← February, 1993

Review: Shmulnik's Waltz

Barry Pearl and Gene Freedman in Shmulnik's Waltz

Barry Pearl and Gene Freedman in Shmulnik’s Waltz.

Actors Alley Repertory Theatre, 12135 Riverside Drive, North Hollywood, (818) 508-4200

by Jeff Nelson

“Shmulnik’s Waltz,” the second outing of the Actors Alley Repertory Theatre’s ’93 season, describes itself as a “romantic look at a poor, honest, lower-class immigrant who follows the woman of his dreams to New York’s Lower East Side.” That’s a nice way of describing the plot. There is very little else that happens in the play: a man sees a beautiful woman and decides to follow her everywhere, ignoring the protests of almost everyone, including the woman’s own father. “Stalking,” but we won’t go into that here. The problem with this play is that it should be a light-hearted description of Jewish immigrant life at the turn of the century, filled with touching and comical portraits of those who packed the tenement houses of the Lower East Side. What we get instead is a dull story and cartoon characters who are as two-dimensional as they are cliché. The story lurches along, trying to find a consistent tone, but never quite getting it. The characters get caught in a distracting blind alley (or horah), as the case may be.

The evening is not a total loss, however, due mainly to a valiant effort on the part of Barry Pearl, who plays Shmulnik with an animated charm and humor. His characterization is so engaging you want to like the guy, but his obsessive persistence in some ways resembles a worn-out record. Rachel, the object of Shmulnik’s affection, is played by Llea Soloway, whose cheerful energy manages to bring life to an underwritten character. Also worth noting are Shirin Amini, who plays Foyle, Rachel’s jealous and unhappy suitor, and John Edwin Shaw, who plays the stupid fiancé. Amini’s energy would have driven Foyle’s jealousy home more effectively in a mellower, more believable character, and Shaw has a dry delivery that is a sympathetic portrayal of a dim-witted fool.

It must be said that the audience at this performance was almost as bad as the play. There appeared to be some form of reluctant recognition when some of the major emotions finally penetrated the impasse. And it is doubtful that there would have been any applause at all at the conclusion of the first act, if some brave soul had not started it, thus avoiding an embarrassing silence. ♦