Category Archives: NYC Theater Reviews
Broadway,
‘Take Me Back’ by Emily Schwindt, A Play About the Heartland of America.
James Kautz in Take Me Back by Emily Schwend, directed by Jay Stull at Walkerspace. Photo by Russ Rowland.
Thomas Wolf said in Look Homeward Angel, that one can never really go home again. This is particularly true for those who have established themselves in careers and have become successful. Not only have they picked themselves up and replanted roots in an environment where they can flourish, they are often loath to associate with their origins especially if the memories are unhappy ones. But what happens to those who have no where else to go? Home isn’t always the place where they have to take you in.
Emily Schwend in Take Me Back, directed by Jay Stull, explores the scenario of a young man who has returned home in desperation. As the play opens, we note that Bill (James Kautz) has served time in jail for theft. Unable to start elsewhere with no education, few prospects, no money or other place to live, he has moved in with his diabetic mom (a fine performance by Charlotte Booker). He attempts to take care of her. He tries to control her eating habits and get her to take her blood sugar in the morning and during the day. Above all he monitors her like a security guard to make sure she stays off the sweets. The exchanges between mother and son are humorous, and Sue’s furtive stashing of candies and goodies brings knowing chuckles from the audience. Kautz and Charlotte Booker have established a rapport that feels right as this mother and son attempt to adjust to circumstances where each are dependent on the other, though it is not necessarily a dependence that is desired or appreciated.
L to R: James Kautz and Charlotte Booker in Take Me Back by Emily Schwend, directed by Jay Stull at Walkerspace. Photo by Russ Rowland.
Frustrated that he has mucked up his life and upset that his mom is not listening to his adjurations about her diabetes, Bill resorts back to his old thieving ways. What opportunities are open to him in Oklahoma except to work in a Walmart and make the minimum wage? He can only see a series of unrewarding empty decades ahead. For him that is not better than nothing. The exciting allure of his old life beckons with the promise of a quick buck and an easy inside job. It is only when former girlfriend Julie shows up that he begins to believe that he might be able to get along in this desolate environment. When she reciprocates in an affectionate way and says she will come back and see him, he realizes that perhaps there is the hope that they can be together. He has correctly surmised she does not love her husband and is unhappy in her marriage.
L to R: Boo Killebrew and James Kautz in Take Me Back by Emily Schwend, directed by Jay Stull at Walkerspace. Photo by Russ Rowland.
Schwend has established themes that will resonate with all who have lived in this country during the last twenty years. There is the issue that the children will have to care for their aging parents who are starting on the road to dementia and who have multiple physical problems, including type two diabetes. There is also the issue of few employment opportunities away from larger coastal cities if one doesn’t have an advanced college degree, technical skills, or show entrepreneurial promise in creating one’s own opportunities. Another issue is the sad fact that children after divorce or other major life changes have moved back in with parents to share economic burdens. Worse, some have found it nearly impossible to leave home because they can’t afford living alone or sharing rent.
L to R: Jay Eisenberg and James Kautz in Take Me Back by Emily Schwend, directed by Jay Stull at Walkerspace. Photo by Russ Rowland.
Sub rosa issues weaving throughout the play point to a shrinking middle class, increasing economic hardship, and no employment opportunities. These have created a declining social community. Meanwhile, the prison population of which Bill had been a part has continued to soar. Underlying all these themes is that the humdrum, boring every day existence of work at a “dead end” job is no existence. Anything that can prompt one to escape (excessive entertainment, drugs, alcohol, addictions, the seduction of petty crime) is what a young people will seek out to release themselves from the boredom of “life” that is not living. Only family can get folks through. But what hope is there if the family is a parent in decline? There is the possibility of love and a relationship with someone to share one’s existence with, perhaps.
Schwend’s play is filled with pathos. There are a few surprising twists. The ensemble brings it all together under the competent direction of Jay Stull. The underlying questions Schwend asks will be confronting the U.S. in the next decades. How can we create more employment in decent, interesting jobs that pay well? How can we shore up the heartland with opportunities to stabilize the social community and strengthen it? Will resolving these problems be enough to keep men and women out of jail? The questions are important ones. Schwend has brought them to the fore without indicating political answers. With her homely characterizations, dynamic relationships, and important themes, she has given us much to contemplate.
The New York City premiere of Take Me Back will be performed at Walkerspace through March 22nd.
This review first appeared on Blogcritics.
London Wall by John Van Druten, Prescient and Trending.
The renowned playwright John Van Druten (Bell, Book and Candle, I Am a Camera which inspired Cabaret) stated in a 1951 interview that “I have never been a man for messages.” After viewing London Wall directed by Davis McCallum and currently at the Mint Theater, I would disagree.
L to R: Elise Kibler, Alex Trow, Katie Gibson, Matthew Gumley in London Wall by John Van Druten. Photo by Richard Termine.
In writing about the nature of relationships between men and women in the work environment, Van Druten has loaded his play with vital themes against the trending political backdrop where many women feel that “the war on women” is real. Though he is not didactic and always remains entertaining, humorous and prescient, Van Druten’s play steers us to “the handwriting on the London Wall.” And on that wall, if we follow what he has written, we must not ignore or diminish the timeless reminder that encourages us to define our own happiness and not allow the social culture to delineate it for us.
L to R: Elise Kibler and Christopher Sears in London Wall by John Van Druten at the Mint Theater. Photo by Richard Termine
In London Wall, Van Druten reveals that as women enter the workforce and establish themselves in an environment where they compete with men, the fireworks will fly. He suggests that there will be repercussions that must be dealt with in temperance, or the setting will become larded with sexual harassment and political grandstanding. Unless the potential for abuse is recognized and standards of behavior are clarified, the working environment will be predatory and nullifying. In such a negative, despairing workplace, employees will be like automatons, and their efficiency and effectiveness will be greatly impaired.
The play dissects the human interactions in a solicitor’s office. There are the usual suspects: the secretaries, clerks and counsel. Though the technology has changed from press-copiers to faxes and computers, the pecking order back then was similar to today’s. The men are in the very top positions and the women are feeding them their materials and smoothing their operations. The ages of the women vary. Miss Janus (a fine Julia Coffey), who has been there the longest and holds sway over the younger women, is in a long-term relationship and intends to get married. Younger women Miss Hooper (Alex Trow), Miss Bufton (Katie Gibson), and the youngest, Pat Milligan (Elise Kibler), have boyfriends. All the women look to the security of a husband and marriage, and office gossip revolves around this. Marriage is the culturally accepted route to happiness, so one does not end up frightfully and horribly alone like Miss Willesden (Laurie Kennedy).
