Turn On, Tune In, Drop Dead

Worst Show Ever

What could have been a great commentary on the murder podcast phenomenon; where we delight in the most horrifying crimes without thinking about the actual impact on victims… instead was 35 minutes of shock bait and gratuitous descriptions of violence. If your aim was to gross-out your audience without any deeper meaning, than mission accomplished. Who approved this show? You might want to check their basement.

Uncomfortable and UNIQUE

Before getting into the meat of it, there are a few things I think this play could have used more of: staging, blocking, rehearsal, a thesis, and confidence. The last of these, I have a hunch, fell victim to some early negative reception that compelled the performers to withdraw a touch into their shells. This is a shame, as more commitment to line delivery and its nastier bits would've helped this land as an unapologetically edgy production. And edgy it is. I am endeared to a relatively older cast that's going for the jugular this shamelessly, even if the fervor caused them to overlook that aforementioned thesis to their detriment. Just like a commitment to strong delivery could make this show pop a good deal more, the "why" is important for a lot of people, especially when a play's subject is this grim. BUT art is dynamic and shouldn't be abruptly punished for venturing into unfortunate territory. There is insensitive language used, but it's true to the characters. There is disregard for victims of heinous violence, but that disregard comes from proudly unapologetic serial killers. These things shocked me, but that seems to be the "point." So does this mean I think the play was good? No, not really. But it wasn't irredeemable either. In many ways, it was more memorable than plenty of the safer material I've watched this year. At a festival this diverse, experimental, homegrown, and unrestricted, watching controversial shows should be an inevitability of our curiosity. The smaller audience this night was disappointing, because it was clearly an avoidant response on part of the festival attendees. This show is crass and disgusting and could use some more pizazz, but it offers something unique. No other show at fringe feels like this one. My hands were cupped over my mouth for most of the time. Whatever the reason, that's special.

Engaging art initiates discussion

Creativity 5; Production Value 3; Interest (subjective) 5 My theater going companions and I were discussing the work as we left the Thrust Theater, all the way to Theater in the Round, and as we waited for the next show (a long wait, since "Turn On" is short). To my cadre, this is the what I expect of any art medium: discussion after the fact. I did appreciate the creativity: the concept caught our attention from the first time we saw it on the Fringe website. And in some aspects it reminded me of previous presidentional debates: using odd positions to win. As far as production value, we would have appreciated writing and acting that seemed more 'real.' The work is based on factual stories, but the actors seemed more intent on the shock value than what might have actully be in the legal documents. (Though now that I think about it, that probably makes sense in the spirit of the debate). And, interest in serial killers: yup, consider the popularity of true crime books/podcasts. Now obviously (see the 0 rating) this isn't for everyone. For myself, though, I want to support Fringe's non-censorship position and in the past have seen Ervin's Fringe work as well as "T or D or S" (Sean and Kyle ...).

Wow!

John Clarkin was amazing! He really had me convinced that he was the world’s worst!

Fine line tragicomic as killers debate on TV.

Well worth the ticket and time at MN Fringe is Turn On, Tune In, Drop Dead; produced, written and directed by John Ervin and playing on the Rarig Stoll Thrust stage, with performances remaining. This stunning and pithy script poses a mock TV debate between two life-incarcerated serial killers to convince the viewers of whom claims the title of "Worst serial killer", (or, basically, whom is the 'best'.) The production makes use of sparse props and set as a moderator sits between the two killers who stand at simple podia (all right, podiums) to deliver their debate points and rebuttals. The lighting in the space generally can't go wrong, it's so appealing a theater, and lighting in this play is no exception. As the lights come up, accompanying music by The Rolling Stones sets the tone, the lyrics being pertinent to the concept. The sound in the space is very good, and there is no problem hearing all of the lines and music, even if your ears are worn and experienced. Whereas so many Fringe productions hold action, character, or situations as their prow, this show, as with many of John Ervin's brilliant creations, uses incredibly deft language and verbiage as the foil. Ervin allows each killer character to describe, very proudly, their own proclivities, preferences, and pleasures by which they commit their dastardly deeds with "conviction". The prisoners are portrayed dynamically by John Clarkin and Christopher DeVann, both of whom maintain sharp but whimsical adversarial claw-branding at each other as they vie for their coveted "Worst" title. The moderator of the debate is cleverly but subtly played by Minnesotan-and-Texan Monique Swanson, who in well-timed rhythm has to present a tough and officious command of the situation in order to keep the killers from crossing the stage and killing each other, whether physically or rhetorically. However, through these interventions, her portrayals never lack the appropriate amount of veiled humor. John Ervin's direction serves to efficiently maintain a precarious seesaw balance between the comic and tragic, as each killer describes very serious and potentially uncomfortable acts and tastes, and yet we are at all times aware that the situations hold a certain satirical and fantastic identity. SEE THE PLAY in order to determine who you yourself would award "Worst Serial Killer", and enjoy a short and unique conjectural look into how we as a society now have no limits to what we will propose and view in our screen-driven world, wherein the beginning and end of "who is shooting who" becomes increasingly vague as we all point cameras at each other 24/7.

Yes, let’s make jokes about murder victims…

Within the first 15 minutes we get; Anti-gay slurs Jokes about child SA and unaliving Sexist comments about murder victims Sexist comments about the 1 female character in the show A pdf file giving pet names to his victims Yes these are all from serial killers in a debate about who is the “worst serial killer”. But all of those are delivered with no insight, commentary, or awareness. Some of them are delivered as jokes. No idea what happened after the first 15 or so minutes because that’s about when I walked out. This was an example of how not to discuss serial killers and their crimes. The victims were reduced to comments made for shock value, and we were asked to hear out the killers. Whatever social commentary the creators intended was completely over shadowed by the lack of responsible commentary around the crimes and victims. Beyond the content, the staging and script made it difficult for the actors to interact with each other, which made the dialogue disjointed and highlighted how much of the show was there for shock value and a tasteless attempt to be edgy.

This one's a miss for me...

Other comments already detail the subject matter being a little too heavy to mishandle. I feel like this show needs to either do a better job at comedy, or else have a statement to make. The tone of the production was unregulated and it left me wondering if the writing was self-aware or not. Performances were quite good but I spent a lot of the time in my seat clenching my teeth.

Needed an editor

Needed at least another pass from an editor. I also had issues hearing and understanding people , needs to work on diction and projection.

A pretty rough watch.

I was really interested to see a piece based in the true crime world - there's a lot of meat there, and unfortunately I think this show largely missed its potential. It seemed to aim somewhere between visceral and darkly comedic, stumbling into what ends up as a disconnected set of jokes about abuse which quickly start to grate on the nerves. Separately- while performances weren't bad, all three need some time to focus on diction & projection, as often monologues blended together as we lost definition in the words. I think this concept has legs, but really needs a rethink as to the show's intention and how it's carried out.