Village Theatre has debuted its new production of the 1983 Broadway smash, “Dreamgirls,” a show loosely based (at least, rumor has it) on the real-life history of Diana Ross and the Supremes. Well. I have a rant about that history, but I’ll save that for the end, since it has nothing specifically to do with this production.
And this production is superb.
As with all Village shows, the set design is clean and un-intrusive at worst, spellbinding at best. At no time does the set get in the way of what’s happening on stage and, at times, the set work and its seamless motion and placement actually serves to enhance, even MAKE some of the scenes.
Kudos also to the unseen costume department, for both design and execution of what our “Dreamgirls” wear. While the show isn’t specifically a “period piece,” it is set in the 1960’s (act 1) and the 1970’s (act 2). And, at least for us baby boomers, the costumes fit the scenes perfectly. Plus — and this is a BIG plus — costume changes actually become a part of the show and the story. There is one moment in particular when a costume change happens in the middle of a song . . . and it is MAGIC! (Performer is singing at a demo session; the lights darken for a moment and when they rise again, presto, she’s on stage, the song never faltering. Wow, just wow.)
The performances, I should add, live up to what’s happening around them. All of our Dreamgirls — there are four, despite what you may remember of The Supremes — have voice and have heart, and they have chops: singing and dancing and actually coming across as real people. They manage to become people you might like to meet, in a weird, fan-boy sort of way. It’s the first show in a while where I don’t want to single out any performance, because that would be to slight the others. Yes, going by the audience curtain-call applause, a couple of characters rose above the others . . . but I’ll leave that for you to decide when you see the show.
As for me, it’s also the first show in a while that I’d really like to see again. I’d never before experienced “Dreamgirls,” and I’m not a particular fan of that era of music — I lived through it and remember it well, but my tastes were elsewhere at the time — but this show sells itself. One caveat: it’s loud, which is, of course, perfectly in keeping with the era . . . but something good to know going in. (Turn down you hearing aids, baby boomers!) It’s also bright: remember, that’s a stage being portrayed on the stage, and that means spotlights and boom lights and LOTS of light. (If I’ve a complaint at all, it’s from being blinded a couple of times by rotating spotlights. Minor and momentary, but be prepared.)
Bottom line: if you’ve got the time and the energy, go see “Dreamgirls.” Despite the rant that follows, it’s more than worth it.
Now the rant: As entertaining as “Dreamgirls” is, it’s another damn show about show business! Come on, folks, I understand the concept of “write what you know” — but really? Surely some Broadway writers/producers know about something OTHER that show business! Or is it a case of National Enquirer syndrome? People Magazine, US Magazine, even TV Guide . . . all of them exist to feed a seemingly insatiable hunger to know every little thing about actors and actresses. Is it just that hunger carried over to the stage? I have no answers, just a vague emptiness when another show-about-shows hits the stage in front of me. Some are deliciously entertaining (like “Dreamgirls”), others are less so, but all leave me longing for the next “Sound of Music” or “Diary of Anne Frank” that show me the lives of people facing something more than the danger of being fired by a brat producer.
OK, rant done. Now, go see “Dreamgirls.”
“Dreamgirls,” a production of Village Theatre: at the Francis J. Gaudette Theatre in Issaquah through July 2; moving to the Everett Performing Arts Center, July 7 through 30.