L to R: Julia Coffey, Stephen Plunkett in London Wall, directed by Davis McCallum at the Mint Theater. Photo by Richard Termine
The villain comes in the form of a handsome solicitor, though not yet a partner in the firm, a Mr. Brewer (a smarmy, slick Stephen Plunkett). Mr. Brewer knows he is “a catch” and every woman in her right mind wants him. The culture has prompted him to believe this and because of his looks, position and standing women have not discouraged him. In real life the Van Druten scenario has played out too many times to imagine, and though women should be more sensible, and most are nowadays, there are those who encourage such men out of desperation. The play is loaded with such male-female situations and Van Druten points up the hazards related to such socially designated “male” and “female” roles/interactions in bringing great unhappiness.
Van Druten’s characters have defined themselves according to cultural stereotypes. Each is at a different point on the learning curve of discovering his or her identity separate and apart from what the culture assumes it should be. All are looking for a happiness that society implies should be theirs. But they are following traditional patterns. For men it is to have many women. For women it is to be married.
Whether these characters will find happiness in such roles is unclear, and Van Druten suggests that they may be blowing smoke rings around themselves. Nevertheless, they enact their parts with hope. Brewer, the single man, the “cock of the rock,” is in the midst of “hens.” It is the capstone of the culture that he pursue the youngest, naivest, pretty “chick” who is slower to catch on than the other experienced “fowl” who recognize a predator rooster when they see him. Van Druten has created his perfect cultural barnyard and set the character of Brewer loose in it to muck around with the “birds.” What occurs is an evolving imbroglio which would be unavoidable under the best work conditions where behavior standards between men and women have been established and spelled out. They have not in the office of Walker, Windermere & Co. The result is humorous, telling and explosive, and how the playwright spools the action is insightful and clever.
L to R: Jonathan Hogan and Elise Kibler in London Wall by John Van Druten at the Mint Theater until April 13th. Photo by Richard Termine
Van Druten understands the timelessness of human nature and society. The play reveals that stereotypical cultural roles are dangerous. In playing their “designated” parts out of fear, individuals deny themselves the right to establish their own definitions of happiness and contentment. If they define themselves and decide what they want and it turns out they are different or seek another way, they are forced to wear cultural shame. The more institutional and hierarchical the setting, oftentimes, the worse it is. In selecting this solicitor’s office, the playwright has revealed the societal norms and mores in microcosm and revealed the larger scale of damaging impact these mores have on individuals.
However, the play ends on very hopeful notes because of the empathy of Miss Willesden (an excellent Laurie Kennedy) and the forcefulness of Mr. Walker, senior partner at the law firm (a superb and moment-to-moment acting turn by the marvelous Jonathan Hogan). As appropriate, Van Druten shows there is enlightenment and growth for some characters. For others, the blindness continues.
The director and ensemble have delivered the meaningful currency of this wonderful playwright who is undergoing a resurgence, as well he should. London Wall is being performed at the Mint Theater through April 13.
Cast: Matthew Gumley, Stephen Plunkett, Alex Trow, Julia Coffey, Elise Kibler, Laurie Kennedy, Christopher Sears, Katie Gibson, Jonathan Hogan
This post first appeared on Blogcritics.
‘Daylight Precision’ by Douglas Lackey. A Play About US Bombing Tactics During WWII
L to R: Pat Dwyer, Maxwell Zener and TJ Clark in Daylight Precision by Douglas Lackey. Photo by Jonathan Slaff.
Daylight Precision by Douglas Lackey and directed by Alexander Harrington presents an elucidating historical perspective of the events surrounding the creation of the U.S. Air Force prompted by our involvement in WWII. Based on real accounts and the true-to-life inspired characterizations of influential people from that time, Lackey explores the controversies about warfare that trend for us today. One of the issues he deals with is the extent we dupe ourselves into believing that war is just and ethical, despite the massive number of innocents mowed down as casualties of conflict. Though it is not directly confronted, a sub theme Lackey posits is that perhaps no war is justifiable. And it certainly is not if the pro war “Rah, rah, get ‘em boys” protection propaganda we often cling to masks barbarism and wanton bloodletting in the name of power, domination, and wealth.
To present this philosophical construct beautifully, Lackey uses as his unappreciated and very human hero, General Heywood Hansell (an expert performance by Pat Dwyer). An initial advocate of strategic bombing, General Hansell helped establish the plans for daylight precision bombing and helped create the command formation for an independent Air Force separate from the other military branches. Daylight Precision focuses on General Heywood Hansell’s career as it cross sections General Curtis LeMay’s (a hard-nosed Joel Stigliano). Both men were engaged in air command and specifically strategic bombing. Le May advocated area bombing of cities and “Bombing the enemy back to the stone age.” Hansell advocated bombing military targets. With growing fervor he presaged the logical rationale for avoiding the bombing of cities which were largely populated by civilians: women, children, the disabled, and elderly. Lackey brings these two positions front and center and shows how LeMay and Hansell struggled with the problems surrounding both.
Pat Dwyer as General Haywood Hansell in Daylight Precision by Douglas Lackey at Theater for the New City. Photo by Jonathan Slaff.
The playwright creates scenarios which bring to light how Hansell arrives at his decision that destroying military targets will weaken the enemy and bombing cities only strengthens the citizens’ resolve to fight with resilience to the death. Lackey soundly shows Hansell coming to this conclusion in an evolving process through discussions with others, rumination, and dream sequences. Lackey solidifies Hansell’s resolve not to bomb any more cities after Hamburg is destroyed (45,000 perished in a night raid firestorm). He illustrates the decision through an effecting scene between Hansell and a well known pacifist at the time, Vera Brittain ( Danielle Delgado). Though Hansell and Brittain never met, her views were well known and supported by many of the most erudite in the U.S. who opposed civilian aerial bombing. Hansell’s views mirrored theirs. The scene evokes how Hansell might have been driven to that perspective by those whose views he respected.
