Tally's Folly

Tally’s Folly was a great show. I haven’t been as entertained while watching a live performance as I was during Tally’s Folly in a long time. For a independent theatre, I think Independent Actors Theatre hit this show out of the park. With a strong cast, strong direction and strong set, Tally’s Folly is an enjoyable 96 minutes that are not to be missed.

            One of the things that really impressed me with the show was the acting. With a strong performance by Matt Fotis, who coincidentally played the character Matt Friedman, as well as a amazing job by the other lead actress Ashton Botts, who played Sally Talley, there was never a dull moment in the play. What impressed me most about the acting was the ability of the two actors to really assume and deeply engage in their roles. For example, both actors dawned an accent that seemed nothing less than legitimate; Fotis with his Eastern European accent, and Botts with her charming country twang.  There was not a moment where I felt that these accents were faked or forced at all. What sealed the deal for me on the acting, however, was Fotis’ ability to do near-perfect impersonations. For example, during one scene Fotis’ character starts to make fun of Sally’s family by impersonating her brother and then her high school sweetheart. Fotis’ adaption of a country accent was not only hilarious, but left me in stitches because I was laughing so hard. What really made the impression hilarious was his use of hand gestures and facial expressions to convey an image that I can only describe as “bubba.” 

            Another aspect of the show that impressed me was the direction of the play. Director Emily A. Rollie, a doctoral student at the University Of Missouri, really showed her excellent ability to direct with this show. What I mean by this is that her use of blocking and directing where the characters are to be during each scene was near perfect. Even though the set was rather small (something I’ll discuss in the next paragraph) Rollie did a great job making sure the actors were in near perfect positions for each scene. For example, when Sally gets increasingly mad at Matt and theatrens to leave, she moves towards the edge of the stage and opens the door to the deck (the venue was a small photography studio and the door lead directly to the outside) and speaks a couple lines while halfway out the door. This really impressed me because It gave a great impression of what was going on in Sally’s mind, as well as how distraught she was with Matt. It also took the scene to the next level and I applaud Rollie for that.

            Finally, I was extremely impressed with how the set was created and how IAT really managed to make great use of the venue which they were in. The play, which took place in a small photography studio, really was a perfect setting for the show. While the stage was relatively small, it seemed fitting for an independent theatre and a show with only two actors in it. The set was lightly garnished with a couple oars and a few wooden boxes to accent the idea that the show takes place in an old Victorian boathouse, and while it wasn’t the most intricate set I have seen, really left a lot to the imagination, and felt just right for a production that IAT would put on. What impressed me most about the set was the ability for the actors to really conform to the space, Rollie really used the space to the best of her ability, having the actors interact with the doors, windows and objects that were already in place at the studio. This use of setting and space was one that took the production from just happening to be staged in a photography studio, to really being “perfect” for the show.

Hamlet Review

Some works of art are so universal, so well known and so influential that they are relevant even after 500 years of their original showing.  Such is the case with the works of 16^th century playwright William Shakespeare. Shakespeare, who’s works are read and studied in classrooms all around the world, has had his plays done in nearly every language and in every setting that can be thought of and still sell out theaters all around the world. One of the most popular plays Shakespeare has written would be his tragic-drama Hamlet. It is probably due to it’s famed notoriety that Hamlet was selected to be the final play of the University of Missouri Theatre Department’s 2011-2012 season. Preformed on the MU campus at the Rhynsburger Theater, the classic tragic-drama is directed by Kevin Brown, who gives Hamlet a futuristic twist; set around the year 3000 B.C.E. and in a dystopian country. While this may sound a bit adventurous, Brown’s adaptation of the Shakespearian classic manages to make old classic feel new and vibrant all without changing the original dialogue.  

 In Hamlet, a distraught Prince Hamlet goes insane trying to avenge his father’s death after seeing his ghost, whom he believes to be the doing of his Uncle. After being chased by madness, Hamlet’s mind gets the best of him and eventually leads to his downfall. Hamlet builds on the themes of degenerate madness, revenge and obsession, all combined with paranoia and corruption. All these themes come together to tell the message that revenge is never good, and ultimately leads to demise.

Hamlet, for a college production, had a exceptionally strong cast. With a strong lead by Brian Scanlan, who played Hamlet, and with excellent supporting roles from Alyson Germinder (Gertrude) and Tamara Mullins (Ophelia) the two-hour and thirty minute production was never dull. What really impressed me about Scanlan’s performance was his ability to really connect with Hamlet’s character. For example, every time Scanlan was involved in a scene with the ghost (Peter Smith) you really saw his face twist and change with madness and grief. Not only did I feel like Scanlan really did feel for his characters’ loss, I really felt like when he saw the king’s ghost his madness and torment were real. In addition to Hamlet’s monologues, I was also really impressed with the scenes with some of the smaller actors. What especially was impressive was the second “play within a play” at which the players reenact the murder of the king. With a strong chemistry between Robert Glauz and Ian Matthew Sobule who’s silent act was among the most entertaining scenes in the play. The scene where the two take turns mock hitting each other was leaving me silently laughing and smiling in an otherwise tragic and depressing play.

The direction of Hamlet was equally as impressive as the acting. Dr. Kevin Brown, does nothing short of excellent work when brining the classical play to the stage. What impressed me most about the direction of Hamlet was the future that Brown sets the play in. What Brown does by setting the play in the “not-to-distant” future is pretty novel, but the way Brown does this is what was most impressive in my mind. The way Brown chose to only change the set a bit, and have the ghost on a video (I’ll discuss this more in the next paragraph) was really impressive to me. It gave a subtle felling of the future, but without overwhelming the entire play. Another directorial decision from Brown that impressed me was the blocking and staging of the play during certain scenes. For example, during one of the scenes that Hamlet is nervously talking to Claudius and Gertrude, Hamlet is often seen up-stage right and is jumping from the railing on the stairs, to some of the barrels, back to the ground. This motion that Hamlet goes through when discussing affairs with his uncle and his mother, really help show the madness and degeneration of Hamlet’s mind as he races from level to level of the set. The constant movement of Hamlet during these scenes is one that takes the performance to a level above mediocre, as it really helped place my mind in-twine with Hamlet’s and really helped me connect with the character.

The design elements of Hamlet were also very impressive. The set was a bit basic, but I think that it fit perfectly with the theme. What I mean by basic is that it was only a balcony, flanked by staircases on both sides, with a couple barrels and other basic wooden structures to fill the stage. Jon Drtina,  the scenic designer,  did a really great job with this show.  The color scheme was a lighter black, garnished with tattered pieces of cloth that were a rusty red color. What this color palette did for me was make me think of a wasteland with void atmosphere. The lighting, done by R. Dean Packard, was also very impressive. The wonderful array of spotlights and flood lights really helped set the mood during certain scenes, especially during the ghost scene. The lighting, in addition to the excellent video display, gave off a particularly extra-terrestrial vibe, especially due to the flashing and turning on and off of certain lights. The way the ghost was presented was also particularly impressive. Instead of having an “invisible” or a physical prop of a ghost, Brown decided to go with a video adaptation of a head (Peter Smith) that was back dropped onto a screen. The video was then distorted and made to look static-like and gave off a very futuristic and post-apocalyptic vibe, the scenes with the ghosts were easily my favorite parts of the show.

All-in-all Hamlet was a wonderful show. Granted, the Shakespearian classic hasn’t changed all too much in Brown’s adaptation, but it is just enough to leave the viewer with a refreshing feeling that can only come about after seeing a familiar classic. In a world of terrible adaptations (I’m looking at you, Tim Burton) some manage to do it right. From the acting, to the directing, to the costumes and set, Brown serves up a visually engaging Hamlet that is just the right amount of new, mixed with a familiar amount of classic. I look forward to Brown’s further work, as well as other shows done by MU Theater.

Top Girls

The creation of the world that Top Girls takes place in is one that I was rather impressed with. The interesting thing about Top Girls is the way it seems to have the majority of the first act takes place in a fictitious imaginary restaurant, while the rest of the play takes place in England around the 70’s. For me, there was very little confusion about where the play was set, as well as the “world” of the play and the difference between “real” (the second half) and the imaginary dream state of the first act. I think this was achieved because of the way the characters are presented, as well as the various reminders that were are in an office or a restaurant. For example, in the first act, the waiter kept coming on and off of the stage to clear dishes, take orders etc., this really helped remind me that the scene was a restaurant because otherwise I would have been so lost in the intense dialogue and other characters speech, that I would of hardly remembered where the scene was taking place.

