Self-Aware Snuggling with "The Holiday Channel Christmas Movie Wonderthon"

‘Tis the season to indulge in holiday traditions as we dive deeper into November. Last Friday, I had the pleasure of attending the opening performance of The Holiday Channel Christmas Movie Wonderthon, written by Don Zolidis and produced by BLAST (Bold Local Artists of the Southern Tier). And oh– what a hoot and holler it (literally) was. The title is a mouthful, as is the concept, and also the execution of said concept, but I cannot deny that the theatre was brimming with laughter at each level of chaos the piece introduced. A play so absurd that I delusionally convinced myself that any moment the antlered beast mounted on the wall of the set could start hollering a round of “Deck the Halls” and spouting eggnog at the audience.

Engaging with entertainment as a viewer/audience has shifted from being “social” to much more personal. The play begins with the idea of being perfectly content with binge-watching “Holiday Channel” (wink wink) films from the comfort of your own couch. However, the play poses the question: what’s the fun in that? Alternatively, you could speedrun said experience by watching, essentially, six plots in one theatrical experience. I believe the play’s own perspective on its material does not fully execute this ambition, but rather induces a sense of ridiculousness and hijinks for these characters to endure – much to the audience’s delight.

Director Kate Murray introduced the play with the statement, “If you love Hallmark Movies, you’ll laugh, and if you hate Hallmark Movies…you’ll laugh even harder.” The play ambitiously combines six plots of trope-infested Hallmark holiday films into one night of theatre. Thankfully, we are navigated through this treacherous snowstorm of a script by two narrators: portrayed by the fabulously talented Rob Egan and Stephanie Espada, who are both undeniably charismatic and a joy to be induced into chaos by.

This boisterous audience took to the play instantly. Raucous applause was earned for the ridiculous nature of the play (I may leave the snowglobes in the decoration box this year). The narrators quickly win the crowd over, encouraging them to gasp, gawk, and “aww” at the shake of a jingle bell. This setup quickly permits the audience to vocally engage with the piece, which I think works to the play’s benefit. An audience that is warm and willing to play keeps this production in the realm of pageantry rather than a theatrical drama with any real stakes, which I believe to be the playwright's intention. The experience is comparable to what I imagine it feels like to be a Groundling in the 17th Century– utterly delightful, especially with company.

Among the plethora of characters, we meet the owner of a winter lodging, two princes in disguise, several “business-realestate-lawyer” people, and a disguised starlet clinging to fame (delectably played by Andrea Gregori, whose very presence sparks applause and exaltation from the audience due to her emanating light of a stage presence). The characters themselves represent repetitive tropes, which is funny upon introduction, like “oh, another prince,” and “oh, another corporate character”. However, the play does not attempt to subvert the expectations of these characters’ arcs (identities revealed, change of heart heartened by snowfall, etc...) Nor does it challenge its characters to reckon with their monotonous “stock character” creation within these corporate cash-grab movies…Zolidis writes the action for five out of six of these plots in a similar fashion to the very films he aims to critique.

The play depicts a pessimistic view of romantic relationships. Several of the characters are concerned with obtaining a partner for social, economic, or superficial advantage– rather than because they’ve truly taken the time to know their love interest. This is especially examined within the pairing of Jackson and Carol, who meet when Carol knocks Jackson out and claims him as her partner. The antics of this subplot were so unsettling that the charming strangers next to me began making eye contact with me in disbelief throughout. Portrayed to great success by Mike McManamon and Jessica McManamon, this duo commits to the chaos expertly with a knack for physical humor and a keen understanding of comedic pacing.

The pairing with the most tender storyline would have to be that of Joy and Paul, two romance novelists who begin the play as nemeses. This duo, played by the phenomenal Amy Hathaway Gilbert and Joe Borrelli, is delightful to watch delve into quippy banter about each other's work, comparable to that of Shakespeare’s Benedick and Beatrice. Their relationship dynamic is instantly clear to the audience with just one glance at each other. These two performers excelled at compelling storytelling by bringing genuine heart to the piece.

I don’t want to spoil too much, there is one final weekend of performances (November 21st-23rd) and I thoroughly encourage you to grab a seat. I have to mention one moment where the play that caught aflame and questioned the structure it had set up. One of the characters is so tired of the play and the way they are being forced to play a scene they do not wish to– that they walks offstage and attempts to leave. A choice that garnered applause of approval that the character was taking a stand against the story they've been confined within. I wish the play attempted to complete the arc of the show without that character; I think it would’ve been a riskier choice that could’ve brought an interesting payoff, but alas, why dwell on hypotheticals? I’m no Don Zolidis. I'm just an opinionated over-thinker.

Though the play is wholly unserious, it is worth mentioning its examination of entertainment accessibility. The tropey Holiday Romance Films that the play spoofs are so recognizable because they are produced in mass and fairly available for viewing (so long as you own basic cable and a television). The fact of the matter is that live theatre does not have the prominence in American culture that it once did...before the “home television” became a household appliance. I wish I could say the play challenged the idea of “overconsumption” more scrutinously. It is briefly brought up by the sassy, well-knowing Bridgette (portrayed by Whitney Madill, who is terrfically fun to watch) that these film production companies are quite financially lucrative, producing around 38 Holiday Films per year. Delving into consumerism could have made this piece more than a surface-level self-deprecating parody.

In my opinion, I wish that the synthesis of the story had been written more intentionally to give a strong footing to each element. This is a very strong ensemble of performers; I wish that the piece allowed them to explore the dynamics between these eccentric characters more thoroughly. There were often hints at plotlines that pricked my ears, but the other five plotlines overshadowed them. Even the characters become aware of the lack of narrative attention they are getting, “We’re not the most important characters in the story,” which receives a cheeky laugh. However, after a greater duration of similar self-deprecating humor, I was left wondering if Don Zolidis truly cares for the characters he created. At one point, the characters seem so exhausted by the mayhem that they’ve encouraged that they count down how many plots were left to resolve. Never in my life have I seen dialogue that wanted the action to cease, a rather cynical view, in my opinion.

The play depicts self-absorbed characters whose biggest issues revolve around a 2-dimensional romance, just as the material it parodies does, but what does that say about the 2025 viewer? Can we laugh the same way we used to? I think perhaps a part of the reason this play got my goat is likely due to the style of humor it utilizes. Being first produced in 2018, the "social media," short-form content, was just beginning to hone a recognizable humor style. We've changed substantially as an audience over the past seven years. The entire concept could be, and probably has been, condensed into a two-minute TikTok and played on repeat until oblivion...garnering millions of views...but then it wouldn't be theatre, would it?

I need to be abundantly clear, this play was very engaging for me to watch. The strength of the play lies within the improvisational, interactive humor, the moments that focus on poking fun at the ridiculous nature of the concept. The work that these performers do to produce a genuinely entertaining night at the theatre is commendable, and I genuinely wish to attend another performance to chuckle at the comedic talent as well as rewatch and analyze the text. I’m nitpicking it because that’s like…my favorite thing to do. I love to dissect a script in a way that one might dissect a frog or other scientific organism for their tenth-grade biology course, though to be abundantly clear, I’ve always been more partial to my English classes. Plays are not frogs, they are plays. Read one. Watch this one and form your own opinion! But don’t forget to engage your brain when you watch or read anything. It's what it's there for!