Beginning actors are usually put through a training exercise in which Person A and Person B are given opposite objectives and then told to go at it until the director says stop. Paul Leeper’s play, “Dangerous Heterosexuals” is little more than a drill of this type.
The play opens with a former prostitute, who may or may not be named Rachel, preparing to kill herself. Just before she is able to complete her plan, a man, who may or may not be a Bible salesman, interrupts her. For the next two hours, the audience watches Lewman try to sell Rachel a Bible.
This is the world premiere of Leeper’s play, so it stands to reason a few kinks would remain to be worked out. But there are so many kinks one has to wonder how this play was afforded the privilege of a full staging. The largest flaw is the script’s complete lack of subtext. Lewman and Rachel say exactly what they mean and though the Bible stands in for some sort of metaphor for salvation, this is never made clear or fully explored. This lack of depth unfortunately makes the script sound like something a televangelist would write.
At least televangelists provide entertainment in a tacky, trainwreck type of way. The actors, because of poor source material, bad direction or a combination of the two, are left anchorless on stage, reciting lines without emotion. Tom Parkhill’s experience shows through when his character’s mood swings from desperately needy to false bravado. However, no one seems to have made a choice as to what his motives are, causing his portrayal to be decent but uneven.
Biz Lyon may look lovely onstage, but her line readings are flat and confusing. The way she runs over laugh lines demonstrates even she and director Bruce Borin never figured out what the play was trying to be.
Surprisingly, Parkhill and Lyon are able to surmount these problems and develop some chemistry together. It’s an awkward, delicate chemistry, but that is precisely what the situation calls for. The play is at its best when their characters are interacting with each other, not talking at each other.
“Dangerous Heterosexuals” sometimes toes the line of Theatre of the Absurd, but since that line is never completely crossed, it cannot be evaluated as such. “Do you want a Bible?” “No.” “Do you want a Bible?” “No.” This frequent exchange and non sequitur dialogue that is supposed to be meaningful sounds like a third rate Samuel Beckett. And the cloying, ambiguous but happy ending is predictable but does not fit with the tone of the piece.
The standout of the evening was the set. The realistic representation of a cheap apartment was spot on with cheerlessly yellow walls and a working but empty refrigerator.
With some rewrites and confident direction, “Dangerous Heterosexuals” has hope. Until then, it’s a two-hour exercise in tedium.