The spacing and blocking for Top Girls was a bit iffy and confusing for me only at one time throughout the play. Because the way the theater was set up, I had trouble seeing some of the interactions with the characters because their backs were to me and their distance to the audience was a bit far. For example, when an interview is taking place between one of the employment agency ladies and a potential employee, the two chairs are set up at an angle that made it very difficult for me to see the actors faces and emotions. While the distance between the two chairs was fine, and I was able to hear them because they were in the foreground of the stage, I had trouble connecting with the actors in this scene because of the way they faced the audience at an awkward angle that wasn’t entirely towards the audience, nor completely turned away from them. It left my mind confused as to whether to focus on the interview, or the background set. Other than that scene, I had no qualms with the staging and positioning of the play. I was particularly impressed, however with the way each character in the first act would rise from the table and move to the corner of the stage to address the audience with a particularly charged monologue. This “area” that Ally Poole sets up allows the audience to know that each time a character starts walking toward that corner, an emotionally charged scene or confession is about to take place.

The casting was also very solid for the production of Top Girls. Because Stephens College is a fairly small liberal arts school, I was particularly impressed with how well each young actress was able to fit the role (or roles) they played. Knowing that the pool of actors is relatively small at Stephens, It was impressive to see each actress do their part or parts really well, especially the historical figures, as each character was from a different time or period. One particular casting choice I was impressed with was that of Dull Gret (Rachel Leyh). It was spectacular to see someone transform from a middle-aged warrior into a timid employment office worker. Other than that, I was nothing less than impressed with the ladies that participated in Top Girls as I was nothing short of captivated by the acting throughout the entire production.

Justice Served Assingment

I was quite impressed with some of the acting presented in the three short plays during Justice Served. While some of the actors’ acting was better than others, I still never felt that any part of the play was forced or fake, as I did during parts of Monsieur Baptiste.

The first actor I was rather impressed with, was OOshene Fox, who played the protagonist Delia Jones. What impressed me most about Fox’s acting was her ability to make facial expressions that truly matched what I would expect someone to look like in the same situations. Fox’s mannerisms and the look upon her face during the scene at which she first encounters the rattlesnake in her house is a perfect example of how she embodies the characters fear of snakes. The way Fox jumps and falls backwards towards the ground reminds me of how I would feel in the same situation (replace the snake with a spider, however). The fear that she tried to show was very real, and I felt the tension and nervousness throughout the entire scene (in a good way.)

Another actor I was extremely impressed with was Milbre Burch who played Mrs. Wright in the one-actor short play Sometimes I Sing. What really impressed me with Burch’s acting, was her voice and the way she really kept her captivating tone throughout the entire play. What I mean by this is that Burch’s almost-quiet voice was filled with so much emotion and power that my attention was hers for the entire duration of the play. While this may not sound like something spectacular, for me, someone who has the attention span of a goldfish, this really is something. One scene in particular that really left me in awe was the scene in which Burch describes how her husband wrung her prized canary. The way Burch’s seemingly calm voice really “yells” her emotional strain and the way her hands and face dripped with pain and anger not only left me with shivers, but gave me Goosebumps that lasted for a good five minutes.

Lastly, I was extremely impressed with the direction of the short play Triffles. The play, directed by Cheryl Black, was a pleasant trip into a time almost forgotten. Having read the play prior to the show, I was interested in how Black would translate the show onto the small stage that the Corner Playhouse provided. I am happy to say that with the space provided, Black did a very adequate and fulfilling job. The blocking and spacing that Black created also really helped my impressed reactor to the play. For instance, the way the characters entered and exited the stage was impressive considering the limited spacing that Corner Playhouse provided. Another thing about the directing in Triffles impressed me, was the way the characters filled the space inbetween their lines. For instance, the natural movement that Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale had on stage between their lines (when their character wasn’t talking) and the way that they really filled the space with movement and mannerisms really made me feel that the nervousness and raw feeling that the characters felt in the play.

In The Heights

As far as design for In The Heights goes, I was really impressed with how well the set, the lighting, and the blocking design all came together, especially considering how this is a touring show, and no two stages are alike.

As soon as I walked into the theater, my eyes were instantly drawn to the elaborate and complex set. What could have easily been accomplished with paint and backdrops had been replaced with impressive three-dimensional and texture based elements. What I mean by this is that the brick buildings really showed their texture, whether they were real brick or not, I still had the impression that they were real. Another impressive part of the set was Usnavi’s store, which was complete with a real awning and a swinging door. All these aspects, when combined, really helped make me feel like I was in Washington Heights. Set designer Ana Louizos really went to great lengths to ensure that the audience really felt like they were in the neighborhood with the cast. Aside from the elements listed above, the multiple levels of the set really added to its depth and helped make the stage seem a lot bigger than it actually was, which is also quite impressive.

