Right off the bat, I found myself criticizing the acting and not paying attention to the content of the play itself. After I realized this was happening, I began to force myself to pay attention to the writing of the play. Superior Donuts had its moments. I really enjoyed Linda's witty character to add humor to places that needed to be lighter. (It helped that the actor playing Linda was actually a good actor.) Other than that, and it may have been the acting, but Arthur's character had way too many monologues that the play could have done without. Every time he had a monologue, I sighed and complained - silently, of course. However, with another, better actor, maybe that could have been better. Also, there was one monologue that the bad guy (can't remember his name) performed about the ulcer in his stomach that was totally unnecessary and irrelevant. He went off on this long tangent that the play could have done without.
With all of the bad acting aside, I did like the play. It had a great message, and it was cute. I am interested in seeing it again at a different theatre...with different actors.
(I apologize, guys. I'm definitely the biggest critic!)
I think I accepted the invite for admin under a different account that I do not recall, so I'm just going to comment here...
ReplyDeleteAs far as the acting goes, I definitely thought that the minor characters were quite flawed. But Arthur wasn't so bad, he was distant, simple, and monotonous but this worked as part of his character in my opinion.
I enjoyed how there were a couple of different story lines running paralell throughout the play. I was on the edge of my seat every time there was a big revelation in the story, like when we found out about Franco's problem or when he was attacked.
This play seemed a little 'sit-com' like at times, but that is not necessarily a knock on it. I loved the humor, especially in the beginning, and was pleasantly surprised when the story took a more dramatic turn.
Ok, everyone, it would be safe to say that the acting, in my opinion, was not going to be of broadway quality and I did not go into the performance with hopes of seeing the next hugh jackman (ha ha, joke). I will say that the main characters were quite capable of portraying the material. I thought Arthur, although a little too tender, presented a layed-back character, who really did not care about much until he meets Marco. Marco and Arthur's relationship was interesting. They both seemed to act well off eachother, although Marco stole the show at times. The best performances were of two supporting characters in Lady and the Russian neighbor, both of whom had great comic relief and provided the only gut-bursting laughter that I personal had. I thought the gangters and both cops were fair at best but they only needed to be sufficient as they really didnt move the story forward that much. I disagree with Sarah in that I thought the writing was so-so. I have seen this type of film, play or backyard skit many times. I didnt feel the themes were ever resolved and the third act moved too quickly to present the point. Was it friendship? Was it a moral, like dont gamble? The play ended abruptly and that had nothing to do with the acting. I was expecting to watch a play with community theatre actors and thats what I got. Housewives and college students acting on their free time. But Marco and the Russian were fantastic and Arther and Lady showed great potential. All and all, I found Superior doughnuts to be exactly what I expected, therefore I was able to enjoy it. Was it gone with the wind of the theatre, no, but I enjoyed it all the same. I just wish the themes would have been more clear and issues more resolved. Like all of a sudden Arthur gets the balls to call the cop and the audience never sees that, we just have to believe that he called her, which the play did not seem to show that Arthur actually would call her prior. Also, I did not understand the relationship between Arthur and the Russian.If all the Russian wants to do is buy the place (which the audience witnesses several times, some in loud demands)then why are they friendly and have this neighborly relationship? Too many open endings and not enough at stake for Arthur especially. I would have liked the relationship between Marco and Arthur develope a little more before the conflict of his gambling problem. In fact, it was hard to belive that Marco, being a good person and light hearted would ever get that far in debt without some other underlying issue which the audience never witnesses. I like the play and won't sit here and pretend I am a theatrical critic. It is what it is, a funny performance, with not much in the way of character developement, but had me laughing for a nice chunk of the play, especially the russian..."I know youy are a big, scary man, but we are Russian and we don't give a fuck". Awesome line!
ReplyDeleteThat was a great line! LOL. I too was a little conflicted with the acting. I saw some great strength in the comic relief characters. I felt that though Marco's character was strong, the actors delivery was unnatural at times. It was like if he were learning a dance routine, you could see him counting the steps in his head. And he drove so much of the action it contributed to moments where the production seemed to lag or feel otherwise disjointed. That said I think that the actors did play well off each other. I was lost in some of the monologue scenes b/c they just seemed to go on forever and they were a strange mix of sitcom humor (archie bunkerish/JJ) with mob overtones. These are characters we've seen before.
ReplyDeleteI read the script after and found many details that I missed. I think I'm glad that happened that way because I went in having no expectations of the performance. I appreciated the wittiness of the dialogue... It was definitely entertaining most of the time.