STAGE REVIEW
'Dinner' serves up a sizzling production
By Sally Cragin, Globe Correspondent,
11/7/2001
 f
you were married, but had a lover, and you wanted to spend time with that
lover in your home, but then your wife decided at the last minute not to
visit her sick mother, because she heard her lover (who's also your
best friend - you don't know they're lovers), was accompanying your
lover as a beard, would you still go through with the weekend?
If you're Bernard, a smug bourgeois who also hires a
Cordon Bleu cook to prepare dinner, of course you do. And the hazards of
infidelity are even more ludicrously treacherous when the cook, Suzette,
gets mistaken for Bernard's lover, Suzanne. This improbable premise is
merely the aperitif for Marc Camoletti's '90s sex farce, ''Don't Dress for
Dinner,'' a banquet of mistaken identity, surreptitious canoodling, and
blackmail.
At Foothills, director Jack Neary oversees a mostly bright and
glittering production of this silly but enjoyable piece. The scene has
been shifted to England from France, which works fine, especially with
Mike Gray's comfy, timbered country home set. Though there's definitely a
Gallic tinge to Robin Hawdon's adaptation. The action comes in rapid-fire
dialogue, with lots of word repetition, so comedy derives from the quality
of performance rather than the wittiness of text.
Here, a very high level of performance is sustained by the three
principals: Bernard, Jacqueline, and lover Robert. Natalie Brown and Phil
Kilbourne as the married couple are simply sublime, Kilbourne's lean,
vulpine Bernard is matched by Brown's haughty, commanding Jacqueline. Both
of them show plenty of ingenuity with the rigorous demands of screwball
comedy, which require moues, clear diction, and perfectly timed
reactions. And Brown's rage, which she must conceal when she discovers her
lover Robert has another lover, is perfect. As Robert, Buzz Roddy
complements this pair beautifully. His reluctant participation in these
preposterous schemes, as well as his feeble job of placating his irked
mistress is thoroughly believable and comic. When any of these three
interact, ''Don't Dress'' sparkles. Alas, a subtle but definite dullness
sets in with the other two. Suzette, the cook, should be a blithe little
schemer, willing to play whatever role she's requested for a hefty tip.
Suzanne, the paramour is a model and actress, able to devastate her suitor
with a glance or pose. The problems on the Foothills stage don't come from
the casting so much as insufficient or ham-handed direction. Both
actresses (Birgit Huppuch as Suzette and Rachel Harker as Suzanne) have a
great look: eager gamine and pampered princess. But each uses broad
strokes instead of precise gestures. The resultant mugging and capering
are always slightly out of synch for the surprisingly delicate machinery
of this frivolous comedy.
Still, ''Don't Dress'' is an encouraging effort, especially in terms of
polish and finesse, qualities that haven't always been present at
Foothills. (New artistic director Brad Kenney is the third in as many
years.) Sure, there's audience-pandering in the very nature of this
''naughty'' selection, but the performances of Kilbourne, Brown, and Roddy
are frankly hilarious. And a welcome step forward for a theater in
transition.
This story ran on page C3 of the Boston Globe on
11/7/2001.
© Copyright
2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
|
|