Hansell’s career accelerated as one of the most influential generals to have effectively organized the allies’ air strategy against Hitler. LeMay reports to him. However, Hansell must continually justify his philosophy and position because military targets are dangerous whereas civilian targets, the bombing of women and children appear to result in fewer airmen deaths. The effects of killing civilians is brutal, immediate, and quantifiable. These are visible results: numerous enemy deaths. The effect of bombing military targets does not show immediate results. Buildings, terminals, and factories are destroyed to what effect? A moral one? Of what need is morality in war? The Germans quickly move for reconstruction. Then what? Eventually, Hansell is overshadowed; the politics change: area bombing of cities is embraced. Dresden and Leipzig are cut down in great brutality to the justified tune of “War is hell!”
L to R: Danielle Delgado and Pat Dwyer in Daylight Precision by Douglas Lackey, directed by Alexander Harrington. Photo by Jonathan Slaff.
Lackey brilliantly evolves the action of the play to show how the shift occurred from setting military bombing targets (materials factories, ball bearings factories, railroads, steel mills) to civilian bombing targets of entire cities. As Hansell’s views are shuttered and shouted down, LeMay’s views about bombing cities, the more populous the better, are lifted up. The war hawk, whose simplistic barbarism is easily rationalized by those in power, takes over.
LeMay’s career rises; Hansell’s falls. Hansell is shuffled to the Pacific front in the war effort. Eventually, disputing tactical maneuverings in air command and insisting that precision bombing of targets is the most effective and moral of strategies, he is relieved of his duties. Somewhere in the crosscurrents, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are bombed back to the stone age.
Joel Stigliano in Daylight Precision by Douglas Lackey, directed by Alexander Harrington at Theater for the New City. Photo by Jonathan Slaff.
Hanesell’s personality and character are greatly humanized by Lackey (and Pat Dwyer’s talents) in brief scenes where he reveals Hansell’s appreciation of the arts, Shakespeare, and poetry. Because Lackey reveals this philosophical sensitivity and sensibility, we are not surprised at Hansell’s moral views. Nor are we surprised that he uses his brilliance to initiate tactical maneuvers which in the long run were highly effective in shortening the war in Europe. Years later Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect, claimed that by bombing ball bearings factories (Hansell’s plan) the course of the war was irrevocably changed and would have been different if these factories had been left in tact. After Hansell was dismissed, the Air Force moved toward a strategy of bombing civilian populations. This encouraged a dependence on the more potentially devastating and inflexible doctrine of nuclear warfare and nuclear weapons escalation and stockpiling that lasted for decades.
How has history viewed these two generals? Lackey’s Daylight Precision sheds new light on the careers of both men. Hansell’s overlooked brilliance and acumen trumped Le May in every aspect including morality and ethics. He is an understated hero whose philosophies ring true for every age, especially ours in light of our current strategies in the Middle East. Lackey’s play and the direction by Alexander Harrington and fine work by the ensemble cast allow Hansell to soar back in command as we appreciate his efforts and are reminded that bombing women and children serves no rational military purpose.
Cast: Pat Dwyer, Joel Stigliano, Kyle Masteller, Joseph J. Menino, Eric Purcell, Maxwell Zener, TJ Clark, Danielle Delgado
Daylight Precision will be performed at Theater for the New City through March 16th.
This review first appeared on Blogcritics.
A Play About the JFK Assassination: ‘Witnessed by the World’ by Ronnie Cohen and Jane Beale
Photo is a still taken from the renown Zapruder film of the movie of the assassination of JFK.
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy is perhaps the most written-about event of the 20th century, with over 800 books alone devoted to parsing the details of the how and why of the assassination and the alleged subsequent cover-up. Some books justify the evidence produced in the Warren Commission Report, which found Lee Harvey Oswald to be Kennedy’s sole murderer. Many reputable writers and investigators, including the 1960s District Attorney of New Orleans, James Garrison, meticulously and logically disputed the Warren Report’s conclusions.
The mainstream media ridicules “conspiracy theorists,” who put forth the idea that a cabal of conspirators were responsible for Kennedy’s murder and wanted him “out of the way” for various political reasons. Witnessed by the World written by Ronnie Cohen and Jane Beale and directed by Karen Carpenter provides an interesting spin on the assassination and the “conspiracy theory” decriers. It is informative, taking into consideration that there are those in subsequent generations who know little about the assassination and the major players connected to it.
The playwrights have cleverly avoid didacticism and preachiness. They posit information about the assassination through dialogue between an older journalist, Joan Ross (an excellent Charlotte Maier), enthralled with the research she has done about the assassination, and the younger, uninterested, uninformed screenwriter, Ira Basil (Max Gordon Moore in a good counterpoint), who is working with her on a writing project. Information is also revealed through the play’s developing action. We follow Joan and learn about the assassination as she channels information from her leads into discussions with the screenwriter, a friend, and her sources.
L – R: Charlotte Maier and Bob Ari (Aaron Spencer), in Witnessed by the World, written by Ronnie Cohen & Jane Beale, directed by Karen Carpenter. Photo by Douglas Denoff.
At the outset, the play shows the black and white TV clip of the Jack Ruby shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald, which was the first live mass media murder viewed by millions. (There were no warning ratings preventing young children from watching the live coverage and later the incessant replaying of Oswald’s painful collapse after the bullet did its work.) We are in shock as the viewers at the time were in shock seeing Ruby conveniently smash the possibility that any trial of Kennedy’s alleged killer would take place.
If Ruby was a hero, performing the role of Oswald’s executioner, he was not released for his “good deed.” The mysterious incongruity is that Ruby received the death penalty after his first trial. This was overturned in a Texas appellate court. He was waiting for a second trial when he died of cancer in a Dallas hospital. Had he been threatened not to disclose the mystery of his relationships and background connections to mobsters, the CIA, Oswald and others? Though he was interviewed by Dorothy Kilgallen toward the end, Kilgallen never lived to “blow the lid off the JFK assassination” as she said she would.
Cohen and Beale explore these mysteries and others as Joan investigates Ruby’s early background and teen years to help Ira Basil finish a screenplay about Jack Ruby and the mystery surrounding his ties to organized crime and visits to Cuba. Though Ira warns Joan that she must not write about or investigate Ruby’s connection to the JFK assassination, Joan on her own recognizance pieces together information she learns from Jack Ruby’s sister, Eileen Kaminsky (an exceptional and believable Lois Markle). After Joan and Eileen become close, Eileen gives Joan a box of items which no one knows about. Ruby had given them to Eileen for safekeeping. Each item is a potential clue, a possible missing puzzle piece that Joan can use to create a logical picture of Ruby, his ties to organized crime figures and answers to the questions about why he killed Oswald.
