The leading role in this show is a character named Pseudolus, a slave of the house of Senex, first made famous by Zero Mostel.  This is a demanding role for any actor, and one that has proven rewarding for those actors that have taken it into NYC.  First, Zero won the Best Actor/Musical Tony, followed by Phil Silvers in 1972 with the first revival, and later by Nathan Lane in the 1996 version.  A role that requires a performer to be able to pull out all the stops, for this character literally carries the show on his back.  Without such an actor the show falls flat.

For the Peninsula Community Theatre they have such an actor.  Mike Diana fills the role perfectly.  His character is full of life, celebrating absurdity in this wonderful comedic farce.  He takes the audience with him as he flawlessly moves us from scene to scene of love, slavery, love, freedom, love, greed, love, sex, and love. 

Aspiring young actors would do well to watch this master at work, for Mr. Diana is a master.

Fortunately for us, and the show, this is not the only performance of note.  Playing the perfect foil to Pseudolus is the "head of the household slaves" Hysterium.  Made famous by Jack Guilford in the original cast and the movie, the role calls for a straight man to offset the zaniness established by Pseudolus.  P. J. Freebourn creates this role for us with hysterical results (Hysterium-hysterical, get it?) much to the delight of the audience.  Watching these two actors on stage is a real treat, and we can only hope that this isn't the last time we'll be entertained by this hilarious duo.

They are nobly supported by the rest of the company portraying various roles of soldiers, courtesans, and Romans.  I would be remiss if I failed to mention The Proteans, a trio of men that fill the role of the "chorus," they take care of all the various small roles that are needed, with hilarious results.  Hats off to Andrew Ange, John Kolbeck, and Jeff Sherman.
With every production mounted the director has not one but several tasks.  Regardless of what one reads in the program, it is the director who is the ultimate decision maker of what appears before the audience.  A really good director can take an average show and make it a spectacular presentation.  A poor one can destroy a well written show.

The director's number one job is to cast the show.  A well cast show can overcome many shortcomings.  In my opinion this is 95% of the director's job, and for "Forum's" director, Helen D'Alfonso,

there are several casting choices that fall short.

Another 4% of the director's job is to stage the show in a manner that allows the audience to follow the action.  What I call "pretty pictures."  Staged well, the audience member is able to follow the action and hear the dialog that is important to carrying the story.  To not be distracted by other action on stage which might be occurring at the same time.  This fails to happen several times, as the action is presented on two levels, and the audience member is unsure where to focus their attention.  The result is that we often miss some bit of action or dialog and have to take a moment to try and figure out where to look. 

Also, there have been added bits of "schtick" which creates an impression that the company of players are inept at what they do.  One example is at the very beginning of the show, where the followspot operator has trouble finding the actor coming on stage to present the opening monologue.  This bit of silliness is un-needed, as the opening speech announces that we're about to see a comedy.  Stage business such as this detracts from the overall impression of the production.

The remaining 1% covers everything else like choreography, lights, set, and costumes.  Costuming for this show is by and large pretty good, but there are several glaring mistakes that need fixing.  The first being the footwear.  SHOES?  The period would call for either sandals or barefeet.  The other is in some costuming selections for the characters.  I mean the purple bodysuit being worn by Miles is just plain wrong and has to go.

The technical aspects of lighting, set, and costumes are utilitarian and function as needed, but I do question why the House of Lycus doesn't have any indication that it's a Courtesan house.  A simple statue, a drawing above the door, something.  As it is we don't know anything about it just by looking at it.

The good things about this production far out number the bad, but because those that are bad are noticeable it makes for an un-even production.  However as noted above, the performance of the leading actor is worthy of your time.  Treat yourself to a good laugh and see this show.  In this time of trouble we have little enough to laugh about.