In 1928, Philip Barry's society drama, Holiday, debuted on Broadway. Ten years later it became a Hollywood success in a production starring a couple of kids named Grant and Hepburn. Stage revivals of the show have been scattered across the country over the past few decades. It gets dusted off for yet another stage production this month at the Sunset Playhouse in Elm Grove.

Tom Dillon struggles a bit as Johnny Case, a young man who has met and fallen in love with Julia Seton, a striking young woman born into wealth played with cold poise by Jacqueline K. Gosz. Case and Seton intend to announce their plans to marry to Seton's wealthy family. Julia's siblings have a fondness for Johnny. Ned (a charming Mark Neufang) is an alcoholic professional working for the family business who was once helped by Johnny. Linda (Jenny Kosek) wants desperately to get out of the drudgery of high society and is excited by Johnny's outsider status, not having grown-up into wealth.

With so much acceptance, Case and Seton's hope for her family's consent seems almost assured, but it just wouldn't be an early twentieth century social drama if everything went smoothly. Approval for Johnny and Julia's marriage rests squarely on the shoulders of Edward Seton: a frugal businessman who handles his first meeting with Case like it was a job interview. With the rest of the Seton family supporting him, Johnny perseveres, but other pressures call everything into question, as Johnny discovers that the price of his stock has grown to a point where he may not need to work again for a very long time.

Success in business finds Johnny at odds with Julia's ambition and Edward's desire for her to marry a respectable man. Johnny would prefer to existentially find himself and his purpose outside the business world, pushing him closer to Linda and Ned and further away from the rest of the immediate family.

The big conflict here is between the desire to get ahead and the desire to find meaning beyond the material world, which playwright Philip Barry rendered remarkably well in the script. It is interesting to note that the play Is set in 1928, when it debuted on Broadway, right before the dawn of the Great Depression when the economy collapsed. Ultimately, Johnny's decision to sell his hot stock while it was worth a fortune wasn't that bad an idea. Johnny would've gotten out of the stock market at just the right time, oddly enough. This puts a strange spin on the story, which was oddly visionary in its own way.

The Sunset Playhouse's production isn't that bad. Production values were perhaps the most impressive part of the whole show. Lush costuming by Costume Coordinators Pat Boeck and Betty Nordengren paint the stage adorned with a jaw-dropping set by J. Michael Desper. The set is exquisitely detailed and expertly designed. Sunset Playhouse can be forgiven for showing-off the set change between the second and third scenes, as it really IS impressive and effortlessly shows how the sets fit together.

Production aside, the quality of the performances vary a great deal. Some performances are completely flat while others have great emotional depth. Tom Dillon's performance as Johnny Case hits a great many marks with a great degree of insight, but one can't help but feel that he's still searching for the character in many places. Jenny Kosek plays the restless Linda Seton with a touching degree of humanity that may be worth the price of admission all by itself.

The Sunset Playhouse's production of Holiday plays now through December 31 in Elm Grove. Tickets are $16 ($20 on closing night) and can be purchased by calling the box office at (262) 782-4430.

12 comments about this article. Post a comment / write a review.

Recent Talkbacks ...

Posted by OMCreader on Dec. 13, 2005 at 7:50 a.m. (report)

PAUL PFANNENSTIEL said: I recently sent in two psotings last week and have yet to see either one posted so I will try again. However, if you are not going to post comments that you do not like I wish you would just say so and not make this a true open forum. I do not think that my comment was childish or off target. I feel that this review like too many others in this city spend far too much time and column space synopsizing the play and not enough actually reviewing the play. More than half of Mr. Bickerstaff's review was spent telling us what the play was about. He only mentioned three actors and missed talking about some of the other wonderful performances by the other actors such as Brian Zielinski and Cindy Zauner to name just two. Furthermore, if this is to be a truly open forum you need to print all postings and not just the ones you agree with or make you look good.

Posted by OMCreader on Dec. 11, 2005 at 12:37 p.m. (report)

