me.  The lights went down, the audience clapped, and we expected a curtain call.

However, there was an extra 25 minutes tacked onto the piece that made me go "huh?".  The "epilogue" (so it seemed...) backtracked on all the headway the characters made throughout the piece.  The "end" monologue all of a sudden didn't have a true meaning and that disappointed me.  As someone who really feels the 99% idea, I felt that the playwright spent the first hour of the piece giving validity to the movement, and the last 30 minutes taking that away.  Quite frankly, it pissed me off.

Maybe that was the point of the last 30 minutes, but it certainly shouldn't have been the point of the whole play.  We all know that corporations "win" (for lack of a better term) in this world right now, shouldn't he (the playwright) have let Michael and Steve "win" in this piece?  If it's a piece about empathy towards people who have no where else to go and are in dire situations, let them prevail for once.  At least give us that in the theatre.  We all have to leave the theatre and go back to reality.  At least let us live in that imaginary world for just a moment.

It's an odd problem to have.  You really love the production over all but the play is questionable.  You may ask, "How is that possible?  To love the production but can't stand the play?".  That's a good question, one I've been pondering myself.  I suppose sometimes you deal with a terrible script and you have to make it your own.

Okay, I'll comment on it from the inside out.  I've worked with some terrible scripts.  Most recently was "The Diary of Anne Frank" with EgoPo.  I'll be honest, I couldn't stand the play.  It was an updated script written by Wendy Kesselman (it was better than the previous version...trust me).  The transitions and scenes seemed as though they completely catered to the broadway production.  Scenes were stilted and confusing.  The dialogue was far from natural.  Characters said things out of the blue that really made no sense.

Mrs. Frank: How can we thank you?  How can we really-
Mr. Kraler: I never thought I'd see the day when a man like Mr. Frank would have to go into hiding. (exits)

Wha?  That's just one of many examples.  As an actor, it's your job to make sense of them.  In fact, it's your responsibility.  In order to tell the story, you must be honest.  Occasionally, you can get away with fudging a line here and there.  For example, the actor playing Mr. Frank, Rob Kahn, realized that most of his lines began with "and" and "but", so there was an obvious lack of editing from the playwright there.  So, Rob got away with making it sound more natural by taking out a few of those.

But what do you do when you fundamentally disagree with the course of the play?  You find the objectives and tactics that make the most sense and you dive in.  You must.  That's the best solution I've come up with.  Make it honest, and make it yours.  The audience will respond how they respond.  You have no control over that.  Just tell the story as best as you can. You cannot take account for what the play does, you can only take account for how you deal with it.

I must finish by going back and saying kudos to Flashpoint and everyone involved.  I really thoroughly enjoyed my night of theatre...even if I didn't like the play.