LTVB PRESENTS THOUGHT-PROVOKING THEMES
IN THE TWILIGHT OF THE GOLDS
IN THE TWILIGHT OF THE GOLDS
Theater Babe Says:
Go . . . if you’re ready to
consider the moral quandaries of human reproductive technology.
In The Twilight of the
Golds, playwright Jonathan Tolins articulates various positions regarding
the question of whether a pregnancy should be terminated – not because of the
parents’ circumstances, as is the more common focus of that decision, but
because of characteristics of the fetus that have been revealed by prenatal
testing. In the hands of director Tom
Coffey and his cast, the Little Theatre of Virginia Beach’s production reinforces
the unambiguous position taken by the work itself and
is effective on an intellectual, if not emotional, level.
Set in 1992-93, the plot deals exclusively with one family
comprised of a young married couple, Suzanne and Rob, Suzanne’s parents, and
her brother, David. The family gathers
on Suzanne and Rob’s third anniversary during which Suzanne announces she is
pregnant. Rob works for a company that
has developed top secret technology allowing the detection of certain genetic traits
in the embryo, so Suzanne agrees to be a test subject and they learn that their
unborn son possesses a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality. They debate whether to abort the fetus, much
to the consternation of David, who is gay.
As the story unfolds, the characters reveal various other strains and
frustrations underlying what on the surface is a tight-knit, supportive family.
As Mr. Coffey states in his director’s note, the play is
“unapologetically theatrical” in its approach, alternating between the dramatic
action and lengthy monologues in which each character reveals his innermost
thoughts. Here, the best moments of the
show are found in the monologues in part because we never really feel the bond
that Suzanne’s family of origin is supposed to possess.
Structurally, the play contains a tremendous amount of
exposition in its opening scene. Mr.
Coffey appears to be aware of the potential for that section to drag, and seems to try to avoid that by having the actors, particularly Christopher
Bernhardt (“David”) and Leigh Strenger (“Suzanne”) deliver their lines in a
rapid-fire pace with the result that some comprehension is lost. For example, David has a lengthy monologue
explaining the set change that evolves before our eyes, but although Mr.
Bernhardt’s diction is uniformly precise and clear there is so much information
spit out in such a short period of time that we get the gist, but not the
emotional impact, of the reason for the shift in scene. Slowing the pace just a little would permit
us to assimilate the import of the change – and would permit it to have more
resonance throughout the remainder of the play.
Mr. Bernhardt’s depiction of David is energetic and
passionate, though it occasionally teeters into overacting particularly during David’s
arguments with his mother and sister, and Mr. Bernhardt’s tendency to speak
with his eyes shut is disconcerting to watch in a theater so small that no
detail is camouflaged by distance. His
interpretation is believably and unabashedly single-minded, dismissive of the concerns
raised by his family at a time when same-sex relationships were just starting
to be openly discussed and accepted by the general populace. Mr. Bernhardt delivers a strong
performance. But because none of the
other actors match his intensity, his reactions sometimes seem disproportionate
and David is therefore a less sympathetic character than he might be if the other
actors’ delivery of their perspectives was more emphatic; the production as a
whole would be improved if the other actors raised their energy levels to the
standard set by Mr. Bernhardt.
As the pregnant Suzanne, Ms. Strenger’s performance is
adequate but not evocative. She
describes her close relationship with David and the tension she feels about the
life-altering decision she faces, but we do not feel her confusion, stress or her devotion to her brother, and that omission leaves a striking void in the production as a whole. Ms. Strenger’s best performance is during her
monologue in which she explains why she chose to marry Rob, when she speaks
naturally and with an authenticity that is often lacking during her dialogue with the
other players.
Steven Robert Wright’s portrayal of Suzanne’s husband, Rob, is
uneven. He is persuasive when discussing
his relationship with his wife and her family, and his monologue focusing on
the positive argument for genetic engineering is well-delivered and credible. Mr. Wright’s interpretation, however,
downplays Rob’s homophobia to the extent that it is a mere footnote in this
production, and that choice has significant ramifications in a show in which
the need for unconditional acceptance is the central theme – including removing
a primary basis for Suzanne’s internal conflict, and diminishing the foundation
for David’s heated reaction.
Similarly, it eliminates the foil for the attitude displayed
by Suzanne’s father, Walter, played by Steve Suskin. Mr. Suskin plausibly depicts a pragmatic view
of the conflict not noticeably tarnished by the prejudice and aversion that
should be suggested by Rob’s character. Because there is little discernable difference between the two men's attitudes toward David, however, this production lacks the tension that would add context to David's ultimate decision. Mr.
Suskin’s performance is believably dispassionate during his interactions with
the family, but his finest moment is the monologue which gives us a brief but
compelling insight into Walter’s innermost thoughts.
As Suzanne’s mother, Phyllis, Missy Hoffman-Bernstein delivers a
relaxed performance that at its best is warm and genuine, but occasionally causes
her character to fade into the background.
Ms. Hoffman-Bernstein does not always stay in the moment and at times
anticipates another actor’s lines rather than credibly reacting to them, but
her delivery of Phyllis’ concern about her use of a thermometer is spot-on and
deservedly receives the biggest laugh of the show.
Mr. Coffey makes good use of the set and the action is
well-blocked. Samantha Johnston’s light
design, especially of the upstage portion of the set, is creative but leaves Mr. Bernhardt largely in the dark during the
first part of his initial monologue. As
a result, we are left searching for the source of the voice, which distracts us
from the content of the speech and adds to the disconnect in the
comprehension of the exposition until he approaches the steps and enters the
light.
The set, designed by Donna Lawheed, and the costumes by Mary
Lou Mahlman are both time-period appropriate and effective -- as is the use of
the music which is played during the show and before the performance and during
intermission to subtly maintain the early-1990s atmosphere, thanks to sound
designer Robin Chapman and music consultant John Saetta.
Bottom line? The Twilight of the Golds is a play that
sets forth a variety of viewpoints and then strongly advocates one of
them. This production does not perhaps
make us feel as much as we could about the controversy presented, but it does
make us think … and is worth the time and the ticket price.
Performances run thru February 3rd, Friday –
Saturday at 8 p.m. and Sundays at 2:30 p.m.
at the Little Theatre of Virginia Beach,
Tickets are $17 ($14 for matinees) with discounts for
seniors, students and active military.
Reservations can be obtained by calling the box office at
(757) 428-9233
or online at ltvb.com.