Review: Casting Hall’s Deranged Durang is Deranged Mess
Casting Hall’s latest production has more than earned its title, even though it’s not written by anyone at Buffalo State. Deranged Durang is a series of one-act plays written by Christopher Durang. The play, directed by Shaun McLaughlin is based on comedic works despite being nauseating works that people shouldn’t have to watch.
The opening sketches, Mrs. Sorken and Funeral Parlor seem as though they are going to be funny, but really fall short of their desired goal. They have some humorous elements but just don’t seem to work. After watching Funeral Parlor, the viewer feels more like they are 911 operators listenting to a strangely calm person calling about a murder they committed.
A primary issue of the play is that there are too many references that only older members in the audience would understand. One sketch, for example, is The Hardy Boys and the Mystery of Where Babies Come From, which is a parody mystery based on The Hardy Boys novels. Even though the sketch provides a great deal of humor, the comic timing of the actors combined with the unfitting material just doesn’t work.
This sketch really sets the tone for the acting all throughout the rest of the play. Even though the actors are dedicated to the material and are trying to very hard, the comedy they are used to doing don’t work here.
One other sketch that I found to be just plain distasteful is called The Book of Leviticus. The sketch is a parody of public access shows but goes way too far. The “show” deals with a woman who is ultra-religious and decides to shoot people that go against the Bible on her show. She reads passages from the book of Leviticus that discuss how people who are adulterers and gay should be killed. So that’s what happens.
People that want to see people that use religion as a basis for murder should watch FOX News and believe that Donald Trump can actually “Make America Great Again”. Seriously, I really am unclear how this was even remotely passed off as funny to an audience, a cast member or even the director.
Following that sketch is another in a series of disasters called, Business Lunch at the Russian Tea Room, which is nothing but an annoying shot at the film industry and how people can be not caring. All in all, these sketches ruin any hope of enjoyment within a person that was aiming for a good night out. Another part of the play that is hard to watch is Naomi in the Living Room.
In this play, a woman named Naomi is showing her son and his girlfriend her home. However, she is seemingly a borderline psychotic, and the screaming. Oh, the screaming. By the end of the sketch, you want to rip out her vocal cords. However, that annoying feeling is what the sketch is based on, but isn’t remotely in the vicinity of funny. It’s just annoying.
The final sketch, The Actor’s Nightmare proves once and for all that anyone can be an entertainer. Based on an actor’s worst nightmare, being on stage naked without knowing what play they are doing. This part of the play takes that idea to a whole new level of terrible. This one sketch has a distrubing resemblance of the ending of the animated Walt Disney version of Alice in Wonderland, where all of the characters decide to catch her an kill her. Despite this intriguing angle, this sketch is yet another in a series of comic misfirings.
More often than not the scene is supposed to be greatly exaggerated but isn’t. It just flops much like the actor is supposed to on the stage. However, much like I stated at the beginning of the review, the play should have been modernized for the audience’s convenience. Once the play ended, I searched my pockets but couldn’t find the two hours of my life that was stolen. Many people, much like myself may not have gotten certain references, while others may not have understood why elements of The Hardy Boys sketch are supposed to be funny.
To be fair, the play’s writing is more the problem than any of the acting. Some of the directorial choices could have been different as well. The play has a minimalist idea in terms of sets, even though it is supposed to be reminiscent of sketch comedy shows. The lacking sets are just one in a myriad of problems for this play.
As someone who has seen older sketch comedy shows like The Carol Burnett Show, where a version of Funeral Parlor was performed with Robin Williams, it was funnier in that context than it was here. Why, because it was relevant to the time and the humor was much more coordinated.
Deranged Durang is a play that people should avoid because it will leave them feeling angry and frustrated by the end of it. Really, it’s similar to the comedy stylings of late comedian, Andy Kaufman, who treated the world as if it literally was a stage. After seeing this play I wish I had more hands, so I could give it four thumbs down!
Anonymous • Nov 5, 2017 at 3:23 am
As a longtime patron and mentor in the arts community, I appreciate a well written and honest theater critique. I believe that fair assessments, from knowledgable critics, can assist theatergoers in determining whether or not a show may line up with their particular tastes. Although I found the tone to be much too harsh for a college level production, I commend Edwin J. Viera on his efforts to write a thorough review on the theater department’s latest production of “Deranged Durang.”