L – R: Bob Ari and Joe Tapper (Joe Capano), in Witnessed by the World, written by Ronnie Cohen & Jane Beale, directed by Karen Carpenter. Photo by Douglas Denoff.
As Joan’s investigation proceeds, she is spurred on with potential answers about the assassination. We are interested and happy to go along for the ride which she keeps hidden from Ira. However, when Ira discovers information which throws Joan’s character into muddy waters, we can see the headlines above her name “conspiracy theory nut,” a twist which is panicking Ira. He manages to continue working with her because he has grown closer to her and for personal self-interest: he will continue to receive the information she has given him about Ruby. They work well together on the screenplay which appears to portend lucrative possibilities.
In the midst of the Ira-Joan scenario, there is a detour down a dark road. Joan confides in friend Aaron Spencer (an appropriate and capable Bob Ari) about the screenplay and her secret investigation of Ruby’s mob connections, and in turn, the JFK assassination. Aaron, who is confronting financial difficulties and is forced to make some debt arrangements with shady mob characters, is told by Joe Capano (a smiling, insidious Joe Tapper) that he knows an old “uncle” in the criminal network who knew Ruby. Aaron shares the information with Joan, who tries to arrange a meet up with this “uncle,” to confirm the final threads of logic she is sewing together about how Ruby was connected to the JFK assassination. These threads tie in Ruby’s connections to mob figures, Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Santo Trafficante and others.
Aaron discourages Joan about the meet up, but it has been arranged by Joe Capano who tells Aaron that Uncle Tony is anxious to talk to Joan. Joan is thrilled after years of research and hard work in overcoming the resistance of recalcitrant sources. She is exuberant because she knows she is going to be able to blow the lid off the Kennedy assassination with the final confirmation of testimony from Uncle Tony.
L – R: Charlotte Maier and Lois Markle (Eileen Kaminsky), in Witnessed by the World, written by Ronnie Cohen & Jane Beale, directed by Karen Carpenter. Photo by Douglas Denoff.
The play is a vital go-see-it for a number of reasons. It will be informative for those who are unfamiliar with the Kennedy assassination and the time period. The play provides a quick and dirty clip sheet of one element of the possible assassination conspirator network that will not be found through mainstream media, except the History Channel offerings. Highlighted is information which includes a growing body of research about the history of our government’s political machinations during the cold war and the extent that the intelligence community was willing to go to insure the US retained the upper hand against Communist leaders. The play is well constructed and keeps the audience engrossed about a period of our history which is crucial to understanding the present.
However, the play does manifest issues; some of the contrivances are problematic. The contrivance of character and dialogue to get out the information (an older journalist and a younger screenwriter unfamiliar and uninterested about the assassination) works because it is subtle and well crafted into the conflict and action of Joan’s investigation of Ruby. We can overlook it because it melds seamlessly with relaying the background information to the audience. But the character complication, that Aaron happens to be in financial trouble and just happens to be involved with mobsters who knew Ruby and who are still alive, is less seamlessly written into the play’s action.
Tthe contrivance of the naivete of Joan’s character cannot be overlooked. We understand that she is a brilliant investigative reporter who is putting the pieces together and who knows the score about the individuals connected with the assassination. We believe she is a hard hitting and uncompromising journalist and a thorough researcher. Her ingenuousness with her sources, for example overlooking the shady character of who she is dealing with seems incongruous and is not credible.
L – R: Charlotte Maier, Bob Ari, Max Gordon Moore, in Witnessed by the World, written by Ronnie Cohen & Jane Beale, directed by Karen Carpenter. Photo by Douglas Denoff.
Would the playwrights have created even more tension…would the play have been more striking if Joan implies she knows the risks involved, but takes them anyway? Would this be a more heroic Joan, one more in keeping with who she is? If, yes, then, the conclusion would be more tragic, more appropriate, and of course, more ironic. Though the acting is excellent and the ensemble work holds together beautifully, it is a lot to ask of Charlotte Maier to reconcile the contradictions of Joan as a naive yet hard-hitting journalist. It is not as if her naivete has been intimated throughout the play as a tragic flaw. It is artificial, contrived. If Joan was portrayed as one who knows she is taking a risk but she does it anyway because there is a moral imperative…the truth must be revealed? This portrayal is logical, noble and in keeping with Joan’s character. It elevates the play to a greater reality. How many have risked their lives to tell the truth?
The great tragedy in the assassination of JFK is that the only justice the assassins, and there were more than one as the Senate Select Committee designated (which later puppets attempted to decry) is that justice was never served. The country, though never above corruption and villainy which our past is filled with, suffered many blows afterward. The most crucial misery was that the indomitable spirit of the American people was dampened. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT EXTINGUISHED. If this is what was intended, and if the MO was to increase profits and gain lucre, then so be it. The perpetrators did that. They have reaped their reward. And the full weight of their actions will fall on their heads.
The play, which enjoyed its New York Premiere at 59E59 Theaters is a reminder that the JFK case, despite what one apologist wrote, IS NOT CLOSED. IT WILL NEVER, EVER BE CLOSED. SO THERE IS NO “CASE CLOSED” ABOUT THE JFK ASSASSINATION, no matter how much one may assert that we should all just not think about it. The magic bullet theory which fatuously has been used as proof that only Oswald was the killer and that there was NO conspiracy is, in fact, THEORY. Theory is not fact; it is hypothesis. Once the argument is raised to “belief” then theories are allowed in and by their nature, are uncertain. The best we can say is it is a 50% / 50% chance there was a conspiracy. The true perpetrators have gotten away with murder, probably not for the first time. Hopefully, for the last.
The review first appeared on Blogcritics.
The Tribute Artist by Charles Busch
L to R: Cynthia Harris and Charles Busch in The Tribute Artist by Charles, presented by Primary Stages at 59E59 Theaters. Photo by James Leynse.
Buying and selling Manhattan real estate! It’s all about being in the right place at the right time with the right clients. If the opportunity to sign a deal on a most fabulous place in Greenwich Village just dropped in your lap, you’d probably leap at it. What if it involved a smidgeon of shadiness and a soupcon of fraud?
