StyleSk8r
At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.
jazrhodes-22-302744
The clung(e) who gave grief filled words around the acting of a filmed stage performance was a clutch of fixture who/womb mi-spellet the word "role" ... what a Klondike, he wrote "roll"... as in tumbrel but t he meant to right "role" ..as in the other meaning.... crazy?!! Robbing Graves is an Traverseie aborted, if you Will?But talking of helms..The production, you may choose to watch, is as good as an underfunded stage production can get. It may not be Terry Gilliam's vision of Faust, but it has the meat and -howevermanyaday- cabbages of a true trial by a jury of someone else's peers on an chap who quite liked stuff and things.If you can put up with stoner movies/beefcake action flicks/80s straight to VHS cl-art, then you'll be capable of appreciating what this performance has to offer. There are some Sirius golden moment and probably boobs, yeah why not... there's loads of 'em! I write this mostly as a response to someone who judged it on its aesthetic merit only; leaving out the fact that some things that you watch, require you to put in a bit of effort to enjoy it (there is an nugget of THE1TRUTH!) - similarly, Zardoz and 200 motels are films that should be seen, for the sake of their sentiment, as opposed to the standard bleach review process...This is probably the last review I'll bother with on this shite, as they won't allow excessive intentional missgrammer.May all your days be numbered and may Bob have Marcy on your soul x
Robin Graves
The main problem I have with this is the acting.The actors that played the Ringmaster, Marilyn Monroe, and Ouspenky were acceptable, but the rest were absolutely HORRID. Worst of the lot was Ray Paolantonio as Wilhelm Reich. As others have commented--he was WAY too young for the roll. Like most of the other actors is this production, he simply shouted his lines, rather that convey and real emotion or weight to the dialog.The set was also was also garish and horrible. I think this would have played better with a bare set. The costumes and makeup gave out a sleazy vibe--which in a way goes along with the tone of the play--but the vibe was far more gross and disgusting than sinister.The music was okay, but needed more balls--a little too heavy on the cheesy keyboards. I also agree that it was TOO LOUD. I had to turn up the volume to hear the actors, when the music kicked in I was blown out of my seat--very annoying.Also annoying was the way the director "updated" the play to replace references to the cold war with 9/11. I understand the thinking--but it just didn't work.Read the book instead, it also includes a brilliant introduction from RAW. I applaud the company for even having the guts to stage this play. Let's hope in the future someone else will actually be able to pull it off.
Mr_Frost
First of all, let me be the first to applaud these very brave people for having the courage to PERFORM this VERY CONTROVERSIAL production! Bravo! More people should do what you folks have so bravely done here!That said, I would like to address the actual production...Michelle Ingkavet was very good as the Marquis De Sade... I would say it's a little unusual that the director chose to have a female play this role, but it did not truly detract from the character. I just wish her nose would stop changing colors. (smile) Bridget Brno as Marilyn Monroe was EXCELLENT. Of all the talent in this show, she was the shining star. Her "testimony" while on the stand was extremely well done, and actually made me feel that she believed in what she was saying.Nathaniel Justiniano as the Ringmaster was also very good. His costuming and makeup were the best in the production. (Aside from Marilyn Monroe's -- I mean this from the clown-makeup sense.) Nathaniel was convincing and just maliciously evil-seeming enough to pull off this role with the proper sense of sardonic humor.Larry Coven was very good as Cally Eichmann, but he could have poured on the "Slim Pickens" characterization a bit more, or perhaps dipped into the overflowing fount of Southern Baptist Minster some more...Neil Donahue as Prince Peter Ouspensky was a wise choice on the part of the Director. Here was one of the only slightly older actors in the entire production, and he brought a sense of authenticity to his words and conveyed emotions that some of the younger peoples' renditions lacked. His "testimony" was suitably chilling, as was the intention.Brad Henson as Masoch was rather over-the-top, but of course this is an over-the-top character… I would say, all in all, he was adequate for the role and up to the task.The casting of Ray Paolantonio as Dr. Wilhelm Reich is where the production faltered… Much, MUCH too young for the role, he was overly manic and his voice was shrill to the point where you began to dislike the character he was portraying instead of sympathizing as the author, Robert Anton Wilson, had intended. One must think that had they cast a more experienced and significantly older actor in this role, it would have given the overall production a much higher sense of quality and would have brought a ring of truth and authenticity to this role that it lacked.The other, more peripheral, characters all were adequate in their roles, with no one pulling any special focus away from the main actors… The set, however, was awful, truly. (cringes) I really hate to say that, but it's true. Much, much more effort and care SHOULD have gone into this set. Having read the original text that these actors were performing, I know that this set could EASILY have been very Kafkaesque or Surreal (especially considering that the overall tone of the play is dealing with and taking place in the Bardos from the Tibetan Book of the Dead). The lighting was adequate inasmuch as it could be given the overall confines and, apparently, EXTREMELY limited space of this poorly-conceived and executed set design.The music was simply too loud. All too often it COMPLETELY drowned out the actors' lines. (sighs & shrugs) Much greater care should have been taken to make sure there was an adequate balance between ambient sound and music. (One must wonder if the production and cast wouldn't have greatly benefited from individual radio microphones.) The orchestrations and arrangements conducted by Kristen Toedtman were actually very well conceived, just entirely TOO LOUD. (smile)The Camera work was truly, truly awful also. (shrug) Again, I say sorry, but there were times where I almost felt dizzy because the cameramen couldn't decide who they wanted to have on camera at any given time. There should have been FAR greater cohesion and FAR GREATER PLANNING in this department. Again, having read the play myself, I know that there was probably a LOT of action we simply did not get to see (but was probably happening on-stage, just off-camera, unfortunately) that would have benefited from more long-shots.Having read the source material by Robert Anton Wilson (may he rest in peace) many times over the years, I must wonder why the director chose to skew the text in favor of the modern "War on Terror" in the US, instead of having left it as it was. There were other things also missing from this production that I find mildly baffling, such as the atrocity picture of the soldier kneeling while another gets ready to blow his head off which is used as a counterpoint to the picture of garish nudity of Marilyn Monroe on the opposite side of the stage.Criticisms aside: Everyone should see this. It is an important work by one of my favorite authors.The first 20 minutes or so of this production are really very difficult to get through, but the show picks up definitively after that point, and becomes much easier to watch.I would definitely, definitely recommend this production to anyone who is a fan of Robert Anton Wilson's writing, or of Dr. Wilhelm Reich's. Or to anyone who wants to understand "The Horror of the Situation" as these two men so very clearly did in their lifetimes
