I had a couple of reasons for choosing to review this play. Chief among them was the fact that out of the four shows I was interested in seeing, the ticket for Around the World in 80 Days was, at $45, the cheapest. Don’t get me wrong, though—I was excited to see the play. I remember reading the book on my own in fourth grade, and absolutely loving it.
The year is 1872. Our main hero is an Englishman by the name of Phileas Fogg. Despite the fact that he’s very wealthy, he lives a modest life, and he lives it with machine-like precision (in fact, in the beginning of the story, we learn that he fired his old manservant for bringing him shaving water that was 84 degrees, instead of 86). He’s a bachelor, and has no relatives or friends; in fact, the only thing he has by way of a social life is his membership to the Reform Club. The plot of the story is set in motion one evening when the other Club members discuss an article in The Daily Telegraph that declares that, thanks to the completion of a new railway in India, it is now possible to travel around the world in just 80 days. The other Club members are skeptical of this claim, but Fogg believes that it is entirely possible. Thus, a wager is made between Fogg and the other members for 20,000 pounds (about $8.5 million USD in 2013, according to the playbill), and with only a carpetbag, a few articles of clothing, half his bank account, and Passepartout, his newly hired manservant, Fogg sets off on his trip around the world. Throughout the journey, he is pursued by a Scotland Yard detective named Fix, who believes Fogg is a bank robber, and whose desperate efforts to arrest him while he’s still on British soil fail comically each time.
When I arrived, I realized that the ticket seller at the Tkts booth hadn’t been kidding when she said it was a small theater. It was in what had obviously once been an apartment building, and if it hadn’t been for the posters and signs declaring the name of the show, I’d have probably passed by it without a second thought. The inside of the theater was even smaller—there were only twelve rows, and another three on the balcony. The rows were only 10 seats wide, excluding the aisle. I knew I had paid to see an off-Broadway show, but this theater was smaller than the one at my high school. Still, I had high hopes, just based on the room decoration: both walls on either side of the orchestra were painted to look like a room with windows overlooking the rooftops of London.
The show did not disappoint. From the very beginning, it was exactly the sort of “fun frolic” the playbill promised it would be, and just the kind of hilarious, wild-goose-chase adventure I personally felt a story of its kind ought to be.
One of the things that struck me was how much the actors were able to do and show with such a small space, a set that remained the same throughout the entire show, and so few props. The stage was only as wide as the room, and included a second tier that appeared even smaller; most of the props were already built into the set, and a few of the ones that weren’t were as simple as two steamer trunks and a wooden column that served as both a custom official’s desk and the helms of two different steamships. But uniformity of the set and the simplicity of the props only served to showcase the skills of the actors even more—at various points in the show, they were able to vividly recreate in the audience’s minds the images of an elephant ride though the jungle, a ship caught in a typhoon, and a journey by train across the Great Plains.
Another thing I was really impressed by was the actors’ flexibility. In one of the online summaries of the show, it was touted that the play only had five actors playing some 80 roles. I went into the show wondering how they were going to pull that off; I left it with the answer, “with seeming ease”. With the exception of Guy LeMonnier, who portrayed Phileas Fogg himself, all the actors had many roles to play and different outfits to don, with character and outfit changes often taking place right onstage. What was incredible was the fact that they were able to make each minor character memorable; in particular, I was very impressed with James Seol. Although all of his characters were minor, he was able to bring each one to life and give them all distinct, unique personalities. In the beginning of the play, for example, he’s a member of the Reform Club, and seems as though he was written by someone whose entire knowledge of English culture came from watching Monty Python; later on, he reappears as General Proctor, a gun-slinging cowboy who’s the very embodiment of zealous American patriotism. Those are only two of the wide range of roles he popped up in, but given how radically different they are, I think it’s a testament to his ability that he was able to perform as two radically different characters.
I was very happy watching the play. It was clever, and it kept me laughing the whole way through. I would definitely watch it again.