Another design element that really impressed me was the lighting. Besides the standard floodlights, I was really impressed by the small and detailed lighting that occurred throughout the show. For instance, when the scenes changed throughout the day, the audience was able to tell profession in the day due to the lighting on the backdrop of the stage. If it was day, the backdrop was light heavily with white light. If it was mid-day and afternoon, the lighting on the backdrop was moved slightly up to symbolize the suns positioning. At dusk, the light changed to a light orange-amber, and at night, a moon-looking light shone upon a otherwise dark backdrop. While these things may seem small and easily looked over, I found this slight transition to be one of the more visually pleasing things throughout the show. Another lighting design element that I rather enjoyed were the fireworks during the 4^th of July scene. Not only did the lights move to represent fireworks shooting off, but there was also a bright flash followed by a “pop” noise to symbolize a firework going off; very impressive.

Finally, I was extremely impressed with the blocking design throughout the various scenes and musical numbers. I felt that the dances were not only choreographed extremely well (the show was re-choreographed and re-directed for travel by Michael Balderrama) but I really felt the hustle and bustle of the neighborhood due to the specific positioning of the characters in both the fore and back ground of the stage. For instance, when the cast was signing “96,000” and they were moving from the front of the stage to the back as well as people popping in and out of the balconies, I really felt like they were traveling throughout a neighborhood. The use of the intricate blocking, combined with a spectacular and extremely detailed set really sealed the deal for my imagination, allowing me to truly appreciate all In the Heights had to offer.

Plot Summary: A group of Dominican immigrants in a lower-class New York City neighborhood try to survive the every-day trials and tribulations of life. But when a chance to escape the lower class life arises not all are quick to jump the gun.

Idea Summary: Even though life may be hard and look gloomy, an quick escape may prevent you from getting what you really wanted, as it most likely been in front of you the entire time.

Response to Money in Art Lectures

Money. It makes the world go round, right? Maybe. But what I did get from these lectures is that money is involved in everything, even art. Not that I was completely shocked by this finding, I did find some parts of the lecture to be really interesting however. For example, one of the main points that I got from all three of the lectures is that if you love what you do, you don’t really care a whole lot about money. This is not to say you will do it for free, but more the idea that money comes second to what you love. Another main point that I got out of the lecture is that most of the money that comes from arts occurs after the artist has passed. What I think this means is that many artist do their craft without the expectation of becoming excessively wealthy, and most of the time, this unexpected wealth will come (if it ever does) years after the artist has died. Lastly, the lectures made me realize that not only can art be expensive, but also extremely expensive to produce.

One of the main things that grabbed my attention was during the theatre and money presentation. I was really shocked by how many people involved in community theatre will really perform and produce a show for little or no pay at all. It really made me think about how dedicated and devoted one has to be to be willing to receive little/no pay for an insane amount of work.

In the art presentation, I was really shocked to see how much people pay to display their art at an auction or sale. What really surprised me were the display pieces that involved nothing more than a string and a piece of paper. While I understand the idea behind the piece, it really makes me wonder who would purchase such a thing, let alone pay $50,000 to display it at an auction.

Lastly, in the music presentation, I was surprised to see how little professional musicians (orchestra) are paid. While I was not surprised by how much label companies receive, or how much of the end funds go to Top-40 musicians, I was shocked by how classical musicians actually lived pretty loftily lives (back I the day).

In popular culture, I increasingly find that money and economics are stressed as the main purpose in ones life. I am always seeing how the idea that money is happiness and that it is imperative for one to have it in order to live a happy life.

As for artists living in a capitalistic society, I think there is a place for them, but I feel that the messages that may artists try to convey are drowned out by the ideas of capitalism. I feel that many artists really could care less how much their art sells for, are really just want people to appreciate their work and understand what they are trying to say. If they have to sell their work for hundreds of thousands of dollars than I think many artist see this as a necessary evil in order to get their work out.

Blog Response to Monsieur Baptiste: The Con Ma

I rather enjoyed MU Theatre’s production of Monsieur Baptiste. For a low-budget college production, I can easily say that I was well entertained throughout the show. Having previous knowledge of what the play was based off of (Tartuffe) also helped, as it was fun to watch and be able to see how the adaption was different and similar from Moliere’s classic. While some parts of the play could have been better, such as the emphasis of the actor’s accents, other parts of the show like the set and the costume design really blew me away and made me feel like I was watching a professional production.

Starting with the negative, I was rather turned-off by what I thought to be over-the-top, and almost intrusive, accents the each character donned. While I appreciate the efforts to keep the show as realistic and historically accurate as possible, there were many times when I felt that lines were forced to sound the way they were, and I found myself silently laughing at the nature and context of certain lines. For example, there were multiple times when I was completely lost by what Madame Dominique (played by Linda Dodd) said. It wasn’t the speed at which the line was presented, but rather the emphasis of certain syllables and structured diction of her character that had me trying to dissect and analyze what had just gone into my ears. The problem with this is that I was often trying to catch-up with the dialogue after trying to figure out what had just been said. Not to single out a certain actor, because this problem was almost the same with a good majority of the cast. While I can understand and appreciate the speech director Cfrancis Blackchild effort to make the actors sounds as if they were born and raised in 19^th century New Orleans, as a director I would have probably told them to scrap the accents due to their difficult and intrusive nature on the show.

Negative aspects aside, there were things about Baptiste that I really appreciated and enjoyed. The set was one of these things. While it was a fixed set (non moving) I really appreciated the detail and complexity that the stage provided. For instance, even the little things like the pictures on the walls of character’s family members or past ancestors of the characters, or the doors that led to the courtyard in the background of the set were just some of the little things that really made me appreciate how much work and dedication must have gone into the set design. Another thing that I really liked about the set was the “courtyard” in the background of the stage. At the back of the stage, there were three doors that opened into a courtyard looking part of the stage that had various plants and statutes that gave it an outdoorsy feel. What was very cool about this part of the set was the ability to have people walk through this part of the set while still having people act in the front of the stage. A good example of this is when Dominique and her house-keeper are talking about Baptiste in the “house” part of the stage and you then see Baptiste walk through this back “courtyard.” What follows is a chilling affect that leaves the viewer almost stunned and wondering what is going to happen next.

Lastly, I really enjoyed the costumes that the actors wore. While I’m not sure how historically accurate the clothing was, I really believed that if I were teleported into 19^th century New Orleans that is what I would expect people of the higher classes to be wearing. The vibrant colors and lacey frills and puffs of the costumes really made me thing about how much time and money went into the planning and design of the costumes. Another thing I liked about these costumes were that they really grabbed the attention of the viewers. The vibrant colors really helped grab my attention and kept me focused on the actors during the duration of their lines, I rarely felt my eyes wander from the actor who was speaking at the time.

Idea Summary: In Monsieur Baptiste, the idea of stubbornness and unwillingness to believe those close to you are tangled with that of religious hypocrisy and that good eventually triumphs over evil.

Plot Summary: In Monsieur Baptiste, we meet a family who tries to convince a stubborn father that the man who he so desperately praises and looks up to is secretly a con man and is taking advantage of him. In the end, the man is revealed for who he really is, and all is restored to normal.

Three Questions for a Professional Theatre Communications Specialist

My three questions are as follows.

1) How do you market or advertise for a play that is controversial or has subject matter that a good percent of the population may find offensive or in bad taste.

2) To what audience do you find it particularly hard to target and why do you think that is?

3) What is the hardest part of marketing theater as many believe it to be a niche community? In other words, how do you make the typical non-theater goer buy tickets for your show?

Identity Lectures

The lectures this week were very informative and quite eye opening. While I learned many things and thought about things that I normally don’t consider (identity), these lectures did give me the chance to think in-depth about how people display and present themselves and their constructed identities. Some of the main points that I walked away with from the lectures include: identity is not the same within each member of a “race” or “culture”, identity is not something that can easily be acted or displayed in a song, and finally identity can, and will, change multiple times throughout ones lifetime. These points, while vague and somewhat confusing, were the main things about identity that I was able to surmise from the lectures.

Each lecture had its own points and ideas that it tried to present. While it was hard to choose just one from each lecture, I felt each artistic field had its own special and unique points and values. For instance, in the theatre lecture, I was especially intrigued by the concept of “acting race.” For instance, when talking about a youth theatre producing Hairspray without any African American actors really made me think about how one, or a group, is to go about “acting” like an African American, or acting like a white suburbanite. I think these dilemmas, which aren’t exactly unique to theatre, defiantly get brought up in theatre more than in the average situation/workplace. For the art lecture, I was really intrigued by the idea of artists making fun of artists. The whole idea of making fun of “the starving artist” mentality is something that I can really fathom in theatre or in music. It seems that it takes the satirical and warped mind of an artist to think about how life as an artist really isn’t as bad as some make it out to be. For the music lecture, I thought about how identity for each musician and the identity of the music they make, truly is different from one artist to another, how the blues of one artist isn’t likely to sound like the blues music of another artist from the same time.

The construction of identity in each of these art fields is different and special in their own way. For instance, in Art, identity can be constructed through the processes of creating the art, in the case of Jackson Pollock, whose unique style defined his identity of his artwork and himself as an artist. In music, presentation is a influencing factor in constructing identity. How an artist sings a particular song, and how they style their voice and act upon stage I feel is a very influencing factor in their identity as a musician. Finally, for actors and thespians, I feel that their identities are a hodgepodge and melting pot of all the roles and characters that they have played in the past. I think that ones identity as an actor is uniquely created by past experience and previous knowledge.

When it comes to constructing my own identity, I find that it is a much harder thing to describe than talking about the identity of others. I feel that I define myself in the simplest terms, a student, a part-time employee, a journalist, and don’t think to deeply dive and indulge and describing and constructing a dense and explicit identity. I know who I am, because it’s who I say I am, and this is due to my simple and often constricting definitions and values that I define myself with. I am who I say I am, because it’s how I define myself. Deep eh?

Play #1 Assignment – Monty Python’s Spamalot

The Brits strike again with their famed comedy group Monty Python and its Broadway musical "Spamalot." While I have seen two of Monty Python's films, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" and “Monty Python and the Life of Brian,” “Spamalot” was a fun new experience for me. Not knowing what to expect, and having very little background on the musical, I walked into Jesse with a blank slate and an open mind. I walk out entertained, yet a bit underwhelmed. While I think parts of the show were excellent, the live orchestra and the acting to name two, there were specific parts of the show that left me saying “meh” as I left the theater.

I’m going to start with one of the show’s parts that really impressed me: the live music. Conducted by Nolan Bonvouloir, I was super impressed by how good the music was for the various musical numbers. Like we talked about in class, most traveling Broadway shows have their music on a CD or pre-recorded track, and while this is understandable due to the lack of resources or funds, a live pit really makes a huge difference. The power and energy that came out of the pit really made me much more engaged in the musical numbers. I also think the actors were much more comfortable singing with live music as opposed to a CD. While it is sometimes hard to distinguish between what’s pre recorded and what is live, I really think that the live music was a very noticeable part of the production and I really applaud all of the musicians who no doubt worked very hard performing for the show. I particularly enjoyed the brass section of the pit, as I think the trumpets and trombones really made the music “pop” and stand out.

Another thing I particularly enjoyed about the show were the incredible performances by the cast members. The acting and signing during “Spamalot” really blew me away. I was particularly shocked by how well Brittany Woodrow, who played the female character The Lady of the Lake, was able to hold such impressive high notes for an extended period of time. It was almost as if she had been trained by soul musicians of the past like Aretha Franklin and Gladys Knight. Besides the signing of Woodrow, I was really impressed by how good the rest of the cast was at playing their roles. I was extremely engaged in the play due to the actors natural talent of holding their role and keeping in character, while I suppose this is why they are paid to act, I have seen performances in the past where a role seems very forced and fake. This was not the case with “Spamalot” where the performances of Joe Beuerlein, Thomas DeMarcus and Adam Grabu, really blew me away. What’s more impressive is how each cast member played more than one role, which is more likely than not, an impressive feat.

There were some things that did leave me a little disappointed, however. While the acting and music were great, I did feel that the overall script and storyline was very much old and recycled from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” While this is very much to be expected, as the program did state that the show is “lovingly adapted” from the movie, I still expected more originality than what was given. For example, many of the plays punch-lines were from the film, both the “Knights who say ‘ni’” and the “Killer Bunny” were both hilarious parts of the play, but seemed a bit old and cliché just because they are so well known from the film. Yet, I guess that is what some people expect to see when they sign up for a Monty Python play, and catering to the audience is the best way to sell seats, so I really shouldn’t be that upset about it.

The famed British comedy group Monty Python brings their Broadway hit “Spamalot” to Columbia, Mo.’s Jesse Auditorium this Sunday Jan. 29, at 7 p.m. Directed by Mike Nichols, and produced by Phoenix Entertainment, the musical comedy is a “loving adaptation” from the film “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” The musical, which follows in they style of early medieval tales like that of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round table. While the show is very enjoyable, I would not suggest changing plans to be able to see Spamalot. If you happen to be free this Sunday, and don’t mind spending the money on dinner and a show, it will be worth your while, however, don’t feel like you will be missing out if you cannot make the show, as a trip to the nearest Redbox to rent Monty Python and the Holy Grail on DVD almost provides the same experience.