The Widow Unplugged (2/5)
If you looked up this play, then looked up the reviews, then looked at the score above, you might be inclined to say "oh boy, here we go again, there's Hawki, being triggered like the SJW that he is." To which I say, "no, you reprobates, the second half that contains the Chinese skit is easily the stronger of the two halves of the play. It's just that it doesn't save it." Not that the skit is good, but, well, here we go...
As a one man play, written and performed by the same actor, it's hard to tell where the actor ends and the character begins. Here we have Arthur Kwick, a down on his luck actor living at a retirement home, keeping his rent by entertaining the guests and working as a janitor. His last hit was in 1969, and since then he's been down on his luck. So, fair enough, that has a lot of potential...
...only it's squandered in the first half as it meanders with no sense of direction. This kind of thing can be done well (saw Shirley Valentine this year as an example of this concept executed properly), but here, there's no real impetus. It ends with him having to do a pantomime from '69, which is about the only clear plot point we get in Act I. Everything other than that is character and backstory, but it's all over the place I found myself nodding off. Come Act II, well, not everyone who was there for Act I came back, I'll tell you that much.
Which is a bit of a shame as Act II does have a clear...er, direction, in that it's said pantomime, where he plays the Chinese Oriental stereotype in 60s Australia. Now, this isn't bad in of itself. What IS bad is that Act II has a drastic change in tone as it goes on, as it's revealed how our protagonist has early onset Alzeimers, and, well, isn't that happy - monologues about actors, applause, etc. While it's potentially heartfelt, again, it's far too scattershot to leave much impact. The Chinese oriental thing is one example. If it's a critique of political correctness, it doesn't work, because it's not critiquing anything. It doesn't go into any kind of depth, it's just "here's the skit, someone in the audience doesn't like it" (whose complaints don't even touch on political correctness). If it's trying to say "this kind of humour isn't funny anymore," that doesn't work either, because there's no real point of realization in the script either - again, it's too all over the place for that. You might say that it's being left to the audience to interpret, but I don't think so. I think the playright is trying to say something, but it needed to be streamlined a lot more. All I can say is that I've seen better one-character plays, and better comedies as well than this one.
If you looked up this play, then looked up the reviews, then looked at the score above, you might be inclined to say "oh boy, here we go again, there's Hawki, being triggered like the SJW that he is." To which I say, "no, you reprobates, the second half that contains the Chinese skit is easily the stronger of the two halves of the play. It's just that it doesn't save it." Not that the skit is good, but, well, here we go...
As a one man play, written and performed by the same actor, it's hard to tell where the actor ends and the character begins. Here we have Arthur Kwick, a down on his luck actor living at a retirement home, keeping his rent by entertaining the guests and working as a janitor. His last hit was in 1969, and since then he's been down on his luck. So, fair enough, that has a lot of potential...
...only it's squandered in the first half as it meanders with no sense of direction. This kind of thing can be done well (saw Shirley Valentine this year as an example of this concept executed properly), but here, there's no real impetus. It ends with him having to do a pantomime from '69, which is about the only clear plot point we get in Act I. Everything other than that is character and backstory, but it's all over the place I found myself nodding off. Come Act II, well, not everyone who was there for Act I came back, I'll tell you that much.
Which is a bit of a shame as Act II does have a clear...er, direction, in that it's said pantomime, where he plays the Chinese Oriental stereotype in 60s Australia. Now, this isn't bad in of itself. What IS bad is that Act II has a drastic change in tone as it goes on, as it's revealed how our protagonist has early onset Alzeimers, and, well, isn't that happy - monologues about actors, applause, etc. While it's potentially heartfelt, again, it's far too scattershot to leave much impact. The Chinese oriental thing is one example. If it's a critique of political correctness, it doesn't work, because it's not critiquing anything. It doesn't go into any kind of depth, it's just "here's the skit, someone in the audience doesn't like it" (whose complaints don't even touch on political correctness). If it's trying to say "this kind of humour isn't funny anymore," that doesn't work either, because there's no real point of realization in the script either - again, it's too all over the place for that. You might say that it's being left to the audience to interpret, but I don't think so. I think the playright is trying to say something, but it needed to be streamlined a lot more. All I can say is that I've seen better one-character plays, and better comedies as well than this one.