The Tribute Artist by Charles Busch presents a hilarious scenario of three rather desperate, down on their luck characters, one attractive and potentially nefarious thief, and a $12 million dollar townhouse whose occupant has recently died. From soup to nuts, this two act play is a cleverly written comedy that is beautifully acted by the ensemble cast and tightly directed by Carl Andress. Charles Busch, a Drama Desk Award winner for “Career Achievement as Playwright and Performer,” once again delights with his impeccable timing and comic genius in a play that skirts the edges of farce. The Tribute Artist’s trending humor, themes and ironies are incisive and just shy of brilliant.
The play opens to the sumptuous living room of a Greenwich Village townhouse where we meet grand dame Adriana (the lively and funny Cynthia Harris), the alleged homeowner. We appreciate Adriana’s sulfuric wit which she states, “is not nastiness, but my European sense of irony.” This upper crust lady is a former clothing designer and she is entertaining her down-to-earth and frenetic real estate broker, Rita (the excellent Julie Halston), who may or may not broker the townhouse sale. Jimmy (Charles Busch) a recently fired Las Vegas drag queen, who prefers to be called a “celebrity tribute artist,” is staying with Adriana for a while. When we are introduced to Rita and Jimmy, both are modeling Adriana’s designer clothing and Jimmy is modeling one of her wigs. Rita and Jimmy have been long time friends and they enjoy Adriana’s hospitality as she fills in details from her past which, unbeknownst to them, are portentous to their future. When they all fall asleep from rather too much drink, the scene shifts to morning and the comedy and plot complications jolt into the most interesting of wonderful possibilities.
Charles Busch as Jimmy impersonating Adriana in The Tribute Artist by Charles Busch presented by Primary Stages at 59E59 Theaters. Photo by James Leynse
During the night, Adriana has passed; she did say she was dying, but Jimmy and Rita didn’t believe her. No one will inherit this lovely house and it will end up in the hands of the government since there are no inheritors and no will. The path appears to be clear that Adriana wants the house sold and is exerting her will that this should be exacted by those who are present. They are a perfect combination: a real estate broker and a female impersonator who just happens to have in his repertoire all the greats from Marilyn Monroe to Betty Davis. Impersonating “Adriana” will be easy. Jimmy and Rita talk themselves into the devilish plan (a hilarious segue), plotting that Jimmy will become Adriana for the time it takes Rita to sell the house. In the clear, they will split their “winnings” fifty/fifty. They even have the perfect resolution for how to deal with Adriana’s remains. Through their euphoria, they both agree that they may have forgotten something, only they aren’t sure what.
What they’ve forgotten shows up in the next scenes, creates havoc and additional conundrums. The plot complications humorously involve the real heirs who will take the townhouse away from Rita and Jimmy. The inheritors are Adriana’s late husband’s loathsome relatives, niece Christina (a perfectly overwrought Mary Bacon) and grandniece Rachel Oliver (a fine Keira Keeley). An additional complication involves one of Adriana’s former lovers, the sexy and very masculine Rodney (Jonathan Walker in a hysterical performance). Somehow Rita and Jimmy deal with these “interlopers” and Jimmy’s impersonation of Adriana goes swimmingly for a time until Rodney throws the switch that could overturn their peaceful coexistence. Once again the elements of farce are stepped up with the added suspense that Rodney may be up to something worse than the “silly little fraud” that Rita and Jimmy had hoped to commit.
L to R: Keira Keeley, Charles Busch, Julie Halston, Mary Bacon, Jonathan Walker in The Tribute Artist by Charles Busch, presented by Primary Stages at 59E59 Theaters. Photo by James Leynse.
While spinning these humorous events, the playwright carefully weaves in issues of class, gender, identity and social injustice. He does this with wit and subtle undercurrents of poignancy in keeping with the comedic pacing. Added to the glee, Jimmy unleashes his repertoire of old-time celebrity actresses with snippets of dialogue from their most famous scenes. Rosalyn Russel, Katherine Hepburn, Betty Davis and others show up and aptly spout “wisdom” to heighten the madness. In his impersonations Busch is at the apex of his powers. His “Running Wild” is superb. If you don’t know which actress performed the song from which iconic film, then you’ll have to get yourself to 59E59 Theaters where the production is being performed. Rita will clue you in to the impersonations just in case you were born after 1980.
The playwright ties up all the complications and reveals the inner workings of each character reinforcing one of the main themes: one never knows how things will out in the end. In Busch’s iteration the phrasing is more poetic. The production will be running until March 16th. It is being presented by Primary Stages at 59E59 Theaters.
The review first appeared on Blogcritics. Click Here.
‘Loot’ by Joe Orton, Stowing Mummy in the Closet for the Payoff
L to R: Ryan Garbayo as Dennis and Nick Westrate as Hal in Joe Orton’s Loot, at the Lucille Lortel Theatre (Red Bull Theater). Photo by Sarah Moore.
Joe Orton, the British playwright whose London hit Entertaining Mr. Sloan proved his brilliance, had his life cut short in 1967 at the age of 34. He was killed by his partner, who committed suicide in recompense for killing Orton. It is the theater world’s great loss, for Orton had experienced the steam of greatness as an exceptional playwright/writer, but not the substance. Whenever a production of his zany, dark comedies is revived, see it to appreciate the frenzy of hyperbolic farce that Orton was marvelous at creating. Impeccable timing and jeweled turn of phrase characterize Orton’s work. He is sardonic, like Wilde; over the top, like Monty Python; an iconic British wit.
Loot, in revival at the Lucille Lortel’s Red Bull Theater until February 9, is one of Orton’s gems. This production, directed by Jesse Berger, conveys Orton’s scorn of entrenched social institutions (religious, judicial, legal, medical). Clearly, the playwright had a rollicking time opening them to ridicule. This is appropriate for us currently; the hypocrisies Orton lays bare, are snatched from the 1960s. Yet, they are immutable now as they were then. In the delivery of the madcap and over-the-top plot extremities, we are able to bear the painful truths expressed underneath. If fraud, official corruption, murder and theft are the stuff of life, at least they can be used as meat to gnaw on for our entertainment sustenance in the hands of a savvy, sharp playwright, able director and acute acting ensemble.
The setting, the McLeavy living room is comfortably furnished with chairs and tables circling the walls, a locked chifferobe and what looks to be a folding screen more befitting a hospital room than a living room. The room is a style cacophony of weird items, the most strange being the coffin with decorative grave flowers at center stage. Thus begins the wackiness which develops into full-blown mayhem.
