Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll
Stark Raving Theater
3430 SE Belmont St, 232-7072

Let's pretend I just saw a show called Pigs & Dogs, only to discover that it isn't really about pigs and dogs at all. Would I be upset about this false advertising? Not really. I like pigs and dogs as much as the next guy, sure, but I also don't consider them to be provocative subject matter for a dramatic performance piece, and thus would not be incredibly upset if said piece didn't exploit their mammalian hides for all they were worth.

The only time I would ever judge a play by such a standard--that is, how well the title connects to the subject matter--would be if its title promised me something really cool, or controversial, and then failed to be as controversial or cool as that title insinuated. Say I went to a one-man show starring David Seitz called Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll, only to discover that it was really just about pigs and dogs. Then I would be pissed.

Well, I DID see Seitz's Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll, and it WASN'T about pigs and dogs, but it wasn't really about sex, drugs, or rock & roll, either, and yes, I'm pissed. I am pissed because the play made a point to advertise intensity in its title--I'm sorry, but any title that screams three of America's favorite vices in loud, crooked fonts is advertising intensity--and then failed on multiple levels to match that intensity in terms of actual content.

I don't blame Seitz's talent for this. He is a versatile performer with a knack for transforming himself into characters that are utterly distinct from each other. Here, he gets to transform seven times. He becomes a weird, soft-spoken bum, an asshole corporate executive, and even an uptight homosexual.

But none of these characters talk about or do anything interesting. The executive makes several calls on his cell phone, and proves his assholeness by talking about how rich and sleazy he is, but then that segment ends and we are left with just that: he's rich and sleazy. The homosexual orders his food for a while, checks out the waiter's butt, and then that segment ends and we are left with: he's gay. These aren't characters, but caricatures, with only the most surface-level dilemmas for Seitz to draw on. He's not acting, but mimicking.

The show also has no cohesion--it feels more like seven one-man one acts than one complete one-man show. None of the characters' stories connect in any way, and I saw no recurring themes that might have worked to tie things together. Eric Bogosian's script isn't funny either, drowning all its humor potential in a sea of easy stereotypes. One character is a psycho who wants to beat up rich people, another a trashy tough guy who likes partying--I've seen more original ideas on Step By Step.

Seitz gives it his all, but he can't save this material from its own boring-ass roots. I think it would have been better if it had been about pigs and dogs--that, at least, would have been a surprise.