play review

Attended the theatre Friday night, and am very sorry I could not get to blogging it here until today. If I can save one person from seeing this show, I will consider my duty done. I love Everyman Theatre, they have a solid company of actors and a good producer. But best of all they have consistently, and absolutely, the best sets in the city. The best. Every production goes on in just exactly the right environment. If the play wants realism, the set delivers a cozy living room with not a detail missing. If the play wants an abstraction, the set can make a single post represent the end of a lonely pier. Whatever play is in production the set meets its mark 100%, 100% of the time. So we were not surprised to find a perfect writer-detective’s office in front of us when we sat down on Friday night. Small old wooden desk, 50’s style couch, old typewriter table upon which sat a small simple old typewriter (I could imagine its black and red ribbon), the entire setting the mess of a single guy living in his office. As usual I expected we were in for a treat.

But Filthy Rich was anything but a treat. The play itself was poorly conceived. Although the main character gets drunk and sobers up at least three times inside the two acts, the dialogue seems to indicate that all the action takes place within 24 hours. Not only does the inebriation belie this, but the action itself seems impossible for such a small window. People travel around the city – from one end to the other – learn new things about each other, bring them back to the detective’s office and try to set each other up. A non-character is killed in the detective’s office and the police investigation and removal of the body takes place inside this tiny window of time – still allowing time for all the other events.

Time is not the only problem. The play is a classic example of what writing teachers all over the world call telling, not showing. The major exposition of the play’s backstory takes place when one annoying character reads a letter to another annoying character. So essentially the audience is simply hearing a telling of the story. No action, no actual character driven exposition…just someone reporting a tale. What’s the point of having a characters and a play if all you’re going to do is have one character read off what’s happened?

None of the characters is likable, not even the main sort-of-cute writer-detective. It’s clear he’s trying to be cute and/or funny but most of his humor is just enough off to be only mildly, if at all, amusing. With no humor relief there’s really nowhere for the irritation caused by the non-development of the story to come to rest. It’s just two hours and ten minutes of people walking in and out of this wonderful set, reporting what’s happened off stage, and fretting about who’s betrayed whom. Why the audience should care about any of this is never explained. The set and the film noir music that occasionally plays people on are the only pleasant parts of the evening.

As we left the theatre I turned to one of my companions and asked if he’d liked the play. The sour look in his reply told me he didn’t have to think about his answer, but only about whether or not he should voice his opinion. He uttered a single word: “no.” “Me neither,” I joined. None of the four of us liked the play. My most revealing reaction came during the play’s last twenty minutes – which seemed interminable and were a reverberating demonstration of every character’s irritating and unlikable personalities. I just kept thinking "I could be…asleep."