L to R: Nick Westrate, Rebecca Brooksher and Ryan Garbayo in Loot by Joe Orton, directed by Jesse Berger at the Lucille Lortel Theatre until February 9. Photo by Rahav Segev.
We discover from Fay, Mrs. McLeavy’s live-in nurse (Rebecca Brooksher), in a discussion with barely sentient, grieving Mr. McLeavy (a hysterical Jarlath Conroy), that the funeral service is today. The lovely nurse is a sweet, unassuming golddigger who has been married and widowed seven times.She is looking to be widowed again, after she marries Mr. McLeavy who is overwhelmed with grieving his wife and straightening out his affairs, especially his confused mind and emotions. While Fay encourages him that a month or so is an appropriate time to remarry, son Hal McLeavy (Nick Westrate) bursts onto the scene. His entrance with his beloved (he is gay) buddy Dennis (he is a polyamorous bisexual), fosters a scene switch into a plot convolution that stirs up the cauldron of madness.
Hal is like a young George Washington; he can not tell a lie once confronted with the truth. Dennis (Ryan Garbayo), the undertaker will transport Hal’s mum to the cemetery.The other reason Dennis is with Hal is that both have committed a bank robbery and Dennis has become the chief suspect after his questioning earlier in the day. Better his questioning than Hal’s which would be disastrous for them both, for Hal, a parboiled Catholic with issues, can’t lie. If the moral contradiction of not being able to lie but having no problem with stealing seems patently absurd, you’re right. It is and so is the hypocrisy it represents; this is one of Orton’s tucked away jewels. The play abounds with them.
Dennis fears he will be pinched if he can’t stash the hot “loot” away from the piercing eyes of one particular copper, Truscott, (Rocco Sisto, who is hilarious in his continually indignant state). Truscott, who later appears in a poor disguise as an official from the Water Board, has been snarling and eying Dennis like a canny German shepherd. It is only a matter of time before Truscott finds him, discovers the evidence and throws him in prison, especially if he asks Hal any questions about the theft.
The loot which has been stashed but the locked armoire i is the first place anyone would look; and Fay, who can sniff out money like a dog sniffs out a bone, has intimated to Hal that she knows the loot is there and will expose them in a blackmail scheme. When she leaves, simultaneously, both spy the coffin with Mrs. McLeavy’s body inside. Hide the loot in the body? Gruesome, bloody horror! Hal is a “good” Catholic and that would be untoward. Besides, this is a farce, no matter how black hearted. Hide the body in the armoire and the loot in the coffin and lock both.? Perfect! That way Hal will not be lying if he has to deny the thousands are inside the wardrobe. And if someone gets a crowbar and breaks open the chiffarobe? They’ll be a bloody hell of a surprise. Mrs. McLeavy has been stuffed like a sausage and pickled with embalming fluid. She’s a real stiff.
L to R: Rocco Sisto, Nick Westrate and Ryan Garbayo in Loot, by Joe Orton, directed by Jesse Berger at the Lucille Lortel Theatre (Red Bull Theater) until February 9th. Photo by Rahav Segev.
The official from The Water Board (investigator Truscott inept disguise) interrupts their plans to check the water system. Hal and Dennis quickly send him off to the pipes, then speedily trundle the coffin to the armoire and lob in the corpse. In their frenetic haste they flip poor ole mummy like they’re hefting a log onto a wood pile. Their antics are hysterical especially in light of Hal’s professed Catholicism that has forbade him to see his mum naked but allows him to manhandle her remains. The woman hasn’t been able to RIP since she passed.
After this inglorious treatment, the miscreants lock the chiffarobe and dump their cash booty in the coffin sealing it just in time to escape detection. Truscott figures his inept disguise and circular questioning will eventually trip up the thieves so he can pin them like dead insects with the evidence, pulling out all the stops in his “intelligence” to do so. Orton’s characterization of detective Truscott, is an absurdity of confusion, all in the service of quick humor; Truscott is brilliant-inane, hypocritical-legalistic, corrupt but honest about it, opportunistic and self-serving. He is this and more in the interest of feathering his own nest, but money is his object.
The body-cash swap heightens our belly laughs. We see how these ingrates have dumped Mrs. McLeavy in a “most shameful position.” Added to the romp is Truscott’s indignation and frustration at the suspects “innocence” made all the more hysterical by his ridiculous questions which are as twisted as their answers. The scene is surprising and wonderful.
L to R: Nick Westrate and Rocco Sisto in Loot by Joe Orton, directed by Jesse Berger at the Lucille Lortel Theatre. Photo courtesy Broadway.com.
When Fay and Mr. McLeavy enter the fray, they contribute with flippant repartee. The pace steps up, high jinks fueled by understatement, irony. Orton weaves the scenes so the hilarity builds to climax in an even more preposterous and lunatic second act. Plot complications abound and mysteries are uncovered. The innocent are proven guilty and the guilty are shown to be innocent. Such are the pleasant spoils of ambition in a corrupt universe. For irony, Hal’s good, Catholic conscience has remained spotless. He has not seen his mum naked, and he never lied. He’s good to go. We just don’t know where.
The production does not disappoint. It is a pleasure to see the mostly American actors honor this astounding playwright and make him known to another generation of playgoers who can appreciate brilliant farce and black comedy. That said, it must be acknowledged that Orton is uniquely English. Though there is an opaque line between our countries and cultures differentiating America from England, there is a nuanced sensitivity that comes with presenting English cultural and social humor. It is more felt than studied, intuited than practiced. All humor is generic to place, culture, time, range and social consciousness. Very simply, there are some phrases which can fall flat to some ears if not comprehended in the way that the culture normatively means them to be. In this aspect the production’s humor was flattened by our cultural limitations. However, Orton’s words remain true if one has ears to hear them.
Loot is being performed at the Red Bull Theater by special arrangement with the Lucille Lortel Theatre Foundation. George Forbes is the Executive Director; Jesse Berger is the Founding Artistic Director and Evan O’Brient is the Managing Director.
This review first appeared on Blogcritics, at this link: Click Here.
