WHY THE FUCK DID WE DO HE & SHE?

Alright, before I go off on our choice of show, I need to qualify that: The show itself was pretty good.

I'd post a story synopsis, but I'm really goddamn lazy. From here on out, I assume you are familiar with the story. If not, Google it. He and She, by Rachel Crothers.

The set did it's job, which is more than can be said for a lot of designs. It was clean, efficient, and made me believe that the characters were where they were supposed to be. The ability to do this is a surprisingly rare ability in designers, so in that I congratulate Moon, the designer. The transition between the cold basement and the warm upstairs was also pretty neat, and as the second act opened I found myself noting all of the interesting ways she had changed the space. Beyond that, though, the set was more or less just . . . there. While not really a valid criticism, it was the type of set that makes one, when pressed to give an opinion on it, shrug their shoulders and say "meh."

The lighting was equally as successful, with a clear purpose that followed through to the end. Han Su (Hansu? I'm not sure how to spell his name.) is a beast when it comes to lighting. I've never seen a show here that was lit by him that I haven't liked. In the basement, the light was cold and a bit claustrophobic. Upstairs, it was warm and inviting, with a nice blue glow through the window to represent the night. During a couple of scenes, the lights dimmed almost imperceptibly in order to close the stage a bit for some of the more intimate scenes. In addition, in both the first and second acts, the light was, not artistically speaking, perfect. It was spread evenly and appeared quite natural. As Han Su has been doing this for years, this isn't a surprise, but was nice nonetheless.

I did have a couple of prop gripes, though. At the onset of the show, a lamp is turned on to illuminate a painting, but is so painfully low that it clearly wouldn't have done a thing. Also, Krannert directors seem to have a penchant for actors to fiddle with smoking pipes. In our wonderfully bland Three Sisters, an actor cleaned his pipe, packed it with tobacco, and then put it in his pocket, never to smoke it onstage. Now, as anyone who smokes a pipe, or, in this case, has common sense can see that that doesn't make any sense. A pipe is going to be cleaned after smoking, when the pipe has cooled. You'd never just put it away. Also, who packs a bowl and puts it away only for the tobacco to fall out into your pocket? Come on, guys.

You know what? Time for a digression, motherfuckers:

(some) ACTORS: KNOW HOW TO USE YOUR PROPS. I don't know what it is about some actors, but they seem to be 'above' learning how to use props. I've given directors notes, and I've given actors notes directly, but it never seems to work. I don't know if they simply relegate me to being a picky techie in their minds, or if they really don't care about what I have to say, but it infuriates me. The point of acting is to convince the audience that you are who the playwright has written. You are, in most plays, given certain props and put in certain sets to make this illusion stronger, and to make your work that much more believable, that much more powerful. But the moment you misuse a pipe onstage, you'll lose every audience member who knows about pipes. People relish lauding their knowledge over each other, and if one can do so over an entire cast and crew, then all the better. Your actions are scrutinized, and it is essential for the illusion that you seem like you know what the fuck is up.

But I digress.

The acting was fairly varied in power and believability, as I've come to expect from Krannert shows. This is because, as I've mentioned before, it's a show in an academic setting. Graduates with years in the field are acting with undergrads who came to college fresh out of high school, and cannot be faulted for being acted over when that happens.

That being said, I press on, with varying degrees of detail about each actor.

The maid's accent was super-affected, but aside from that she was alright.

Jaclyn, as the daughter whose name escapes me, is hard to place. I loathed her character, but perhaps I was meant to, and in that way she was fantastic. The problem it, in order for the end to make any fucking sense, Millicent (that was the character's name!) has to be the most convincing. If I don't believe her conviction that she is going to get married, that she is utterly in love, then Ann's decision feels hollow, and exists only to fuel the last bit of drama between her and Tom. But even if she convinces me, Millicent is still 16, which is a massive hurdle. Granted, the show is 100 years old, so perhaps in 1911 her decision would carry a little more weight. More on the time period later.

Carley, as Ann, was splendid. Now that I've seen two of her performances, I can honestly say that I'm a fan of her work, and hope to see her in future productions. She seemed to slip the role on, and didn't fall victim to the pervasive sense of unease that seemed to fill the stage. She was Ann Herford, which is all I can ask of any actor.

Tyrone was off to a rough start as Keith McKenzie, friend of Tom's. He was pretty clearly nervous, and the first ten minutes that he was onstage acting opposite Jess as Tom, I wanted to die. Jess still has to figure out what to do with his hands onstage, and Tyrone didn't adapt to the 1911 language very well; I honestly thought Tom was a governor from the way Tyrone called him that for the first five minutes. He eventually loosened up, but man was it rough.

Jess, as I have mentioned, needs to figure out how to carry himself onstage. It's alright if you don't want to do anything with your hands while you talk, like, you know, real people, but at least make that choice.

Guh, it is 2:30 AM. I'm running out of steam, and I haven't even started on why He and She should never, ever be put on for a modern audience ever again. I'll get to that tomorrow.

Until then, dear reader(s?).