Tourist Guide

When I first heard that we were going to watch “The Break of Noon,” an off-broadway play, I was excited. I have never watched an off-Broadway play and in my mind, I imagined a glamorous theater. To my surprise, the Lucile Theater was unlike anything I imagined. It was just a typical small and old theater with no fancy decorations. Despite the smallness of the theater, my hype for play did not go away. I was excited to see David Duchovny, who starred in X-Files and Californication, and Amanda Peet.

The play began with a bleeding David Duchovny giving a monologue on the office shooting that had killed 37 people. As John, the character Duchovny was playing, tries to recreate what happened from his memories, he began to ramble. I felt that the monologue was too long and failed to capture the audience’s attention. The darkness of the theater and rambling of John made it hard to keep awake. When the monologue ended, the bright lights and sudden change to the second scene woke me up.

The storyline of the play was simple: a man who changed himself after experiencing a life and death situation. Although the general plot of the play was not very interesting, the actors were the ones that made the play worth watching. David Duchovny, Amanda Peet, John Earl Jelks, and Tracee Chimo were all exceptional actors and actresses. I was more impressed with the two actresses than the two actors. Amanda Peet, who played the dual roles of Ginger and Jesse, depicted the characters perfectly.  Ginger was rational, while Jesse seemed to be the type of girl that always had mood swings. Despite the differences in the two characters, Amanda Peet was able to easily submerge into the role and do a great job in her performance. Next was Tracee Chimo, who played the role of Gigi. She was a hooker in the play, trying to seduce John, however, after the constant denial of John for her services, she reverted to her real self. She burst into tears as she talked to John about her mother. The sudden change in attitude surprised me and I found her acting very convincing.

Although I felt that this play was the highlight of my IDC class so far, I still have several criticisms for it. Like many of my classmates, I felt in some scenes, the acting was forced. There were times when I felt that the lines Duchovny said did not fit in with the play. I also did not like the ending. I was expecting the ending to be a surprise, shocking everyone that Duchovny was part of the massacre. Instead, the opposite happened. Duchovny was saved by God and in the last scene, he was lifted up from the floors. I felt that this ending was lacking and could’ve been better. What I really liked about this last scene though was how the director coordinated Duchovny to wear white, and by shining the light on him, the audience’s attention would be directed to the top portion of his body. This allows the director to give the audience the allusion that Duchovny is floating up in the air. Overall, this was an enjoyable experience and I hope to see more off-Broadway or Broadway plays in the future.

I was astonished at the size of the Lucile Theater. I wasn’t expecting a performance for a hundred or so people; it made a more intimate setting in a way. I appreciated the proximity to the actors and that I was able to hear and see everything so clearly. I usually don’t go to small plays like these ones, but I am now more interested and open-minded about these “off-broadway” events.

The beginning was very strange I must say. The monologue, which I thought was never going to end, finally ended with a huge “boom” and a blinding light, and continued to do so at the end of every scene. It was quite annoying and hurt my eyes, but it did keep me wide-awake. Later I realized that this related to the storyline: it was almost as if the audience was experiencing the same thing that John Smith had experienced when God saved him. I also noticed that there wasn’t any music in the background, or for the most part. It allowed me to relate to the play and have a more intimate connection – not like watching a musical or even a TV show.

Overall I liked the play. I didn’t particularly like his performance, especially his monologues or when he had to be very emotional. It just seemed forced and unnatural most of the time, which didn’t allow me to fully enjoy the play. I thought that other supporting actors outshined him that night, and maybe it was only that night. Who knows?

If I had to ask one question to the scriptwriter, I would definitely ask him why he even thought about writing about such a topic. It seemed very bizarre to me that so many people would first of all be against John Smith and say that he was bluffing, but also why would so many people care that he thought God saved him? It just didn’t make sense to me. Doesn’t this happen all the time in real life? I would just never bother to harass a person for their near death experience, even if I don’t think they were really saved by mystical creature.

Although I was sore about having to stay late in the city after school, I was actually pretty excited about seeing “Break of Noon.” After attending an opera and a dance festival, a theatrical play would be a welcome change as this type of art is easiest for me to understand and interpret. Also, David Duchovny would be playing a lead role and I was eager to see the star of X-Files, one of my favorite shows from my childhood, in person.

The play was performed in Lucile Theater, which is located in West Village. Upon arriving, I was instantly surprised at its appearance. The theater is rather small and plain, and easily blends in with its surrounding environment. I did not think that Hollywood stars such as David Duchovny or Amanda Peet would perform at such a venue.

