Review: Phoenix Theatre's 'North of the Boulevard'

February 21, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

You can almost smell the set in the Phoenix Theatre's production of Bruce Graham's play "North of the Boulevard" (running through March 9).

Trip's Auto is the kind of place where the desk chair is held together with tape, the lights seem ready to short circuit at any moment, and outsiders are never quite sure who works there and who's just hanging out. It's not mentioned, but I'm guessing Trip's prices are pretty cheap. He's no saint, but he's trying to do the right thing.

But doing the right thing is becoming more complicated. And a neighbor's tree pushing its way through his wall is among the least of his problems.

I had the pleasure of seeing a number of Graham plays during his stint with the Philadelphia Festival Theatre for New Plays and his latest brings back memories of some of the better of them. His characters feel as if they've been around long before the play began and he creates an atmosphere where the humor and the tension come from their inability to control each other while they try to make use of their own damaged moral compasses. 

Smart, humane, and at times very funny, "North of the Boulevard" may call to mind some of the work of David Mamet. But Graham's rhythm is different. And the Phoenix foursome (Joshua Coomer, Rich Komenich, Ben Rose, and Bill Simmons) sometimes finds that rhythm, sometimes not. The early part of the play, where anecdotes, jokes, and details can seem random, is essential to establish this world and its people, but on the Thursday I attended, it often seemed rushed, as if the goal was to move as quickly as possible to the end-of-the-first-act incident that propels the action.

When it paused to let its characters breath, the production worked beautifully, finding the humor, humanity, and suspense in their desperation.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT