Life is riddled with awkward moments and seemingly unavoidable, uncomfortable situations. We’ve all experienced instances when we can’t make eye contact, or worse, can’t look away. Modern entertainment has latched onto this aspect of human interaction, and has made it a mainstay for every genre in every medium. Audiences want drama and comedy to echo real life in an entertaining way, and entertainment does its best to deliver. Neil LaBute has found his cozy place in this niche. As a playwright and a screenwriter, he thrives on exposing the worst side of people. Indeed, his characters’ worst sides are often their only sides.
Fat Pig exemplifies LaBute’s style of extreme realism. The show features a cast of four characters, each raw and exposed. Tom is your classically average, young professional whose sense of self-worth doesn’t seem to extend past his most immediate personal interaction. Helen (the unfortunate title character) is an overweight librarian with a lively spark that is greatly overshadowed by her constant self-deprecation. The two stumble their way through their first interaction, both visibly surprised by their shared attraction and interest. Tom gets her number, and the story starts. As Tom pursues his relationship with Helen, he struggles to hide it from the other two characters. Carter, a coworker and general annoyance for Tom, intrudes at every possible moment with shallow and crass statements, while prying at Tom’s personal life with reckless disregard for anyone’s feelings. Jeannie is another of Tom’s co-workers, with the added twist of being his former love interest. Jeannie is constantly teetering on the brink of an accusation, with manic energy and narcissism as the main features of her arsenal. Tom’s effort to hide his relationship from Jeannie and Carter is doomed from the onset, and he soon is forced to decide if peer pressure is more important than happiness.
In essence, this is an intimate show. LaBute is showing us an unflinching view of lies and integrity, and he is presenting it one intimate conversation at a time. I had hoped the small size of The Gist Hall would emphasize this intimacy; however, the performance fell short of intimacy, barely reaching the plateau of empathy or relatability.
Colleen Lacy played the role of Helen with an energy and exuberance fitting the character. Kyle Ryan’s portrayal of Tom was earnest, but forced at moments. Save for the interactions between Helen and Tom, Ryan never seemed completely comfortable in the role. Brandon McDaniel had brief moments of dimension as Carter, but ultimately fell short of the exuberance the character requires. It is hard to tell if this is result of McDaniel’s abilities, or of the dynamics of his interactions with Ryan’s oddly paced portrayal of Tom. McDaniel’s portrayal of Carter, though muted, was believable and genuine.
This leaves only the performance of Danielle Cichon as Jeannie. Jeannie is definitely the most volatile of the four, and the character is quick to demand the attention of the audience, as well as everyone else on stage. Both of these characteristics seemed completely lost on Cichon, who seemed to focus more on enunciation than emotion. As emotions and tensions increased, Cichon seemed to only alter the volume of her voice. Her performance was emotionless and flat, and this was exacerbated by Ryan and McDaniel’s reactions to her character’s rants.
Even with a vastly different dynamic from another set of actors, it’s hard to say if the show could really deliver the message LaBute is trying to send. This is partly due to his thinly written characters and allusion-filled dialogue, and also due to the director’s choice of movement within the confines of LaBute’s words and themes. Generally, my hat goes off to Michael Thomas, but in the case of Fat Pig, Thomas’ directorial choices emphasized the flatness of the characters, and vice versa. LaBute relies almost completely on dialogue to drive his point. Each setting and scenario is bland in its construction, as though he chose locations out of a hat. Surely LaBute was aiming for simplicity, but instead he created stagnation. Thomas’ choices within these environments were equally lackluster; there was very little movement in any scene.
LaBute’s characters are hardly deep or multi-faceted, save for Helen. Helen is the only character in the play able to evoke empathy, and she is the sole possessor of any truly redeeming qualities. When all is said and done, hers is the only character who may truly be affected or changed by the events of the play. Colleen Lacy captured this perfectly. Lacy played Helen with an open vulnerability, capturing small nuances which deepened the character. The final scene of the play epitomizes these nuances, as we watch Helen react to Tom in near silence. The final scene is the shining moment for Ryan as well. It comes across as the most genuine moment of the entire show. Which really only leaves you wondering what could have been, in regards to the rest of the play.
Fat Pig will continue its run at HSU’s Gist Hall Theatre at 7:30 p.m. on Sept. 22-24, with a 2 p.m. matinee on Sept. 25.
This article appears in Best of Humboldt 2011.
a mostly fair review, but you’re going after some pretty low-hanging fruit here. these are undergrads (hsu doesn’t have a graduate-level theater program anymore) some of whom aren’t even theatre majors. why not save your well-written, full-page, utter demolishings for the local theaters charging $18 a ticket with experienced cast and crew who should really have higher standards.
Mr. Webster, I am confused by your comment. You agree that Mr. King’s review was fair; you agree that it was well written and yet you feel that it was unfair for him to write it. Why would you deny the actors the opportunity to learn and grow from this experience, let them do with it what they will? Why would you insist on promoting the myth that good theatre is based on a price point? (By the way, it is not).
Mr. King, I enjoyed your review. You made a simple and clean assessment of the ability of the actors to convey the playwright’s intentions. How refreshing. More please…
Mr King, what is your theatre experience? Since you are a psychology student at College of the Redwoods, what credibility do you have to pick apart Neil Labute’s writing? You also need to remember that these are STUDENTS, not professionals, and I hope that you would not print such mean spirited reviews against other students art pieces. All your review does is cut audience numbers which effects the show and the experience these students are trying to obtain. If that was your intention, then bravo.
Mr Webster, you should do your research better. While the program is being cut, there are still graduate students finishing up their degrees in the program, and some of them worked on this show.
I’d also like to question Mr King’s theater acumen. What other shows are you holding this in comparison to? Have you judged other student shows so harshly? These actors and designers are young people making their start in this business, and I would think you would try to temper your review somewhat in an effort to encourage them while pointing out places that could be improved upon, instead of tearing them down completely.
Dear Mr. King –
I do not know what your qualifications are for writing theatre reviews, so I will not dwell on whether or not you should be writing them at all. But I will say, “BRAVO” for actually WRITING a theatre review. Too often, in local publications we are given no more than a precis of the plot and a list of the cast members (oh, yes, you MUST list them all, lest they get their feelings hurt). Whether the participants are students or non-paid community members, theatre practitioners deserve an intelligent critique of their work.
And yes, I am qualified to speak on the subject, with a degree in theatre and years of professional and community experience.
Keep the comments rolling, folks. But for the record, the author of this review is female. As you were.
One doesn’t require a theater degree to understand how to appreciate theater nor to gauge how others might react to a piece. Ms. King’s assessment reads as an unbiased, local review of a student production. Any actor who wants to “make it” needs to have the chops to do so and the gall to take criticism. Mr. Webster sounds like a friend of the actors who is trying to defend (or make excuses for) their performance, but maybe his own intentions are misguided. If they can’t take the criticism perhaps they ought to find a hobby out of the spotlight.
My apologies Ms. King.