Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Play Review - "Museum"
Play Review - "Museum"
Play Review - "Museum"
Thea100
Boucher
10/1/10
Fortunately, I was lucky enough to attend “Museum” by Tina Howe on opening night. The play is
about a day at the Museum of Fine Arts, and the people that come to view the pieces on display. This
was my first real theatre production, so I was curious as to what to expect from this art form. In theatre
class, we talked about countless aspects of theatre; for example, acting, stage design, script, and
directing. With an open mind, I sat in the audience eager to see all these efforts come together to form a
play. As I sat in the audience before the play began, my first instinct was to take in the stage design. Four
points of focus were clearly shown in the stage design through three-dimensional units. There was a
clothesline in the back of the stage with hanging pictures of people, two pedestals with strange art on
top, and a bench in between these pedestals. Clearly, the arrangement set the locale of our play- a
museum, which served justice to the title. This realistic composition was simple, making it easy for the
actors to move throughout the stage, while at the same time successfully delineating the performance
space. In addition, it took me several minutes to notice a unique aspect to the set design. Above the
audience’s heads hung empty frame units shaped as half picture frames. Immediately, I was engaged in
the scenery as I used my imagination to wonder what artwork those pictures detail. Because of the
filling yet ambiguous plot synopsis and the intriguing set design, I already liked the play before it even
began.
As I watched the play, I thought both the acting and the costume design to be fantastic. All of
the actors successfully portrayed their characters by bringing out their unique personalities, views and
1
backgrounds with clear and understandable dictation. For instance, the audience encounters two
French speaking people. As they talk together in French, their dialogue is delivered in a perfect way. This
makes their background believable and realistic. Also, there are two ladies with a Boston accent. They
delivered their dialogue with a consistent accent, making me believe they were native to Boston. These
diverse nationalities of people certainly made a realistic impression on me because anyone from around
the world can enjoy fine arts, and comingle amongst other peoples different from themselves. In
addition to the actors’ speech successfully portraying their characters, their costumes worked incredibly
well to tell their personalities, views, and backgrounds. Most characters were dressed in formal clothing
appropriate for a museum, but each character had a certain twist to the formal style that made their
uniqueness apparent. For instance, a lady who gave public impassioned lectures about each piece wore
a vibrant yellow dress and a colorful shawl. The bright eye catching colors certainly displayed her
passion for art by a blend of colors, while at the same time drawing attention to her. This is a perfect
costume for her because she wants people to notice her and to pay attention to what she has to say
about each piece. Another character whose costume was effective was Tink Solheim. Before the
audience even heard her speak, they could tell she was senile by her clothing. She wore pink tights,
ankle high tall boots, a pink ballerina skirt, a blue top, glasses, and a headband with a huge rose to top
things off. This mismatched appearance tells the audience that something is not quite right with her.
Next, there were three girls who had no appreciation of the arts whatsoever. They mocked each piece
and laughed loudly, disrupting the people. Their costumes were just normal casual teenage clothes,
showing that they had no respect for the art pieces and their quality. In addition to costumes, costume
makeup served to portray the unique peoples in the museum. For instance, older people had face
makeup to accentuate the lines for their face to make them appear old. Also, two Goths appeared with
their faces painted and hair dyed to clearly display their niche. As apparent in costume designs and
2
makeup, each character was unique and reflected different opinions about art. This diversity allows the
audience to relate to at least one character, making the play believable and realistic.
Overall, I had mixed feelings about the script. The excellent element of the script was the
audience interaction. One way that script engaged the audience was by taking advantage of the theatre.
For example, the theatre had 3 different doors on different walls. The script required the actors to make
use of each door by entering and exiting through them. In this way, the audience was engaged by
moving their heads to different parts of the stage for the action, instead of boringly looking straight
ahead for the entire play. A second piece of audience interaction was when Giorgio, a spectator looks
straight into an audience member’s face and admires the artwork. This was amusing and engaged the
audience because it was using an audience member for comedic reasons. Also, the script required the
actors to sit down and deliver their lines. The actors took the liberty of the empty seats to sit with the
audience to deliver their lines. In this way, the audience feels that the actor is being a part of them,
bridging the gap between spectator and actor. A second great element about the script was that the
script kept the actors busy at all times. Even if they weren’t talking, the actors we required to keep busy
by doing something by themselves, or silently talking with their hands moving as if they were talking. No
actor stopped and stared off into space if they were not talking, just as a real person wouldn’t do in
public. In this way, the script was made believable because everyone is going on as normal even though
they may not be the center focus of attention. Perhaps this is the most rewarding part of the script
because I found the “out-of-focus” character’s actions to be the most hilarious part of the play. For
instance, there is a silent old man in the play that looks around with a comical quizzical face at each art
piece and constantly drops things. Also, there was a lady in a scene who keeps trying to seduce the
guard on duty. Another effective element of the script was its language use. There was much swearing in
the play that was appropriate for a college audience. The swearing also made the play realistic in nature
because people cuss all the time. Despite these excellent elements of the script, I found the script to be
3
boring at times, and I was upset that there was no real plotline or course of action. The characters
diversity was both a blessing for the play as I noted above, as well as a curse. For instance, some scenes
did get boring as a character ranted on with dialogue. Yes, they were conveying their personality;
however, the longer a character lasted the more they lost their comedic effect. This made the
characters’ dialogue seem repetitive. Characters such as the enthusiastic guide, the unappreciative girls,
the guard, and the western cowboy all had dragging and undynamic parts after a period of time. At one
point in the play I wondered to myself whether the character’s roles would have any significant role to
the plotline. Upon thinking this, I came to wonder what the plotline was! No mischievous action seemed
to develop, or any rising action to a climax. The play seemed like an introduction of countless characters
in a museum without any underlying plot. In addition, the script seemed all over the place. One scene
detailed the problem of the headphones being too loud, while the next scene involved guards arguing
about a random rock that one guard had in his pocket. Also, I was puzzled by the end of the story with
the old couple. Only after I looked in the program did I discover that these people were an artist’s
parents. However, even then, I did not understand their significance. Thus, there was no consistent flow
or high point of action in the script, making the play boring and confusing at times.
Despite the failed script, I found the directing to be very good with little flaws. The only error I
encountered with the play’s direction was when the other actors stood in the way of my view of the
active character. A director is supposed to set the movements of the play and make sure that all of parts
of the play are “mise en sine” known as “everything in the picture. In my encounter everything was not
always in the picture visibly because actors were in the way. The director should have made sure that
the characters were in line so that everything was visible. Besides this flaw, I found that the director
kept the technical aspects effective and in check. At a part of the story where a piece of art mysteriously
opens up, the lights go down and church music plays. The audience is engrossed in this important scene
of the play. This is due to its uniqueness to the rest of the play where there is no music and all the lights
4
are on. The outcome of the technical rehearsal was very well done because the piece successfully
opened up, and there were no lighting or audio problems. Finally, the directing was lucrative because
the director kept all the actors on check and hardworking. As displayed in their acting ability, I could tell
that the actors were motivated by the director to put forth their best efforts to become their character,
play was worth my money. Through the diverse characters, costume design, audience interaction,
lighting, and sound, the play seemed like a realistic situation to me and kept my attention. The only
bothersome element of the play was the script that had no solid plotline or building action. Personally, I
enjoy a story with a clear and identifiable exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and conclusion.
However, perhaps the lack of plotline made the play even more realistic because exciting events do not
happen every day in the real world. Hence, the play adequately suspended my disbelief, which is the