Monica Kempski

Thea100

Boucher

10/1/10

Review #1- Museum

Fortunately, I was lucky enough to attend “Museum” by Tina Howe on opening night. The play is

about a day at the Museum of Fine Arts, and the people that come to view the pieces on display. This

was my first real theatre production, so I was curious as to what to expect from this art form. In theatre

class, we talked about countless aspects of theatre; for example, acting, stage design, script, and

directing. With an open mind, I sat in the audience eager to see all these efforts come together to form a

play. As I sat in the audience before the play began, my first instinct was to take in the stage design. Four

points of focus were clearly shown in the stage design through three-dimensional units. There was a

clothesline in the back of the stage with hanging pictures of people, two pedestals with strange art on

top, and a bench in between these pedestals. Clearly, the arrangement set the locale of our play- a

museum, which served justice to the title. This realistic composition was simple, making it easy for the

actors to move throughout the stage, while at the same time successfully delineating the performance

space. In addition, it took me several minutes to notice a unique aspect to the set design. Above the

audience’s heads hung empty frame units shaped as half picture frames. Immediately, I was engaged in

the scenery as I used my imagination to wonder what artwork those pictures detail. Because of the

filling yet ambiguous plot synopsis and the intriguing set design, I already liked the play before it even

began.

As I watched the play, I thought both the acting and the costume design to be fantastic. All of

the actors successfully portrayed their characters by bringing out their unique personalities, views and

1
backgrounds with clear and understandable dictation. For instance, the audience encounters two

French speaking people. As they talk together in French, their dialogue is delivered in a perfect way. This

makes their background believable and realistic. Also, there are two ladies with a Boston accent. They

delivered their dialogue with a consistent accent, making me believe they were native to Boston. These

diverse nationalities of people certainly made a realistic impression on me because anyone from around

the world can enjoy fine arts, and comingle amongst other peoples different from themselves. In

addition to the actors’ speech successfully portraying their characters, their costumes worked incredibly

well to tell their personalities, views, and backgrounds. Most characters were dressed in formal clothing

appropriate for a museum, but each character had a certain twist to the formal style that made their

uniqueness apparent. For instance, a lady who gave public impassioned lectures about each piece wore

a vibrant yellow dress and a colorful shawl. The bright eye catching colors certainly displayed her

passion for art by a blend of colors, while at the same time drawing attention to her. This is a perfect

costume for her because she wants people to notice her and to pay attention to what she has to say

about each piece. Another character whose costume was effective was Tink Solheim. Before the

audience even heard her speak, they could tell she was senile by her clothing. She wore pink tights,

ankle high tall boots, a pink ballerina skirt, a blue top, glasses, and a headband with a huge rose to top

things off. This mismatched appearance tells the audience that something is not quite right with her.

Next, there were three girls who had no appreciation of the arts whatsoever. They mocked each piece

and laughed loudly, disrupting the people. Their costumes were just normal casual teenage clothes,

showing that they had no respect for the art pieces and their quality. In addition to costumes, costume

makeup served to portray the unique peoples in the museum. For instance, older people had face

makeup to accentuate the lines for their face to make them appear old. Also, two Goths appeared with

their faces painted and hair dyed to clearly display their niche. As apparent in costume designs and

2
makeup, each character was unique and reflected different opinions about art. This diversity allows the

audience to relate to at least one character, making the play believable and realistic.

Overall, I had mixed feelings about the script. The excellent element of the script was the

audience interaction. One way that script engaged the audience was by taking advantage of the theatre.

For example, the theatre had 3 different doors on different walls. The script required the actors to make

use of each door by entering and exiting through them. In this way, the audience was engaged by

moving their heads to different parts of the stage for the action, instead of boringly looking straight

ahead for the entire play. A second piece of audience interaction was when Giorgio, a spectator looks

straight into an audience member’s face and admires the artwork. This was amusing and engaged the

audience because it was using an audience member for comedic reasons. Also, the script required the

actors to sit down and deliver their lines. The actors took the liberty of the empty seats to sit with the

audience to deliver their lines. In this way, the audience feels that the actor is being a part of them,

bridging the gap between spectator and actor. A second great element about the script was that the

script kept the actors busy at all times. Even if they weren’t talking, the actors we required to keep busy

by doing something by themselves, or silently talking with their hands moving as if they were talking. No

actor stopped and stared off into space if they were not talking, just as a real person wouldn’t do in

public. In this way, the script was made believable because everyone is going on as normal even though

they may not be the center focus of attention. Perhaps this is the most rewarding part of the script

because I found the “out-of-focus” character’s actions to be the most hilarious part of the play. For

instance, there is a silent old man in the play that looks around with a comical quizzical face at each art

piece and constantly drops things. Also, there was a lady in a scene who keeps trying to seduce the

guard on duty. Another effective element of the script was its language use. There was much swearing in

the play that was appropriate for a college audience. The swearing also made the play realistic in nature

because people cuss all the time. Despite these excellent elements of the script, I found the script to be

3
boring at times, and I was upset that there was no real plotline or course of action. The characters

diversity was both a blessing for the play as I noted above, as well as a curse. For instance, some scenes

did get boring as a character ranted on with dialogue. Yes, they were conveying their personality;

however, the longer a character lasted the more they lost their comedic effect. This made the

characters’ dialogue seem repetitive. Characters such as the enthusiastic guide, the unappreciative girls,

the guard, and the western cowboy all had dragging and undynamic parts after a period of time. At one

point in the play I wondered to myself whether the character’s roles would have any significant role to

the plotline. Upon thinking this, I came to wonder what the plotline was! No mischievous action seemed

to develop, or any rising action to a climax. The play seemed like an introduction of countless characters

in a museum without any underlying plot. In addition, the script seemed all over the place. One scene

detailed the problem of the headphones being too loud, while the next scene involved guards arguing

about a random rock that one guard had in his pocket. Also, I was puzzled by the end of the story with

the old couple. Only after I looked in the program did I discover that these people were an artist’s

parents. However, even then, I did not understand their significance. Thus, there was no consistent flow

or high point of action in the script, making the play boring and confusing at times.

Despite the failed script, I found the directing to be very good with little flaws. The only error I

encountered with the play’s direction was when the other actors stood in the way of my view of the

active character. A director is supposed to set the movements of the play and make sure that all of parts

of the play are “mise en sine” known as “everything in the picture. In my encounter everything was not

always in the picture visibly because actors were in the way. The director should have made sure that

the characters were in line so that everything was visible. Besides this flaw, I found that the director

kept the technical aspects effective and in check. At a part of the story where a piece of art mysteriously

opens up, the lights go down and church music plays. The audience is engrossed in this important scene

of the play. This is due to its uniqueness to the rest of the play where there is no music and all the lights

4
are on. The outcome of the technical rehearsal was very well done because the piece successfully

opened up, and there were no lighting or audio problems. Finally, the directing was lucrative because

the director kept all the actors on check and hardworking. As displayed in their acting ability, I could tell

that the actors were motivated by the director to put forth their best efforts to become their character,

and deliver their lines successfully to portray their character’s personality.

Overall, “Museum” successfully suspended my disbelief as an audience member; therefore, the

play was worth my money. Through the diverse characters, costume design, audience interaction,

lighting, and sound, the play seemed like a realistic situation to me and kept my attention. The only

bothersome element of the play was the script that had no solid plotline or building action. Personally, I

enjoy a story with a clear and identifiable exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and conclusion.

However, perhaps the lack of plotline made the play even more realistic because exciting events do not

happen every day in the real world. Hence, the play adequately suspended my disbelief, which is the

objective of every play. Thus, it was worth seeing.