Mary said: First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with the writer who expressed the opinion that this exchange is a healthy debate rather than the stone-throwing session that can so often occur in talkbacks such as these. In the case of the latter, I can't seem to sign off quickly enough and remove myself from the foolishness. Thank you for all the well thought-out comments that have preceded this posting. I, too, have worked as an actor-for-hire at Sunset, in the same type of situation a previous poster mentioned: an original show (requiring, then, no royalties be paid) with professional actors and very little needing to be created in terms of set and costumes. The theater offered us a fine and fair contract which they were delighted to do, the show sold out, and, in fact, was successful to the point that we were offered three such contracts there over a period of years. I also act at Sunset as a volunteer. I have performed in shows there that are superior to some I have done and been paid for elsewhere. I work in an efficient, diligent, and professional manner in any show I am cast. I hope I am not to conclude that in circumstances when I am not paid, I have not rehearsed of performed professionally. Theater, as we know, is subjective. There is amazing theater, thoughtful theater, good theater, not-so-good theater, bad theater, and sometimes even "gosh-I -wonder-if-I-can-slink-out-of-here-at-intermission-without-being-noticed theater. But for every show one may wish to slink out of, there is another group applauding it like mad at the final curtain. I have seen "non-professional" theater in this city that has made me sweetly weep, and "professional" theater that had me rolling my eyes. I've also witnessed the exact opposite. It's best, in my opinion, not to divide and label, but to see and discuss. When we see something we like, talk it up. None of the companies in this city need fewer bodies in the seats; indeed, this has been a hard time for attendance in most cases and, while I may be sounding just a little too "can't-we-all-get-along," I guess it is essntially what I am saying. Here's to healthy debate among performers and viewers alike (and so many of us are both!), and here's to all manner of theater...may we branch out and fill seats all over the city.

Posted by OMCreader on Dec. 11, 2005 at 12:00 p.m. (report)

Steve said: Thanks Joe, Your response was right on target. There are companies in Milwaukee that do take a risk. That is what has put Milwaukee on the map as a theater town. We have the quality of the REP,and the energy of the smaller companies. We will also always have the learning experience of Community theater, and the New York experience of a Broadway touring company. If one would take the time to study many recent hit Broadway plays--they started in small, low budget Off Broadway theaters,and moved on to Broadway. Examples: The Putman County SPELLING BEE, and Avenue Q, and Rent....plus the long running "A Chorus Line". They all took the RISK!!!

Posted by OMCreader on Dec. 10, 2005 at 1:10 p.m. (report)

Joe Orton said: I hope that all the posters are attending shows at ALL local theater companies. Let's distill the debate to the essence of the thing itself- Is it good or is it bad? Even dreck, well performed, has value insomuch that the audience has been entertained. But as an audience we owe it to ourselves to not only sample the confectionary. Sometimes Stong Meat is required to fortify the bones during a frothy holiday season. The Boulevard Theatre recently produced John Belluso's Pyretown (see the very positive review in this very publication). Not easy stuff; single welfare mother romances a stoner dude who happens to use a wheelchair. Did the script and production have flaws to be debated? Absolutely! But lets bring on the debate! Let's talk about difficult ideas and concepts. Let's be entertained by the act of engaging our brains in critical thought. This is the true value of our "small theater" companies. They are daring enough, flexible enough to take on the challenge of potential disaster to make the artistic leap of faith. All this strata of theater is mired is classism. Theater is much more like the baseball farm system. Good talent moves up to the majors. But the team itself needs to be there to assist in the growth. Ever watch a minor league team play. Good baseball with tomorrow's stars. I do not believe in wholly subsidized art. Bad companies should fail. They should not be rewarded for poor decisions and bad art. But let's congratlate those groups that are thriving in producing muscular theater on miniscule budgets. The by-product of course, is that the next generation of actors, directors, artistic directors have had the training to move up the ladder. Go see "small theater"- its good theater with tomorrow's stars.

Posted by OMCreader on Dec. 9, 2005 at 3:03 p.m. (report)

Bickering vs. Healthy Debate said: The comments on this article might actually be more entertaining and informative than the review! However, I would say that what has been exchanged seems less like “silly bickering” and more like healthy debate! (Other than the writer who leaned toward a personal attack against another writer.) Just for fun, I’ll add my own two cents worth. The debate seemed to stem from and center on more about quality in theater and the term “community theater” and less about show choices, in which the most recent writer veered slightly off the topic with almost a commercial for Windfall--a fine theater, I might add. So, rather than a text book definition of different types of theater as defined by show selection, the heart and passion of this topic seems to be that the term “community theater” does not always or necessarily mean low quality, and the term “paid professional (or semi-professional) theater” does not always or necessarily mean high quality, above “community theater.” That is quite true. Directing, acting, and production values can vary widely regardless of the budget and venue. Pay and even a union card do not guarantee high quality as defined in “professional” theatrical standards. If show selection and “risk” were to come into play, it would seem that Sunset might also deserve credit for taking a risk, since “Holiday” looks like it doesn’t fit the limited categories of “silly” and “sappy” which a recent Journal Sentinel review lamented that theaters fall into at this time of year. Shouldn’t a “community theater” be doing some sort of farce or better known play? Or what about all those plays with children in the cast? Surely they could be doing one of them. But they’re not, so I give them some risk credit, too, for choosing not to do the usual or expected or stereotypic show. As for Mr. Bickerstaff’s review, he seems to fall into the same trap as other reviewers in this town who give more history and story details than an actual review. While he did include mention of set and costumes this time, we didn’t get any information about direction or the other collaborators on this show, apart from the usual review of the acting. Here’s to all you passionate thinkers out there and to Healthy Debate!