Seeing It Twice-condensed version
by Kathleen Marik
The Emperors New Clothes, at The National Pastime Theater was quite entertaining.
Meg Elliot?s Korminsky was funny in a Groucho Marx kind of way. Mary Roberts, David Bettino, and Taylor Entwistle were film noir snappy as the emperors evil advisors.
Don Claudin?s Emperor, coming out naked, and everyone reacting to his "outfit" was quite a funny moment. His cocky strutting-was right on the money for the entire show. Miona Harris? Empress and Meg Elliot?s Tailor, found some poignant connections with each other.
This play is interesting, cohesive, funny, and has decent production value. Worth the twenty dollar price tag!
I saw this show twice. The first time I wasn?t as impressed, but went again, letting my brother foot the bill. They made improvements in a week that quite frankly, made it a different show.
Thats what I like to see in theater: a living creation, ever changing, and always improving.
Reviewed by kathleenmarik on Monday, Jul 12th, 2010
RE:Seeing It Twice Saved This Show For Me
by Kathleen Marik
I saw The Emperors New Clothes, at The National Pastime Theater, on
two nights- Saturday, July 3rd and Saturday, July 10th, with 2 very
different results. On the 10th, it was quite entertaining, but the
week before, it was like a different show! I couldnt believe it.
On July 10th, from the very first scene, I was invested. Korminsky,
played by Meg Elliot, was funny in a Groucho Marx kind of way, instead
of small and FLAT, the first time I saw it.
The three actors, Mary Roberts, David Bettino, and Taylor Entwistle,
playing the emperors advisors, had a spark and snap that simply
wasnt there the first time. True of the first scene & the rest of the
play.
The scene when Don Claudin, as the Emperor, comes out naked, and
everyone reacts to his "outfit", was really funny. He was great for
the entire show.
The scenes with Miona Harris, as the Empress and Meg Elliot, this time
as the Tailor, were poignant and connected.
Plus I could HEAR everything. Everything!
On July 3rd, the night after opening, the rainstorm was WAY too loud,
and the sound of shattering glass occured about 2 seconds after the
actors "broke" a window.
When the rain stopped, I STILL couldnt hear MOST of what was said.
There was another annoying noise, sounding like an ancient air unit,
like the one in my grandmothers living room in Florida.
The loud motor mercifully stopped, but the actors seemed uncomfortable
& hardly ever connected. Neither issue existed on July 10th.
I saw this show again, only because my brother, wanting to see it,
offered to pay for my ticket.
The second time I saw it, I was SHOCKED! The play seemed new and
improved, and that aspect held true for the remainder of the show.
In fact, afterward I overheard ANOTHER patron, whom I also recognized
from the first time I saw the play, telling one of the performers out
in the lobby, how glad he was that he saw it the second time! He had
the same experience. Funny.
That night this play was interesting, cohesive, funny, and had decent
production value. Well worth the twenty dollar pricetag!
I wouldnt have been able to say that if I had only seen it that first
night. In fact, if I had only seen it that first night, I wouldnt
even have cared enough to write this review.
The difference between the two shows earned my respect; enough for me
to spend some time this Monday evening pointing that out.
Even though my brother paying for my ticket on July 10th put me in a
good mood, and even with my expectations being very low-having seen
it the week before; it was obvious that the artists who put on this
production did some very necessary tweaking during the week between
the two showings.
Thats what I like to see in theater: a living creation, ever
changing, and always improving.
Reviewed by kathleenmarik on Monday, Jul 12th, 2010
Directions & Map
