Review: Lovepuke

July 8, 2010 11:10 AM

Do you like this?

Photo courtesy of English Theatre Berlin

Three couples, three sets of folding chairs, the bullet-point outline of three relationships: Lovepuke, written by Duncan Sarkies and directed by Fingal Pollock at the English Theatre Berlin, garbage-disposes the epic tales of three archetypal couples into a 90-minute play.

F40: English Theatre Berlin/Theatre Thikwa

Fidicinstraße 40, 10965 Berlin

Phone 030 6911 211

Website Click Here

Who’s coupled? There's Ivan, the egotistical macho-male (Dharmander Singh); Kevin, the not-so-smooth pick-up-liner closet-case (Shaunessy Ashdown); and Nathan, the dorky-dork (Martin Ware). Who are dating – respectively - Janice, the clingy wannabe-fairytale-princess (Danielle Janess); Louise, the singles' bar whore (Amy Nye); and Marissa, the average, no-personality perfect girl (Amy Benson).

The play begins as each couple walks on stage and outlines the major events that shaped their relationship: namely, lots of sex, lots of arguing and, for some, lots of breaking up and getting back together again. The plot then winds back to the beginning of each of their stories: a chance meeting at a party (or singles bar) and proceeds chonologically from there. Their adventures are narrated by Glen (David Deery), an artsy, plaid-shirted, hipster-glasses-wearing singleton - the kind of guy who’s destined to become that cynical, slightly pathetic best friend of your father's who gets a little too drunk and makes an ass of himself at family barbecues.

The play is a bit like Sex in the City's six seasons in Spark Notes form. But Lovepuke’s characters are shabbily dressed and utterly unglamorous - and whereas most woman in America can relate to Charlotte, Miranda, Carrie or Sam, these characters are as flat as the placards that clock their relationships. The dialogue is uninventive, and although there are a few twists in the story, even they are predictable. Lovepuke could just work if the actors infused more quirks, histories and personalities into their characters. But the actors’ representations, while occasionally 100 percent on target, don’t go deeper than the clichéd script.

Still, the concept behind Lovepuke makes for enjoyable light summer viewing. And several of the performers do pull off truly hilarious (if unsustainable) character sketches: in particular, Singh and Janess’s Ivan and Janice are reach a Saturday Night Live-worthy level of awfulness.

LOVEPUKE | Through July 10. For more information, visit www.etberlin.de

Tag Topics: Going out, Katherine Koster, Stage, Theatre

by Katherine Koster

July 8, 2010 11:10 AM

Latest Comments

the point of view

Of course David Deery says in the play hes a cynic.
But the play isn't it. Its a way of irony but not in a bad way. I think the play gives us a look at ourselves with a wink.

But yes maybe 90 minutes is a bit (to) long, otherwise there are at least at the end 4 couples.. there you got your 20 minute sketch comedy - for each couple^^

Posted by Hans July 09, 2010 23:37:31
Read beyond Sex in the City

I'm shabbily dressed (ask my friends). I eat shit (not literally). My life is less glamorous than the characters in the play. And I can still relate more to the Sex in the City gals than to the characters in Lovepuke.
Sex in the City's glitziness and Love Puke's lighting and costume choices weren't major points in my review: I mentioned Sex in the City because, like Lovepuke, it has an ensemble cast of archetypes, and like lovepuke, it takes a cynical look at love, sex, single-ness; relationships, lonliness, and what people are really after (and can get out of) relationships. Although Sex in the City can be shallow and is in no way brilliant, I think it works because each of the four archetypal NYC women in the show have quirks and lives outside of their love lives...and the quirks and background lives draw you in (or...at least me in).
The partners in Lovepuke are nothing but partners in a couple: archetypal partners in stereotypical couples. I found them chaffing to watch, but maybe the lack of character depth was part of the point I missed.
Lack of glamour has nothing to do with that; you take Sex in the City as a base point, and clothing has to be mentioned: and hey, no matter how bad an episode is, at least in Sex in the City you're ensured some interesting bits of New York couture: hideous or hot, at least there's eye candy.
Again, I thought Love Puke had strong acting at points. I laughed my butt off at points. But overall the dialogue, acting, characterization, and plot - were more in line with what you'd expect from a 20 minute sketch comedy act than from a 90 minute play.

Posted by Katherine Koster July 09, 2010 22:42:31
Damn good job Katherine!

Berliners get away with way too much. The assumption that because you are in a cool city what you do is automatically deserving of approval needs to go. There's too much shit in the pancakes. Being poor and shabbily dressed doesn't mean you have to eat shit. If you want to eat shit, please consider starvation. And just because your audience will eat shit doesn't make it OK to feed it to them.

Posted by Sam Williams July 09, 2010 18:28:12
I liked the play

Yeah I really liked it.
Yes, it isn't deep, yes the characters are totaly stereotype und that make it a funny little play. Not every play has to go deep in your minds.
But shabbily .. well if erveyone shabby whos not sex an the city like dressed - i'm proud to be shabbliy as the poor actors ;)

Posted by Hans July 08, 2010 18:17:08