Because this publication (The Record) is a learning experience for potential journalists to hone their skills before attempting to obtain work in a professional environment, I would like to kindly advise Mr. Viera in a way that may assist him in writing a more refined critique in the future.
First of all, Mr Viera mentions that, “The play should have been modernized for the audiences convenience”. This is a common misunderstanding for those unfamiliar with the basics of theater production. Playwrights are notorious for being very protective of their work ( rightly so.) When a theater company signs a contract to perform a playwright’s published work, they are contractually obligated to leave every word in the play AS IS. No adjustments for what is in the “pop-culture” vernacular. Changing ANY part of a playwright’s work can lead to major fines and/or the immediate shuttering of a production. It may seem extreme, but a playwright’s words are their art, and in the same way that a museum curator would not grab a paintbrush and add an extra flower to Monet’s “Waterlilies”, neither can an actor say anything, but what is written on the page. So as much comedic material as we currently have happening in the world around us, it is not in the director’s (or actors) power to make such changes.
Additionally, art is not about convenience. Yes it can (and I believe should) be entertaining. But, as audience members, should we immediately dismiss something unfamiliar to us? Should Buffalo State refrain from performing Shakespeare because his wording is sometimes complicated for students to understand? This what college is about… expanding your understanding of what’s out there… becoming cultured.
Secondly, as a critic of theater it is important to be knowledgeable about different genres of comedy including (but not limited to) slapstick, farce, and most importantly in this case, SATIRE. “The Book of Leviticus” sketch is one of the greatest examples of satire in a modern American play. It is completely unclear to me how Mr. Viera could have missed the very point the playwright was trying to make with this piece. Christopher Durang did not write a sketch in FAVOR of those who would use their extreme religious views to harm others, he was MAKING FUN OF THEM. If anyone were to be offended by this piece, I could only imagine it being the very strictest of evangelical Christians, who felt that THEY were being mocked.
Thirdly, Mr Viera writes that he was unimpressed with the “minimalist set.” I felt very strongly that the minimalist set allowed for a quick and smooth transition of scenes. And strictly from a logistical standpoint, when a company is performing 5 (or 6?) short plays that take place anywhere from a funeral parlor to a a busy restaurant, to a nurses office, how would a set designer create one elaborate set that could fit all of those requirements? Mr Viera is absolutely right that this production was reminiscent of sketch comedy shows, however, the one big difference? There are no commercials in live theater to allow time to to change set pieces, or move the cast to a different soundstage. Additionally, I wonder if Mr. Viera read the director’s notes in the program? The director very clearly stated that he was attempting to take the audience into an imaginative journey of sorts, where only “hints” of costumes and sets were used instead of spelling it out in a literal fashion.
And finally, I too am fond of the great comedy sketches of yesteryear, Mr. Viera. You write of seeing a version of “Funeral Parlor” performed by Carol Burnett, and Robin Williams in which the “humor was much more coordinated….” and “much funnier.” With all due respect Mr. Viera, of course it was funnier. You are comparing two of the most renowned comedic actors OF ALL TIME to young actors who are currently in a college level training program. Is that really a fair comparison at this early stage in their careers, when they are still honing their craft? I wouldn’t expect your writing skills to be on par with Famed NYT theater critic Ben Brantley just yet, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have the potential to become great, in much the same way that these young actors have the potential to follow in the footsteps of Ms. Burnett or the late, great Robin Williams.
I would never suggest writing a dishonest review. However, saying things like, “I wish I had more hands so I could give it four thumbs down” sounds more like a mean comment someone would leave on a Facebook page than a sentence in an award winning student newspaper. Why not expand your view to include more than just the young Buffalo theatergoers? We “old people” like to laugh too! For example, instead of saying, “This play consists of nauseating works people shouldn’t have to watch” Try something like, “The average Buffalo State student, probably won’t find this sketch style show as enjoyable as an evening of SNL sketches, but for those nostalgic for the comedy style of years past, you may get a kick out of the show.
I encourage you to keep writing, keep seeing shows, and keep trying to open your mind to new theater experiences. Support artists by being honest, but not disparaging.
Sincerely,
A Lifelong Patron of the Arts