“It used to be a movie theater and it is the oldest one in the area that’s still standing remains untouched. Keep note of that and look around while you are there. You will see what I am talking about.” A fellow on the street relayed this information to me, unprovoked, after I simply asked for direction to the Lucile Theater. He insisted that I know some history before I entered the theater. Considering I knew little to nothing about what I was going to see and where, I found this tidbit of information very interesting.

As soon as I reached the theater, I saw exactly what that man was talking about. It was an old and modest looking theater with some very old movie posters on the wall. I was surprised to find out that such big starts as David Duchovney and Amanada Peet were going to be in the production. I was eagerly waiting for the performance.

The show started abruptly with a loud crash and flashing lights, and if I was not already, I became awake and alert. With a torn shirt, disheveled hair, and an exposed bloody leg, David Duchovney’s character, John Smith, in Breaking Noon sure looked like he had been through trauma, but he definitely did not act like it. David Duchovney’s monotone performance was very disappointing. He seemed unnaturally calm for someone who has just eye witnessed a killing spree prior to hearing the voice of God. I was expecting more from such a well-known actor. Amanda Peet on the other hand, even with the difficult task of playing two different characters, gave a much better stage performance. I think it was a better performance than I have ever seen her give before.

But it seemed that their lesser-known co-actors, Tracee Chimo and John Earl Jelks, out shined both Amanda and David. They both had such a great stage presence and truly became their characters. I was hard for me to even realize, until after the show, that they each played two very distinct roles.

One thing that stood out in my mind about the show was how successful they were able to portray a scene with such a modest set. Throughout the entire performance there were only a few props, yet the plot was so captivating that it is hard to say if they needed those props at all. I admire the fact that they used only a minimal amount of props, because it really forces the actors to completely hold the attention of the audience, and for the most part they did.

After watching a few seasons of Californication, I became a huge fan of David Duchovny and the show. You can only imagine how psyched I was to hear that we were going to watch an Off-Broadway play with Dave as the lead role. At the time, I couldn’t care less what this play was about. My mind was focused on actually seeing him in person after watching countless episodes on my computer screen. On that note, I will try to be as unbiased as I can in reviewing and critiquing The Break of Noon.

I’ve been to numerous Off-Broadway plays and many Broadway shows, and not one can even come close to competing with how quickly this one caught my attention. The sudden flashes of bright lights and loud sound jerked me forward every time. The opening monologue with John, David Duchovny, sitting in ripped and blood stained clothing created a sense of tension, which kept the audience interested and yearning to listen attentively.

There is character development from the first to last scene. Every scene we learn something new about John. I was extremely disappointed with the ending; because I felt the playwright was hinting the entire play that John created the notion of speaking to God. The levitation trick performed in the closing scene takes away from seriousness of the main conflict. I felt like that scene ruined the play.

The overall acting was top notch. Several scenes stand out when thinking of phenomenal acting. Tracee Chimo did an outstanding job as Gigi, the escort. She emotionally portrayed the character and applied herself to make the scene seem natural. Amanda Peet also played an exceptional role as Jesse. That scene would lose its uniqueness if it weren’t for her. The only negative critique I have is that sometimes I felt that the actors forced the lines, which ended up sounding like an unnatural and fake conversation. I’m not sure if that is the playwright’s fault for writing that script or the actor’s inability to grasp the act.

The Break of Noon is a must watch for anybody able to attend a viewing. It is not too often that an Off-Broadway theatre is able to have top-notch actors like David Duchovny and Amanda Peet perform together. I came in focused on Dave, and left the theatre pondering what actually happened. That’s what I call a successful play.

On one Wednesday night, I was there again – in front of the theater, waiting to watch The Break of Noon by Neil LaBute. This was the last show that I was going to see in this semester. Frankly, I expected small number of people, but the place actually turned out to be very crowded, majority of them being somewhat old. I thought, ‘what could be possibly attracting this many people to an off-Broadway show?’ and found out after the show that LaBute was a famous playwright who has written several off-Broadway plays before. I, neither familiar with the American culture nor the playwright himself, of course didn’t have any expectations. I just hoped it not to be boring so that I could stay awake.

I went into the theater and got my seat on the front row. I could see the stage clearly from the second floor. The only problem with seating was that a guy beside me was kind of big and the seats weren’t big enough to handle his size, so his arm kept touching my arm during the show which wasn’t really a pleasant experience. Other than that, I liked my seat. No one’s head was blocking my view, and I was ready to enjoy the show.

The show started with John Smith sitting on a chair with blood on his shirt. After a minute, it became clear that he was describing a massacre in his office building to the police officers. David Duchovny, the actor, acted so greatly in this part that it didn’t even seem like he was acting. He expressed the sorrow and fear of the only survivor very well. Anyways, in the play it turned out that Smith was the only survivor. Smith describes the situation with much detail, but it’s not very convincing. He claims that he heard a voice that held him from jumping off of the building, and he is 100% sure that it was God. People don’t believe him, but he doesn’t care. He tries to live a new life by being a messenger of God, even though he doesn’t naturally have a nice, friendly personality. At the end, his body is magically lifted up while he is preaching.

