Happy 'Odd Couple' Day: a review

November 13, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Fans of '70s sitcom will recall that Nov. 13 is the day that Felix Ungar's wife threw him out, "requesting that he never returns."

Well, Nov. 13 is also the day that I'm telling you that "The Odd Couple," the Neil Simon play that lead to that sitcom (which included that narrated intro), is alive and well and in the very capable hands of Actors Theatre of Indiana, where it runs through Nov. 17. 

The premise of this Broadway smash is simple. Neat freak Felix, tossed out by his wife, moves in with slob friend Oscar Madison, whose wife threw him out not so long ago. The two attempt to navigate life together and high hilarity results. And I do mean high. I laughed more consistently at this production than I can recall laughing at anything in recent memory on Indiana stages.

Credit is due Simon, of course, whose plays have seemingly fallen out of favor in the theater world. (I can't think of the last one professionally produced here.) Simon's series of comedies that appeal to a wide-ranging audience lost their cachet in a world of $100+ Broadway tickets. But, as illustrated here in his best-known work, the man is a master at creating specific, very funny characters who, when smartly directed and acted, feel like they have lives both onstage and off. 

That's the case here. Oh, Bradley Reynolds' Felix may over-enunciate a bit too much for the intimate Studio Theater. And Don Farrell inherently doesn't fit the craggy Oscar familiar from TV and film. But together they deliver not only the punchlines but also the underlying affection that keeps the two from actually strangling each other. They come across as they should: As friends who drive each other crazy, not as stock characters manipulated by a writer. 

The standouts here, though, come from the supporting cast. The poker buddies, essential to getting the show off on a fun footing, are terrific. I was going to highlight Darrin Murrell as the dyspeptic Murray, but then I smiled thinking about Jeremy Grimmer's awkward Vinnie...and Adam O' Crowe's fed up Speed...and Dave Ruark's chain smoking accountant Roy. All big fun.

And then there are the Pigeon Sisters, as personified by Katy Gentry and Carrie Fedor (with the assistance of costume designer Margaret Ozemet). Unique creations, both, managing to be goofy, sensitive, oddly sexy, and, most importantly, very, very funny in their two showcase scenes. If only Simon had written a spin-off for them...

But Simon has written many more plays. And here's hoping first-time ATI director Jeff Stockberger gets to guide more of them in the near future. 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Loved it too!
    We've never gone to an Actor's Theatre production that's been anything other than wonderful. This had us laughing til we cried. Season tickets for us next year!
    • Spot on, Lou!
      I was pleasantly surprised how well the material held up after all these years. Still funny and fresh, actually. I agree about the supporting players; I found I was most involved when there were more than two people in a scene .The guys around the poker table had some great timing and hilarious moments. Loved it when the cast/crew worked together in those "stylized" scene changes, too. Nice evening for the price.
    • Agreement
      OK, to begin with, the word is cachet, not cache. But, that grammatical aspect aside, I agree: this is a marvelous play, Neil Simon has fallen out of favor through no fault of his own, his plays are truly delightful...

    Post a comment to this blog

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT