UMD Theatre The Diviners
Weak Script, Poor Direction Sink UMD's Diviners
Paul Brissett
Duluth News Tribune
February 14, 2009
The cast of The Diviners just has too little to work with.
Playwright Jim Leonard gave the actors clunky lines, cardboard characters and vague relationships. Director Kate Ufema denies them set, props and — evidently — rehearsal.
As a result, the show, which opened Thursday at UMD’s Marshall Performing Art Center, is one of the program’s most disappointing efforts in the past 10 years.
The Diviners is the story of mentally handicapped Buddy (David Horn), whose extreme phobia of water, born of his mother’s drowning years before, does not affect his uncanny ability to divine the stuff or predict rain, precious talents in rural Indiana in the 1930s.
When the wandering C.C. Showers (Brian Kess), a disenchanted preacher, arrives and is hired by Buddy’s father, Ferris (Nick Violante), a mechanic, the newcomer quickly develops a bond with the boy that allows him to gradually coax him into bathing to relieve Buddy’s torment from ringworm.
The sun-baked Indiana farmland of the story is represented by a sweeping, dramatically raked stage that only a mathematician could accurately describe, designed by Curtis Phillips and lusciously lighted by Alex Rugowski. A custom music and sound-effects track was created by UMD alum Jacob M. Davis, whose credits include Cirque du Soleil productions and work for the Mark Taper Forum and Pasadena Playhouse in Southern California.
Against such spectacular production assets, Ufema’s choice to have much of her actors’ business performed as pantomime is jarringly discordant. Farmers swing sledgehammers at invisible stakes, hoe invisible soil and dig wells to strike invisible water. Showers and Buddy return an invisible baby bird to an invisible nest in an invisible tree. In a climactic scene, when Showers and Buddy are pulled from a river, Buddy’s glorious crown of curls is as dry and fluffy as when he made his first entrance on a scorching summer day.
But Ufema’s bold choices would have had a better chance of working were it not for the deep flaws in Leonard’s writing, such as having characters address lines to others without having established relationships to give the statements reason to be made. He also repeatedly muffs attempts to establish mood through dialogue, such as when two different characters prate about the community’s eagerness for a preacher that is reflected nowhere else in the script. Or the monologue early on about how the sky darkened, Good Friday-like, the day Buddy died, after which we’re shown the terribly mundane way this sad but all-too-ordinary young man dies.
Each cast member occasionally transcends these fetters to convey credible feeling, but only Kess is able to overcome the handicaps to consistently present a fully developed character.
More rehearsal work might have allowed the actors to develop the relationships and otherwise compensate for the script’s shortcomings, and also would likely have reduced the number of technical miscues in Thursday’s performance, including stray spotlights and the houselights coming up twice during Act II. It also would have improved the chances of setting volume levels so the music didn’t swamp the dialogue at several points in the show.
Comments
In response to the review:
"Against such spectacular production assets, Ufema’s choice to have much of her actors’ business performed as pantomime is jarringly discordant. Farmers swing sledgehammers at invisible stakes, hoe invisible soil and dig wells to strike invisible water. Showers and Buddy return an invisible baby bird to an invisible nest in an invisible tree. In a climactic scene, when Showers and Buddy are pulled from a river, Buddy’s glorious crown of curls is as dry and fluffy as when he made his first entrance on a scorching summer day."
To respond specifically to the preceding paragraph: Just to clarify, the play was symbolic in its presentation, and was not meant to be presented in a naturalistic way. This is because of the nature of the story--it is a memory play. So the "pantomime" (which isn't the most accurate way to describe the blocking presented since there was dialogue used), is not only congruent with the successful technical achievements of the production, but in fact can ADD to the symbolic world created.
The use of imagination is incredibly important in such a production, and so the concept of an actual live bird on stage would not only be unnecessary, but distracting as well.
As for Buddy's "crown of golden curls" remaining dry, perhaps if more attention had been paid throughout the performance, it may have been apparent that water was never seen once on stage. The dryness of the climate was consistently present through the choice of never seeing water on stage, but only hearing it.
It's a symbol...used in a symbolic play.
In regards to Mr. Leonard's writing, the community's eagerness for a preacher is a more than recurring theme throughout the story, as the central character, C.C. Showers, used to be a preacher. Another supporting character's central purpose is to revive the religious involvement in the community, and her only dialogue surrounds this subject. So, I don't see how the topic is "reflected nowhere else in the script".
As for the relationships not being established before they speak to one another; the only time two people are speaking to one another is in discussing the wants and needs for each other in the community. The sense of relationship is established immediately in Basil's description of how the town was when Buddy Layman was alive, and how he effected the way they lived.
The volume levels have been adjusted since opening night and the dialogue is now much more easily understood.
No production is perfect, and yes, all art is subjective. It's also good to remember how incredibly important it is to support live theatre, especially in these tough times.
Thank you, and I hope you can come support a well-rehearsed, solid UMD production.
Posted by: Serena Brook | February 16, 2009 6:04 PM
Diviners Performance Not At All Disappointing
Milt and Kay Hill
February 22, 2009
What a disservice to the theater community of this area to read the following statement in the Feb. 14 News Tribune: “[The Diviners], show, which opened Thursday at UMD’s Marshall Performing Art Center, is one of the program’s most disappointing efforts in the past 10 years.” (“Weak script, poor direction sink UMD’s Diviners. ”)
We were familiar with the critiques by reviewer Paul Brissett so, fortunately, we weren’t discouraged to attend the Feb. 14 show. The performance was outstanding in every way and worthy of its entrance into the Kennedy Center American College Theater Festival.
Posted by: Mark Harvey | February 25, 2009 10:50 AM
Diviners Production Was Right on the Mark
Bonnie Dressen
February 22, 2009
I saw the production of The Diviners at the University of Minnesota Duluth despite the dismal review given the show in the News Tribune (“Weak script, poor direction sink UMD’s Diviners,” Feb. 14).
The set was innovative, spare and evocative of the mood of the play. The lighting was effective. The costumes and the actors’ portrayal of rural Dust Bowl life were right on the mark.
This was not an easy show. It’s not Grease or other light, fluffy fare. See this complex, difficult presentation if you are prepared to listen to a cadence very different from our usual frenetic pace.
The show demanded something of the audience — active imagination and an openness to a more substantive entertainment than what’s usually presented.
This was a worthy effort by the UMD company and deserves support.
Posted by: Mark Harvey | February 25, 2009 10:52 AM