Breakfast With Mugabe by Fraser Grace Extended by Popular Demand
When I heard that Breakfast With Mugabe had received an extension Off Broadway and would appear at the Lion Theatre at Theatre Row until March 2nd, I was pleased. It is a terrific show and enjoyed a near sold out run at the Signature Center when I reviewed it in August of last year. Now it is back by popular demand and I understand why. The tension, the undercurrents, the terrifying wild ride brought to you by the soft spoken and imminently dangerous Robert Mugabe (expertly played by Michael Rogers) is a play told in foreshadowing and suggestive of aggression and power unchecked. It should be seen because it is a reminder that all leaders if left to their own devices for too long will be corrupted and will destroy the good that they have set out to do. It is also a warning for the unsuspecting, those who attempt to play by the rules but have the rules turned against them because of expediency. These are a few of the themes. For more this review initially appeared on Blogcritics at this link.
From the moment we meet Grace Mugabe (Rosalyn Coleman) and hear the complaints she shares with psychiatrist Dr. Andrew Peric (Ezera Barnes) about her husband’s obsessive fears, there is an undercurrent of danger and ominous import in Breakfast With Mugabe, directed by David Shookhoff. According to Grace, Robert Mugabe is hallucinating enemy ghosts and malevolent spirits. Each day he sets a place at the table for one haunting devil in particular and conducts his life and his wife and children’s lives around this paranoia.
We hear in Grace Mugabe’s dark notes of alarm her misery as she tells the story of her husband’s increasingly disturbed mental state. In particular, she refers to the traumatic event in the airport when her husband made a loud scene commanding his bodyguards to stop her and the children from escape, when there was no apparent need to do so. Since then the Zimbabwean President’s wife has been kept prisoner in her own home and cannot go shopping or enjoy the fruits of their position with autonomy, a reality she wishes to end. She begs Dr. Peric to convince her husband to let her leave with the children. She also hopes he will be able to help Robert as best he can since the malady is obviously a dire one that may destroy Mugabe’s political leadership and power regime.
From this too-long exposition scene, the playwright develops the issues which progress to their final resolution. We learn that Dr. Peric, who has been entrusted to help Mugabe, is a member of the once elite class of white farmers who still maintain their farms while many of his social peers are losing theirs to Mugabe’s resettlement plans. Unlike the other former white colonials, Peric has embraced Mugabe’s leadership, has an interracial marriage, and has been a tremendous help to patients at the hospital in Harare. There, the doctor has a sterling reputation because he is loving and culturally flexible. He uniquely understands the spiritualism of the people of Zimbabwe. If anyone can help Mugabe, it is Dr. Peric, but as he makes clear to Grace Mugabe, the President will have to forgo all of his airs and his will to power. He will have to submit to Dr. Peric’s will during the treatment. Thus the playwright introduces the conflict between Dr. Peric and Robert Mugabe as psychiatric patient.
Dr. Peric (Ezra Barnes) received by Mugabe aide Gabriel (Che Ayende)
The second problem we assess from Grace Mugabe’s discussion is this: Obviously, Mugabe has lost his hold on reality, though his hallucinations and paranoia are probably grounded in reality. Apparently, Mugabe’s power structure and leadership are beset on all sides by those who want to overthrow his government and replace it with their own factions. In this underlying atmosphere he most likely fears everyone and knows his enemies are seeking revenge for the blood of those he is responsible for having killed. His country has known war in its struggle for independence. His separate power struggle to maintain his despotic rule under the guise of equality and fair elections has also resulted in bloodshed. He can trust only his select group and must suppress any recriminations and guilty feelings about having acted stupidly and without diligence. He must play the role of the brilliant and powerful leader. Mugabe is wrestling with Mugabe for power over his own demons generated by his past actions. Unless he thwarts them, they will overtake his future and the country he intends to rule.
Rosalyn Coleman as Grace Mugabe
Another complication is in the character of Grace Mugabe. She is pompous, manipulative and extremely clever. Either she is Mugabe’s prize or his bête noire. Her pleas to Dr. Peric and her explanation of her husband’s deteriorating mental state give us the impression that she completely trusts that Dr. Peric has the upper hand and will eventually be the catalyst to help her escape. Her situation is tenuous. Mugabe’s mental decline is impacting his ability to lead and maintain his political power over threatening rivals.
Grace Mugabe is looking out for her husband, but especially, she is looking out for number one. Even if she intends to remain on top as the President’s wife and adviser, her husband will drag her into the abyss, as long as he the dinner plate sits on the table for his chief spirit enemy so Robert can have conversations with him. This is not a leader. Grace doesn’t want to be around for the overthrow. She will escape preferably with Dr. Peric’s help and plenty of money to live abroad. Despite her husband’s attempts to hold on to her and reality, the wolves are circling and closing in.
The playwright has thus established the conflicts in the first scene. When he finally introduces Robert Mugabe (Michael Rogers) after the immense build-up, we are surprised to discover that this may not be the man Grace Mugabe has described so acutely. He is humorous and insightful, and has a penetrating mind and confident spirit. Either Mugabe is “fronting” or Grace has misrepresented her husband’s condition for her own ends. We remain intrigued as the ominous undercurrents swirling around the question of truth and the integrity of each of the characters gradually come to light.
Playwright Fraser Grace uses Dr. Peric’s questioning of Mugabe’s past traumas to create dramatic momentum. As we gradually wend our way through the dense thicket of defense mechanisms Mugabe displays to cover up death and loss, we understand how Mugabe’s self-torture over the past blocks him in the present. Theirs is an interesting “tug of war.” The sense of foreboding we felt in the first scene never leaves us, so we feel relieved that Dr. Peric uses tact and truth to scrape away this uncanny, hyper-manipulative and brilliant leader’s tough outer skins until the softer layers are exposed. Lulled by the doctor-patient interplay, we may be misled and not readily recognize how the playwright cleverly diminishes the doctor’s personal presence while brightening Mugabe’s as he becomes unburdened.
Dr. Peric (Ezra Barnes) delivers the question to Robert Mugabe (Michael Rogers) who must face the haunting spirits.
Finally, the doctor arrives at the healing revelation Mugabe seeks. The outcome is counter to what Dr. Peric expects and what Grace Mugabe desires. Ultimately, the doctor has enabled Mugabe to find his own solution to exorcizing the spirits, freeing himself, strengthening his leadership and deepening his power regime. Dr. Peric has been invaluable, but Mugabe feels no compunction to accommodate him while he guides the country’s toward a new horizon. Grace Mugabe, always the survivor, rides her husband’s wave to the shores of success, no longer desiring to flee. And we, like Dr. Peric, are rattled at their ungenerous callousness as the ominous foreboding we’ve felt all along hits us with its harsh realities.