I still don’t understand if this play is pro-God’s existence or the other. In the beginning of the play, I thought this play wanted to show how God can perform a miracle and save a person, thus making him a sincere believer. However, as the play goes on, Smith seems far from being sincere, or even from witnessing the truth. He sells the picture of the victim to a magazine to get rich. He tries to justify it, but it’s clear from his attitude that he actually wanted the money. Also, his testimony becomes a little different every time he speaks about it. He adds on or changes some part slightly to make it sound better. That’s why I thought he was lying about the whole thing toward the end of the show. I expected some kind of reversal like he was the actual murderer. When he was preaching at his own place, I thought the police was going to come in and arrest him.

Maybe I had too much imagination. The show just ended with Smith being lifted up in the air. When I was finally able to realize that the show actually ended, I was really disappointed. I didn’t get the meaning of the ending at all. Maybe it was just me, but I wished that the play had more clear ending that didn’t confuse the audiences. However, I have to admit that this show really captured my mind and kept me interested the whole time. It was a great show overall. If I had a free ticket, without any doubt I would definitely watch this again.

Firstly, I was extremely disappointed that I had to leave early due to a situation at home.  This was definitely one of the best plays (probably one of the only ones) I have seen, yet it captured my attention within the first ten minutes, and kept me hooked for the time span that I was there.

The play starts out with John Smith being interviewed by the police officers after a massacre that occurred in the office where he worked.  Before the interview occurred, the theater room rumbled with the special effects, and the vibration from the special effects actually made it seem like the audience was where the incident took place.  Though there was no official police officer present, the interview seemed very legitimate, and John Smith did a good job representing a stunned witness.  Everyone else in his office was killed except for him, because of some sort of sign, which begins the rest of the play.

Later on, we find out that John snaps a picture of the murderer, and is at the office of his lawyer.  Though John talks about God as his savior, he later sells the photo, which really goes against religious views, or moral views.  He was profiting off something that could’ve easily helped the police.  From this point on, I knew that John’s life would be corrupted, because he would use the excuse of God to justify his reasoning.  It was inevitable that everything would go crashing.

Even though I did not watch the ending, I heard that it was very important to the whole play, and that it explained the whole play.  Since I wasn’t able to finish the play, I had to come up with my only conclusion.  Surprisingly, it wasn’t much different.  I knew something magical would have happened, which was John lifting off the ground at the end.

The environment of the play was great, because the audience was really engaged in the play.  There was just that one lady who had a really obnoxious laugh.  It was disappointing that she had to ruin certain scenes.  Also, the transitioning was extremely different.  The bright flash took me by surprise.  My reasoning for this was to wake up the audience, if they fell asleep!

Before the performance of Neil LaBute’s The Break of Noon began, my opinion of MCC Theater at the Lucille Lortel Theater was not great.  Prior to arriving to the off-Broadway theater, I was definitely not expecting an extravagant theater.  However, it was difficult for my opinion of the theater not to be lowered when the theater appeared to not have been renovated for 25 years (its entire life span), there was no hot water in the bathroom, and how can I forgot the constant draft of cold air that was blowing onto me during the performance.

Despite these inconveniences, I attempted to forget all of them and enjoy the show.  I had seen another of LaBute’s works Reasons to Be Pretty during its run on Broadway and am a big fan of that show.  Also, I was sure the show could not be extremely horrible if the well-known actor from “X-Files” David Duchovny was staring in it.

At the commencement of the show, the audience was not explicitly informed that the show was starting, but anyone could figure it out when the lights began to lower and noises of police and fire engines were loudly heard.  In the middle of the stage David Duchovny sat on a chair; he looked like he had just gone through a bad chain of events because he had blood on his shirt and much of his clothing was disheveled.  The brilliant thing about the writing of this opening scene is that everyone, despite if one knows anything about the show, can quickly understand what is going on in the story.  This is true throughout the entire performance; there was no part of the show where the audience is unaware of what is going on which is a huge success both on the part of Neil LaBute, and the actors as well.

One important thing to take notice of is even though the play incorporates seven characters, only four actors were in the show.  In other words, every actor besides David Duchovny played the role of two characters.  The quality of every single character’s performances was so exceptional that I did not notice this dual identity until extremely late in the performance.  A second thing to note is the way it was decided to do set changes.  At the end of a scene, the bright lights surrounding the stage sparked on, while the rest of the stage was dimmed with a blue light shinning upon it with just enough light so that the audience is able to watch the sets being changed.  This would make my old Theater teacher extremely proud; he always insisted that this was the only way to change a set while still capturing the attention of the audience.

Even though the performance of LaBute’s Break of Noon proved to be thoroughly entertaining, there is one huge problem with the performance; I am unsure what my end conclusion of the performance is supposed to be.  At the performance’s conclusion, I do not feel as though I completely understand the message that the playwright and actors were trying to tell. This can be a failure on the part of the playwright or actors of effectively communicating the point of the performance across; it can also be a misunderstanding on my part of what was said, which I doubt because everything was completely clear throughout the entire performance.  Maybe the Break of Noon isn’t supposed to leave the audience with a message; if this is true, I feel that all of LaBute’s and the actors hard work was all for nothing.