The play captivated me from the very first second and kept me interested until the very end. The dramatic loud noise and bright lights at the start of each scene created suspense and produced the feeling that the audience was being put into the very heat of the action in every scene. Although I prefer going into any performance completely unaware of what I will see, I will indulge those of you who would rather have some background information.  The play follows a less-than-perfect man who alleges that he saw and was saved by God during a violent attack on his office building by a mad assailant. After this holy experience, the main character, John Smith, goes on a quest to spread the message of God, which is “to be good.”

My favorite aspect of the play is that, although its general theme is somewhat clichéd, it presents a new spin on the idea of man seeing God. John Smith is the last person one would expect to have a holy experience, as he is a man guilty of many sins, such as adultery. However, he stays true to his cause, even in the face of mockery from others.

At first, the ending of the play seemed pretty straightforward. However, as I walked out of the theater and began discussing the play with my classmates, I realized that it could be interpreted in many ways. Such endings often point to successful works, as it means that people were genuinely enthralled by the content of the play and were kept interested throughout the entire performance. I know I enjoyed the “Break of Noon” because I could not stop talking about it for the entire train ride home.

To this day I still have no idea why they called the play “The Break of Noon.”  Of all the ways to summarize what happened to John, I find that the chosen title just made no sense.  But…never mind.

My friends and I came into the theatre after grabbing a snack at a nearby pizza parlor, expecting a long night.  We had heard of David Duchovny prior to this performance from “Californication,” but despite that, just the idea of staying out so late on a weekday wasn’t a very pleasant thought.  The theatre was quaint and lively, and our class got to sit in the upper deck.  I couldn’t see the stage from my seat, and so I was afraid that we wouldn’t be able to see anything when the performance started, but to my surprise the stage was much closer.

The start of the play felt like an emergency evacuation–sirens were blaring and red lights were flashing in our eyes.  It was so surreal and dramatic, and it set the tone for the rest of the story.  Unfortunately though, despite the eye-catching opening, the first scene where John talks to the audience about what just happened was quite long-winded.  Apparently, some madman came into his office and began shooting everyone, and through some miracle, John himself was the only one left alive.

The transitions between each scene was quite obnoxious in my opinion.  Couldn’t the director of the play create a more smooth transition between each scene other than flashing blinding lights right into our eyes?  The intensity of the lights felt as if someone had punched me.

The acting jobs done by David Duchovny, Amanda Peet, John Earl Jelks, and Tracee Chimo were all spectacular, but the theme of the play felt outdated.  The gist of the movie was about John and his sudden belief in God, and how society refused to believe that God saved him from such a horrible disaster.  He made references to things like Facebook during the play, but despite that, the omnipresent theme of God and “seeing the light” felt a bit strange to an atheist like myself.

There was a lot of cursing and harsh emotions exchanged throughout the story, some of which felt rather forced.  Add to that a rather out-of-place sex scene (if you can call it that), and a rather intrusive talk show host, and you get a play that has problems with cohesion.  It was hard to suspend my belief throughout the play, and that definitely took away from the experience.  The end of the play was unsatisfying, to tell the truth–I had expected something shocking to be revealed from the body language John expressed to a skeptical police officer.  I expected something sort of camaraderie between him and the murderer, but instead, the audience is given more questions to ponder.  How did he take the picture?  How did the gun simply not work?  The play ended with a scene of him supposedly levitating, and I left the theatre hungry and confused.

Despite having a brand name like David Duchovny in the play, I’d say pass on this one.

When I found out I would need to stay late in school on Wednesday to see some off Broadway play that I had never heard of I was less than thrilled. I had the preconceived notion that this was going to be like Film Forum round two. And that did not bring a smile to my face.

When the lights went on and the play began I was pleasantly surprised. The opening scene immediately grabbed my attention. I was not really sure what was going on or what David Duchovny was talking about, but it left me wanting to know more. From there on I was completely hooked.

The lights and loud music in-between each scene really added to the show. It helped heighten the tension and kept my attention focused on the plot completely.

When the wife came onto the stage I thought she looked a little bit like Amanda Peet. And then I realized, it was Amanda Peet, which was pretty cool too. It was shaping up to be a star-studded cast in a random little theatre in the village. The only two actors I did not recognize were Gigi and the lawyer. They were such great actors themselves that the two main stars did not overshadow them. The lawyer, played by John Earl Jelks, had a really great way of delivering his lines. Everything came out so humorous that I was cracking up the whole time, as was a certain female in the front row who made me laugh even more. Gigi, played by Tracee Chimo, was one of the most emotional prostitutes I have ever seen. When she broke down about her mother on the job, it seemed so real. As I sat there I actually felt bad for her and everything she was going through on stage.

When the play was over, I left the theatre in good spirits. I really enjoyed the performance. The best part of the whole show came after the curtains had fallen. I got to meet David Duchovny and Amanda Peet and I even got a picture with both of them! Overall it was really a great night.