This play was really uneven. The lead male actor was good and quite natural in the role, but many of the others seemed to be shouting their lines rather than emoting them. At first it was hard to figure out where you were in the story, as it kept jumping around in time, but after a while you figure it out. It was a bit unusual in terms of the story and had a strange dated fall to it, but in the end not the worst time I have had at the theatre.

The stangest thing about the whole experience was that while this play was supposed to be something of a farce, the audience (and I) did not find it particularly funny. However, the theatre employees who came in to watch the show sat in the middle of the house and laughed hysterically at every intended joke. I realize they probably were trying to set the mood for the rest of us and make us think it was funnier than it was, but in the end this was just somewhat annoying.

Report as inappropriate

• 0 Good To Know
• 0 I Like Your Writing
• 0 I Went And I Agree

Well, I can say that "The Increased Difficulty of Concentration" was an interesting experience -- though I found very little to like about the play, and had problems with the performance. I'm glad I paid the Goldstar price, and that the show (including intermission) was relatively brief.

I was initially drawn by the fact that the play was written by Václav Havel -- it's so seldom that I have the opportunity to see the artistic side of an Eastern European head of state, after all; let alone a West Coast premiere (the play is a premiere; Havel was president of Czechoslovakia and then of the Czech Republic). And that it was a farce -- whom, after all, should be more knowledgeable about farce than an Eastern European politician?

Perhaps it would have helped had I been more well-versed in the political climate when the play was written (it opened in 1968); I have only the vaguest idea of what it was about -- they almost might as well have not bothered with translating it into English. Not that there weren't funny moments, but even “Duck Soup” – what was all “funny moments” -- was about SOMETHING.

Stylistically, the performances might have come from a couple of different plays; some more strident (arguably appropriate for a farce) than others, though I personally found the somewhat more naturalistic Whitney Vigil and Sarah Wolter easier to take. Whether the incontinency was intentional, or could be blamed on the actors or directors doesn’t, in the long run, really matter. (Amy Stiller, strongly featured in the play’s promotion, plays a secondary role, though ultimately her character and performance rank among the show’s high points).

The theater’s a nice little space, with the seats raked to allow a good view (if not great access) to everybody. And I had no trouble hearing the dialog; just understanding it.

A word about the night I saw the show that has nothing to do with the theater or performance: A row below me, a fellow was fiddling with his iPhone well after the lights were down. While in a sense I feel for his desire to return e-mail or perhaps play games under the circumstances, that light can be mighty bright. And there were a couple of women ahead of me who evidently took the term “farce” as meaning that the show was wall-to-wall funny; shrieking with laughter even during the first moments, when an informally (though not comically-) dressed woman came out and prepared a table for a meal. Oh, well. Maybe they were Czech and caught some subtleties I'd missed..

Report as inappropriate

• 1 Good To Know
• 2 I Like Your Writing
• 1 I Went And I Agree

Rarely have I seen a play and felt grossly ignorant. I would dearly love to have someone tell me what this play was about ... why it is 'great'. I've read many Czech, Hungarian, Polish tales written under communist rule and generally understood and enjoyed them, but in this case? No.

Slamming doors, screaming pleas for everyone to be quiet! ... the intense laughter coming from the actor pretending to be a member of the audience in the absence of any hilarity inducing line coming from the stage?

We left at half time, both wondering if anyone would be returning for the second act. If this was a test, we abjectly failed.

The only Goldstar-sponsored event we've attended where we'd dearly love to get our money back ... wouldn't return to see the second act if we were paid $1,000 to do so.

Report as inappropriate

• 1 Good To Know
• 0 I Like Your Writing
• 0 I Went And I Agree

Amy Stiller was so funny I almost peed my pants. Each character was so different and many personalities. That's what made it so interesting. They all had great energy. Honestly, each actor was uniquely funny and great to watch. I'm glad that I go to the theatre a lot and knew to just enjoy it and not get hung up on the flash backs. Very well done. I'm glad I went!

Report as inappropriate

• 0 Good To Know
• 0 I Like Your Writing
• 0 I Went And I Agree