Waterfall play review

Waterfall is the kind of show you go to see with such high expectations, but leave feeling regretful, uncomfortable, and confused about the whole thing. Produced by Theater Gargantua, and performed at Factory Theater, the physical and multidisciplinary show left me upset, lost, and eventually, completely uninterested. Overall, the plot was quite hard to follow, especially since the scenes that followed the main storyline were broken up. I enjoyed watching the dancing in the beginning, as the moves emulated the movement of water and the shape of waves. However, as the play went on, the movements in the dances became quite harsh and sharp, which was hard to analyze the meaning of. This led to so much confusion and wasted time. Just like these dancing scenes that got progressively worse, as the play went on, the scenes diverted farther and farther from the plot, and made less sense. The ending was what did it for me, as it was clear that the actors didn’t know how to end the play properly. This was quite unsatisfying, and proved to me that I had just wasted 75 minutes of my life, watching aimless, awkward theatre. 

The play explored themes of the profound connections and relationships that occur between humans and water, the large mystery around water, and tries to answer questions such as what is it? And why do we depend on it so much? It opened with a 3 minute monologue that was dry, dull, and extremely boring. In addition, there was absolutely zero movement and staging that would have at least made it a little bit more interesting for the viewers. Way to hook the audience! As the play goes on, a diving mission unfolds, plunging the characters to the deepest place on Earth. The narrative explored the effect that water can have on your life and relationships, producing emotional scenes, such as the little girl who was scared that the water was going to take her dad away from her, and the bathroom scene where both people had different views of water, based on past experiences, jobs, and knowledge. As the play unfolds, it addresses facts and statistics such as, 71% of the world is made up of water, but only 60% of people in this world have access to clean water. The play compared the beauty and danger of water, while talking about curiosity and the human desire to explore and put ourselves at risk just to learn more. Water is so familiar and simple to us, but on a molecular level, it is so mysterious, complex, and confusing.  

The one aspect that I did like about the play was the set design by Michael Spence. I thought the use of multipurpose pillars was extremely creative and like nothing I’ve ever seen before. I liked how the transitions weren’t too long, which allowed me to stay engaged and interested in the play. Efficient and effective transitions contribute to the overall pace and flow of a production, and are crucial to holding the audience's attention. The set is a visual representation of the story. When transitions are seamlessly executed, it contributes to the message and allows an uninterrupted flow of the narrative. Therefore, versatility of set pieces is crucial for swift transitions. Using the pillars with different elements was a really smart way of having a minimalist set, but still making it work for the whole show. For example, I really liked the part where they turned the blocks into the submarine for the first time. At the beginning, I was extremely confused about why the set looked so minimal and mundane, so it was really surprising and impressive when they successfully took the pillars from random blocks to looking like and having the feeling of a functioning submarine. 

An actor who played a big role in the play, and an even bigger role in making me uncomfortable and frustrated was Muhaddisah. I thought she didn’t do a good job at selling her characters. She was stereotypical and dull when she was acting like a child. For example, when she played the little girl, she wasn’t convincing, and her acting made the scene feel very uncomfortable, cringey, and unrealistic. It was so bad that we could have done without the scene entirely and still had the same, disorienting effect after the play, just with less disappointment and second hand embarrassment. Most of the time when she was acting, I was extremely lost, as she didn’t do a good job of making the scenes feel realistic. Children, like adults are multidimensional, however, Muhaddisah’s acting made it feel as if I was watching a cartoon for children, instead of what was supposed to be a purposeful, deep and inquisitive play, talking about the complex relationship between humans and water. Her acting was very animated, and extremely shallow. This poor portrayal of the little girl diminished the authenticity of the character, and made it more challenging for the audience to really connect with her, and understand the true purpose of the scene. 

Yes, Michael Spence may have a knack for making creative set designs, but if he’s aiming for success in the theatre world, I suggest he stick to that, and leave the interpretive dancing and poor acting behind. As the play went on, and my interest waned, the effectiveness and enjoyment I felt watching interpretive dancing decreased, and Michael Spence played a large part in this. Somewhere around the middle of the show, the soft, flowy moves made to emulate waves turned into jagged, abstract body movements that made Michael look like he was being electrocuted. This only made me feel more perplexed while watching him, because all the other actors seemed to be moving as though they were drowning. As an experienced actor, who spent over a year in workshops preparing for the show, Michael should have known that his dancing looked nothing like the rest of the cast’s, and fixed it, before putting his poor dancing skills on display. If Michael was unable to accept his poor choice of moves, then at least the director, Jacquie PA Thomas, should have spared him the embarrassment and poor reviews. Since acting and dancing are such powerful tools in converting emotions and messages, bad performances fail to evoke intended emotions, thus taking away the meaning of the dance, and decreasing the effectiveness of the play.  

Overall, the ending felt extremely rushed, and it was clear that they didn’t know how to appropriately finish the play, so they left it up to the viewers to interpret. Because there was no specific conclusion, it was extremely confusing and unsatisfying, and left me feeling disappointed and regretful that I had even had high hopes for the play in the first place. It was so bad that I didn’t even know the play was done, even after the lights went off and the curtain came down, until the audience started clapping. So if you’re interested in plays that explore a simple thing like water in an extremely complicated and dry way, that leaves you expecting an intermission, then I would highly recommend Waterfall. Otherwise I would never sabotage you by wasting 75 minutes of your life, by recommending you to see this play.