The production under review is Shasta College Theatre’s version of the legendary Little Shop of Horrors. The production team did a great job presenting a famous gruesome story and projecting its main message: the greatest evil is not some supernatural monster but human greed. This story has already been introduced in various forms numerous times. The musical will celebrate its 40th anniversary next year, while the original film, the play is loosely based on, was released more than 60 years ago (Brantley, 2019; The American Film Institute). Nevertheless, the story’s message is still relevant, and Shasta College Theatre made a good choice deciding to remind us of it through their performance.
Little Shop of Horrors tells us the story of Seymour Krelborn, a poor orphan working as an assistant in a flower shop run by nagging and grumpy Mr. Mushnik. Seymour is secretly in love with his pretty co-worker Audrey, but the girl does not seem to reciprocate his feelings and is in a relationship with a sadistic dentist Orin Scrivello. Everything changes as a mysterious plant resembling a venus flytrap appears one day, and Seymour starts taking care of it. The exotic plant brings sudden popularity to its new owner and improves his relationship with the boss and Audrey. Seymour gives the plant the latter’s name and calls it Audrey II.
However, it is not as nice as its namesake, and it demands human sacrifices for further help provided to Seymour. Initially, he rejects the monster’s proposal, but he changes his mind when he witnesses Orin abusing Audrey. Even though Orin ultimately died of gas asphyxiation, Seymour did nothing to help the man and made him Audrey II’s first victim. Then he feeds Mr. Mushnik to the plant when the shop owner gets suspicious of Orin’s sudden disappearance. Seymour and Audrey get closer, and the guy realizes he does not need the plant’s help anymore and intends to kill it. Unfortunately, he is late as the hungry, vicious monster attacks and mortally wounds Audrey.
The play ends with Seymour’s futile attempts to kill the plant, which wishes to conquer the world by spreading its leaf cuttings. Seymour tries to destroy it from inside but fails and becomes the carnivorous monster’s new prey himself. The final scene shows us Audrey II’s victims turned into the plant’s flowers and begging the audience to never listen to the vicious plant’s urges no matter how persuasive they sound.
Even though the final words seem to put the whole blame on some alien influence, the Shasta College Theatre’s production team made it clear: the main message of the play is quite the opposite. Audrey II serves as a symbol of human inner evil temptations, greed, cowardice, and weakness. Everyone makes moral choices, but when one commits a crime, one must be responsible for it.
This idea is represented through various means providing the audience with a holistic picture. What I would like to note is the costumes, especially the ones of Seymour and Orin. When one looks at Seymour’s glasses and simple, neat clothing, one cannot help but sympathize with this nice-looking guy and blame anyone but him. As Forbes (2016) noted, many criminals do not stand out and look perfectly normal. Someone may argue that Seymour was manipulated by the evil creature, but the fact is that such innocent-looking criminals exist in real life. They also tend to justify their actions by external influences: an excessively demanding boss, a neglectful mother, or a girl who rejected the poor guy. It is easy to hate an arrogant, obviously violent, and aggressive man in a leather jacket, just like Orin. Both the costume and the actor’s mannerisms create an image of a typical “bad guy.” However, we should remember that those who hide their dubious moral compass under the mask of a “nice, safe guy” might be even more dangerous.
Another thing I want to note is the set arrangement, particularly the puppets of Audrey II. First of all, the Shasta College Theatre showed its growth by using puppets of different sizes. Apart from its literal meaning of the monster getting bigger, stronger, and powerful, it also demonstrates the scale of Seymour’s moral collapse as he yields to the plant’s vicious influence. Another observation is Audrey II’s position which does not change throughout the play. It highlights that Audrey II is still mostly a passive observer despite its intelligence and carnivorousness, while truly evil things are done by humans around it.
To conclude, the Shasta College Theatre’s version of Little Shop of Horrors has successfully projected the play’s main idea. Nothing seems out of place, and all elements serve to say to the audience: never yield to morally dubious temptations and greed; otherwise, they turn into a monster that will destroy you. This message is still relevant as some people overlook moral integrity in favor of getting a “free lunch,” which, as we know, always comes at a price. The story might be gruesome and, at times, unpleasant, but it makes it even more impactful and eye-opening. The costumes and setting arrangements add to the effect and create a scary atmosphere. It makes us throw away rose-colored glasses that show us a simple world where evil is done by some unknown forces or exclusively by the typical “bad guys.” I would definitely recommend the production both to the fans of horror stories and the general public.
References
The American Film Institute. (n.d.). The Little Shop of Horrors. AFI Catalog. Web.
Brantley, B. (2019, October 17). ‘Little Shop of Horrors’ review: Jonathan Groff feeds the beast. The New York Times. Web.
Forbes, R. (2016). Criminal psychology: Understanding the criminal mind and its nature through criminal profiling. Kimmers Publishing.