Review: A CHRISTMAS CAROL Lacks Enchantment

When you hear the title A Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens, it is hard to not instantly recall the timeless story of Ebenezer Scrooge and the Christmas Spirits that visit him to try and turn him from his wretched ways. However, sitting in the audience of the sold out opening show for South Bend Civic Theatre's A Christmas Carol, I realized that I would not be watching that classic Christmas story with a "South Bend adaptation" that was touted to patrons. Rather, don't expect the original story to take place in South Bend, but instead become a story within a story about... South Bend? Confusing, right? I know I was confused for the better portion of the show because while I'm sure there were good intentions, the pieces just did not come together to make a cohesive and understandable performance.

Reading the playbill before the show, director Kevin Dreyer states that he wanted to direct a version of A Christmas Carol that: "honors the traditions of storytelling, the richness of Dickens' language, and the city of South Bend and its people," and at the same time playwright David Chudzynski (who authored the adaptation currently on stage) writes: " (he wanted) to stay true to the strong fabric of Dickens' language, plot and characters, but to interweave threads of experience from the lives and events that have helped make South Bend..." So for the most part one would expect that almost everything might stay the same from the original story since they want to "honor the traditions" and "stay true to the strong fabric" but that it might perhaps take place in South Bend, take certain stylist liberties, or the characters might be more "South Bendian"? Well... it does for some of it but then again it doesn't for a lot of it. In this adaptation, a family lives in South Bend where the father has recently been laid off by the locally historic Studebaker company. To keep spirits up, the mother has decided to continue the annual Christmas tradition of reading A Christmas Carol to her children...and then as she reads, the story of Scrooge unfolds on stage...and that is pretty much it for the South Bend aspect. The family pops back in every once in a while in between scenes about Scrooge and they have a very sentimental learning experience at the end (much like Scrooge does) but that is about as South Bend as it gets besides mentioning Studebaker quite often. There are also factory workers from Studebaker who narrate the story but offer little insight into their personal South Bend or Studebaker experiences, so they are really just more actors and bodies on stage adding to an already convoluted show.

Chudzynski states in his creative message that the adaptation's purpose is: "(to) depict a few people who were affected by the events," of Studebaker but that really isn't shown here. If you wanted to really advertise a show that is supposed to honor South Bend then either do that or write a whole new play! Because now, this "adaptation" has just kind of gone wayward in no definite direction; definitely not a South Bend direction and definitely not the classic Dickens direction either.

The "adaptation" part doesn't end there as there has been a lot of creative license taken in regards to the original story. There are so many choices made on stage, almost all done half-heartedly to the point that it is extremely confusing. One third of the time actors are using actual props in their hands such books or trading cards, another third is spent miming with their hands such as writing or leaning on a desk or opening an invisible door, and another third the actors themselves are actual props. Yes, the actors are sometimes a coat hanger or window shutters - which would be fine, if it was done from the very beginning, all the time, and made sense for the show. There are other more bizarre choices such as when a scene from the original A Christmas Carol is being performed on stage and they are at a party dancing when the very recognizable hit song "Twist and Shout" by the Beatles starts to play and that just didn't jive with the original scene's atmosphere (seeing as that song most definitely did not exist in that era). Not only that, but the character Christmas Present had an extremely interesting costume which consisted of a superman apron, a red cape, and a cowboy hat. The show was riddled with slow entrances and exits, stagnant blocking, conversational scenes that seemed to drag on, and a few awkward silences where I am not sure whether they were due to actors not knowing their lines or someone forgetting what came next. Regardless, all together these things made the show lack synchronicity.

However, the show was not without some silver-linings. The main part of the set is a very "Barbie Dream House-Esque" type of room that opens and closes when pulled a part and the doors can be bent in different angles to designate different scenes which is very impressive. Also, the best scene of the entire show is when Scrooge decides to raise Bob Cratchit's salary. It is played extremely sincerely and is both warm and loving - definitely the type of catharsis that is much needed and the scene that garnered the most audience reaction. There are also two actors who stood out above all that made the show tolerable and regardless of what was going on around them, were able to really showcase their talent. Frank Quirk, who played Scrooge had a powerful voice that resonated throughout the entire audience, commanded our attention, and was versatile when needed; we saw both the despicable old Scrooge and then the tender and kind-hearted Scrooge. While not perfect in all of the lines' deliveries, Quirk is obviously talented in that he personified Scrooge from back-breaking crotchety slowness of an old man to a man truly terrified of what the future might bring him. Yes, Quirk made this show watchable because he was a beacon of light during a stormy mess on stage. The second actor who stood out was none other than Christmas Present (yes, the character that wore the superman apron and cowboy hat) played by Maureen Wojciechowski. Wojciechowski actually played more than one character, and each character was more distinct than the next, showcasing her ability to play multiple roles seamlessly between scenes. Each character was played with great "acting chops" as I was able to hear all of her characters clearly and they all seemed incredibly believable in their reactions to their surroundings and fellow actors. Wojciechowski was hard to miss when on stage because she very obviously commanded the stage.

It is important to remember that this is a community theatre, and you will not find Broadway professional shows here, however the South Bend Civic Theatre is a very reputable theatre that does put on extremely good shows. It is just that this one very much missed the mark. While I am sure a lot of the more unusual decisions had good intentions and could possibly be explained if there were a moment to talk about it, there just isn't a moment to do that when you are right there watching it. We don't have a pause button on a remote control to ask the director or author or anyone else that worked on the show why they chose what they chose while it is being watched in hopes that it might make more sense and therefore more enjoyable. No, instead we have to take the show for what we see it for, and if what we see doesn't make sense (even after a pause for thoughtful contemplation) then maybe it shouldn't have been done. We shouldn't have to constantly reference the director's "creative message" as though it were some kind of Rosetta Stone for convoluted symbolism.

In any case, see A Christmas Carol and decide for yourself - it might just be what you are looking for. For me however, I look forward to seeing the South Bend Civic Theatre's next production.

Photo Credit: Jon Gilchrist

To post a comment, you must register and login.