This past Thursday I saw the Columbia production Funny and Eve at Columbia's Classic Theater, and for a freshman performance, it is one of the best I have seen. Funny and Eve is based loosely on Mark Twain's novels The Diary of Adam and The Diary of Eve. It emphasizes the fact that men can be cold and distant and woman can be bossy and emotional, but in the end we love one another, right? The play is about the first meeting between Adam and Eve, the two of them eventually liking (loving) one another, their banishment from the Garden of Eden because Eve just had to eat that apple and them ultimately over coming the sadness of being exiled from the garden.
The actresses that played The Tree of Knowledge (Pop Culture: Jennifer Sheahen, Philosophy: Tyler Veronica, and Romance: Samantha Bailey) all did an excellent job. The actor that played the serpent, Drew Reese, was gorgeous and quite fitting to the role of a manipulative, sly, cunning, snake the tricked sweet and innocent Eve.
There were three actresses playing the role of Eve, each one playing very different personalities. The first Eve, Danielle Nicholas, was the romantic one and was having a hard time with Adam, played by Paul Yochum, wanting to think alone, without her. The second Eve, Katie Messmore, was the sweet humorous childlike Eve who encounters Adam, Brandon Jackson, for the first time at the beginning and doesn't know what to think of him. The third and final Eve, Amanda Perri, was probably my favorite. She was hilarious and kooky and played the part perfectly. At times she reminded me of Molly Shannon's character Mary Katherine Gallagher from SNL. Her Adam, played by Mike Myers, was intelligent and sweet and can also carry a tune.
Being a freshman performance the setting was simple but not at all dull, I have seen worse. There are quick scene breaks so the actors can switch, a lot of humor and good choices of music. With my picky standard of comedy, I don't laugh at just anything, and my disliking of weird, strange, down right lame, theatrical performances, Funny and Eve brought a smile to my face and a giggle, more than once, and I wasn't the only one in the audience doing so. There is great casting, I can see why those actors won the part, great directing, blocked and played out well, especially during the breaks when actors switched. I have been to Columbia productions when the light was off key but not in this play and I have to say the same about sound, sounds played when they were supposed to, right on queue. I give it 4 stars, and I say go see Funny and Eve.
*If you are offended by foul/sexual language this might not be the play or you.
8 comments:
I believe that your greatest strength lies in your ability to add an abundance of detail. Though the names could have been difficult to follow, as there were so many variations of the characters, it made it very interesting to read. I found myself most intrigued with your descriptions of each Adam and each Eve, and the ways in which the actors and actresses depicted each.
The writing was vivid, and as I read through your review on the piece, I could see each Eve and the way she would interact with each Adam.
If there was one thing I would have liked to have seen more of, it would have been slightly more variation in your description, or perhaps an added section on something other than the actors/actresses. Perhaps the lighting, or maybe the set design.
The grammar was decent, though there were a few mistakes. Breaking up the paragraphs about the actors and actresses would have helped it flow more easily.
Overall, you had a strong review, and it was interesting enough to fill me with the desire to have seen it.
There was a very good description of what was being attended. The description was good and to the point, as well covered the different angles of what there was to look at, story line actors etc.
this was an honest and even review with very few challenges to report.
I'd say you gave a good descriptiong of what exactly it is you saw.
Your typeface was a huge distraction. Also, some of the statements you made were greatly confusing. "At times she reminded me of Molly Shannon's character Mary Katherine Gallagher from SNL. Her Adam, Mike Myers, was intelligent and sweet and can also carry a tune." What are you talking about?
Strength: A fun voice to read. Enthusiasm is high and good. Claiming to be picky about comedy lends me to believe your opinion.
To work on: Just grammar. You're putting commas in weird places.
There was a lot of good detail in this piece. I liked the way you compared this comedy show to Saturday Night Live's. It gave a good idea of the humor level of the show. I thought your review was strong and you gave a good amount of your personal opinions and emotions of the show. At the end of your piece I liked the way you explained that the show had foul language and sexual references. Maybe this could haev been talked about in your review?
I enjoyed reading your review, and by the end, I certainly wanted to see the play, which as far as I'm concerned, means you did your job!
However for some reason when I was finished reading I was left wanting more. To be honest I'm not sure what more I'd add, but the feeling was there nevertheless. Also your font size and layout were distracting, but that can be easily remedied.
Being interested in seeing the talent at Columbia, especiall yin the theatre department, I thoroughly enjoyed reading an opinion about a show that I would have hoped to see.
As far as your detail, I will go against the grain compared to other comments. You did a fine job explaining who played Adam and Eve, however I was confused as to what your opinion was about them. You mention how "so and so" plays Eve, but then I wasn't sure if the adjectives you used in describing (for instance) each Eve was the way each actress was SUPPOSE to play the part, or if it was your opinion on their performance. Hope that makes some sense.
I feel that you could put more emotion in your writing. It's apparent that since you went to a theatre show, it very possibly is an interests of yours. Make sure the readers know that. If you like theatre, you have to high a certain expectation. If the show didn't meet your expectation in one or more components, then explain it.
It was great to see you add more components, other than just the acting, to your review about the show. However, you mentioned the directing, lighting, and music all in one sentence at the end- saying its great. How is it "great?" Reading the word great is almost too vague to set your specific opinion about the show.
Since it's way down at the end of the comments, I want to call your attention to Jena's remark:
"you mentioned the directing, lighting, and music all in one sentence at the end- saying its great. How is it 'great?' Reading the word great is almost too vague to set your specific opinion about the show."
I agree with Jenna that it's a little too vague to be useful; it's also a moment that, if I didn't know you and just read this somewhere, would make me think that you're promoting the play as much as reviewing it. In this I disagree with Jenna, I guess, in that I sense a lot of emotion in the play, most of it running strongly in favor of the play, to the point that I wonder if I'm really hearing a fair assessment of it? Or am I just being a grouch to be mistrustful of your enthusiasm?
Post a Comment