The Berry College Theatre Company put on a production titled The Nerd by Larry Shue. The cast is small and only has 7 people in it. The main character Willum, played by Alex Rodriguez, is an architect who is trying to sell a hotel design to Waldgrave, played by Stephen Stamps. Waldgrave is also married to Clelia (Hayley Westphal) and is the father of Thor (Nate Kozelle). Willum lives with his friend Axel and Tansy, played by Jack Padgett and Heather Pharis. Axel and Tansy are divorced, and there are signs throughout the play showing that Willum and Tansy are attracted to each other. The final character introduced to us is Rick, played by Tyler Hooper. Willum tells us that Rick saved his life during the war, so he is trying to make it up to him because he believes that he owes him. The setup of the stage was very simple. It was the living room of a home in the early 1980’s. It looked like a normal household, and it had small things such as crumpled up pieces of paper lying around the wastebasket. It also had a couch, circular class table and a recliner in the living room. The dining room was to the left side of the stage and only had the dining table and surrounding chairs. There was a door in the back of the set where characters entered and exited through. Beside the door was a table and stool where Willum presumably worked on his blueprints for the hotel. The lighting design was great; it put you into the atmosphere of the …show more content…
It had a lot of blues in it and really gave it that 80’s vibe. I also loved how simple the set was, and the 80’s music that was played before the play and during intermission. My least favorite aspect of this play was the ending. The ending confused me and was anticlimactic. It was not funny and not entertaining at all. Overall, I enjoyed this play. Even with the dull ending, I found it to be entertaining and a good use of my time. The cast was great and they made good use of a decent
I thought this play was very tacky in a sense. There were only three actors in the play. Seth Reichgott one the actors played 13 different characters. James Goode plated up to 16 different characters.
In conclusion I think that the stage directions and dramatic irony are significant to the play, and without them there would be no need for a lot of the events that happen in the play.
Overall there was a strong script with excellent actors. The performance was very funny. There was a well designed set and costumes. The performance I saw influenced my opinions on theatre in general, in a positive way. I will definitely consider using theatre for my future entertainment(closing paragraphs are hard).
...the audience and parents that tragedy that could come to them. I think it is not only a lesson for teenagers, but a lesson for parents as well. Time, effort, and energy put into this play were definitely worthwhile, in my opinion. I believe all their practice, rehearsal, and hard work paid off.
One reason that this play is well known is because many of the characters are identifiable with ourselves. Willy is a burnt-out businessman with no special talents or qualities. Linda is a kind and dedicated housewife, but she has not accomplished anything noteworthy. Biff has a habit of theft and a number of pent-up frustrations. Happy tries to smooth out the tensions in the family, but he is also unsatisfied. The only “successful” major character in the play is Bernard, but even he was considered “liked, but not well-liked” by the Lomans when he was young. There are not any heroes or bad guys in the play. The characters are all very human, and very flawed.
I enjoyed reading the play and I thought that Sam Shepard did a really great job writing it. I thought that the play was easy to follow and understand, but there were times though that I had to reread certain parts because I got confused between the two characters when they switched roles. Overall, I liked how Sam Shepard portrayed both of these characters and I liked how he had them switch roles during
Their acting chops were very impressive whether it was comedic, emotional, or just stunning overall. Yet, on the other hand, some minor characters weren’t as well heard as others. I feel as the play could be better if some of the minor characters had projected their voice more, allowing their character to be known. However, although some voices were much stronger than others, all actors were full of talent, capable of dealing with script’s requirements, and did a good job
It was good setting to get the attention from the audience and also a way to move around or change settings of the play. Although I love this play my small critic for this play was the players. Some others actors had understandable accents but others didn’t. For example, the brother of the servant his accent was confusing because he kept switching his accent from different country languages. This play was really nice it had a little of bit of everything drama, comedy, romance, betrayal. What like about this play it was how they used the dramatic structure the inciting incident and the climax. The inciting incident for this play of musical comedy murders of 1940 was guessing who the killer of the play was because there was tension building up not knowing who the murder was. The climax for this play would be for me finding out who was the murder and just being in shock how everything had change into a new scenario. Overall it was amazing show how it developed and how well an organized transition the play
I believe the story worked well because since it was a comedic play and i expected to laugh and did. The play was definitely interesting and entertaining. I never knew what to expect and didn't expect certain reactions like jocasta reaction to the confession.
Some areas of the play were questionable, but I commend the actors for doing a terrific job with their performance. This play would be beneficial for high school American history students. Hence, it allowed me to build a greater appreciation for Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. I wish I would have been able to see this performance in high school. The concept of the play was very intriguing and would appeal to anyone interested in history, not just civil rights historians.
the play was good. The first act was a little slow and tedious but the
Good acting is essential to any good performance. The actors and actresses have to try to make what the audience is seeing and hearing come alive. The four characters in the play “Proof” are able to do this. The meaning and purpose behind the play is easily understood because the actors and actresses do such a fine job in their performances.
Even though this play was at first confusing, I enjoyed it very much. The plot was very intriguing. Initially, the narrator introduced Tilly Evans as if she
Overall this production was very interesting and well performed. It was somewhat enjoyable to the audience, there were times of boringness but the comedy kept the play interesting. The director did a great job of putting everything together and as a result everything was on point. The only thing to say that would better the play is to make the play more interesting to the audience so that the audience does not get tired of watching.
Since this is a review and its based on my opinion, I would have to say this was one of the worst plays I've ever seen in my life. I wasn't entertained by the play at all. The only good parts were the good-looking girls in the play. I like the main character Marisol based only on her looks. She played on ok job of acting. I realize she had a lot of lines to memorize which she had down, but she just didn't get to me. I think the costumes were ok. They had nothing special, or out of the ordinary except for the angel's wings, which were pretty nice. I didn't like the lighting or the scenery. I didn't know where the scene was supposed to be at some points.