The play is cerebral, intricate, surprising, foreboding, powerful. I loved it. I thought that of all the actors, Rosalyn Coleman’s performance as Grace Mugabe was the most layered and complex. Ezra Barnes’ and Michael Rogers’ interchange of waxing and waning personas and presence was subtle and enlightening. Together with an excellent Che Ayende as the imperious aide Gabriel, the cast brings us carefully to the stark finish. David Shookhoff has aptly directed his ensemble to present an amazing portrait of this determined and cagey leader who, despite all odds, including avenging spirits, has kept himself in power using any means necessary.
This review first appeared on Blogcritics at this link.
The show is currently at the Lion Theatre at Theatre Row until March 2nd.
Sacred Elephant by Heathcote Williams: Stage Adaptation by Geoffrey Hyland and Jeremy Crutchley
Sacred Elephant, currently Off Broadway adapted for the stage by Geoffrey Hyland and Jeremy Crutchley, is created from Heathcote Williams’ magnificent epic poem about nature’s divine design represented through the elephant. Crutchley gives an ethereal and other-worldly performance as The Other, the being of the elephant. The production is currently at La Mama’s First Floor Theatre until September 22. See the review on Blogcritics and on this site.
Below are the expressive photographs of Crutchley in an embodiment of the elephant’s ethos. I included these to enhance the previous review because of an article that appeared in the Huffington Post about a baby elephant who was rejected by its mother. It cried and cried for hours. Its response is heartbreaking…like our response when we were hurt as children and cried in desolation, or as adults who feel hopeless and cry out to God and the universe for solace and comfort. Click here for the article.
The elephant is us. Can we continue to destroy it and not perish ourselves? Elephants are beings like the other creatures on this planet and must be safeguarded and protected. If we do this, we safeguard our own destiny. Williams’ poem is dedicated to this end as is Crutchley’s performance.
The marvelous Jeremy Crutchly. Photo by Rob Keith
The following is part of the press release by Jonathan Slaff.
Jeremy Crutchley is well known in South Africa and the U.K., having performed a diverse range of award-winning contemporary and classic roles. He has received many Best Actor National Theatre Awards in South Africa and has appeared with the RSC and in the West End. He was nominated Best Actor in the South African Film & TV Awards for his leading role in “Retribution” (2011), a thriller in the style of Cape Fear. He currently appears with John Cleese as The Glock in the feature films “Spud” and “Spud 2.” In January 2014, he wil be featured in the U.S. TV series “Black Sails” (Starz).
Jeremy Crutchley in Sacred Elephant. Photo by Rob Keith
Crutchley’s varied and enviable career ranges from classics to solo shows to rock shows. He performed Doug Wright’s international hit, “I Am My Own Wife,” in 2009 to kick off the Grahamstown Theatre Festival and in South Africa’s prestigious 2010 Fleur du Cap Theatre Awards, the show was nominated for six awards and received three, including Best Actor and Best Solo Performance. Theater critic Peter Tromp (The Next 48 Hours) named the piece as one of the ten most memorable productions in his decade of reviewing. The previous year, Crutchley won Best Actor as Shylock in “The Merchant of Venice” before going on to play Alonso in “The Tempest” at Stratford-Upon-Avon and in that show’s sold-out national tour with the Royal Shakespeare Company. He was a Fleur du Cap Nominee for his performance as Malvolio in “Twelfth Night”, also directed by Geoff Hyland. In 2002-3 at Edinburgh and in the West End, he created the role of Dr. Drabble in the black comedy, “The Dice House” (based on Luke Rheinhardt’s “The Dice Man”). In the UK in the 90’s, he performed at London’s Theatre Royal Windsor and Orange Tree Theatre and appeared in various TV productions for BBC. In the 80’s, he attracted notice for his performances in Sam Shepard’s “Cowboy Mouth” and “Equus,” among others. Also a rock musician, he has written two Rock Theater works and recorded a blues-rock album. When “The Rocky Horror Show” finally hit South Africa in 1992, he played Dr. Frank ‘n’ Furter in the original cast. His recent TV appearances include: “Miss Marple: A Carribbean Mystery”(BBC), “Kidnap And Ransom”(ITV), Martina Cole’s “The Runaway” (Sky TV) and “Women In Love” (BBC).
Jeremy Crutchley as The Other. Photo by Rob Keith
Jeremy Crutchley in Sacred Elephant by Heathcote Williams at La Mama First Floor Theatre. Photo by Rob Keith.
Heathcote Williams (author) is a poet, playwright and actor. He is best known for his extended poems on environmental subjects, “Whale Nation” (1988), “Falling for a Dolphin” (1989) and “Autogeddon” (1991). His plays have also won acclaim, notably “AC/DC,” which was produced at London’s Royal Court, and “Hancock’s Last Hour.” He is also a versatile actor whose memorable roles include Prospero in Derek Jarman’s film of “The Tempest.” “Sacred Elephant” was the first environmental poem by Williams, although it was not commercially published until after his better-known work, “Whale Nation” (1988). “Sacred Elephant” actually dates back to 1967, when Williams spent three months touring in India. While in Rajasthan, he observed local elephants and their trainers at close quarters. He also had a close association with a circus elephant named Rani and was able to watch her daily routine and behavior in captivity. Captive behavior, which is largely unknown to the general public, forms a large portion of “Sacred Elephant.”
The poem first appeared in print in 1987, published by Williams himself but in an unusual form. Three thousand copies were issued on elephant-sized paper and with print “large enough for elephants to read.” These newspapers were given away privately to friends and associates. That year, Williams performed the poem as a radio production, receiving many favorable reviews, including one from Harold Pinter who called it “a marvelous poem.” When Williams’ “Whale Nation” was published in 1988, it set a pattern for Williams’ books to follow, including “Sacred Elephant,” which was published commercially by Jonathan Cape a year later. Following this publication, the book received many more favorable notices.
It was recorded as a Naxos audiobook by Williams himself and given recitations, but it had never been explored for its powerful theatrical potential until Geoffrey Hyland and Jeremy Crutchley conceived this production. Heathcote Williams has granted exclusive dramatic rights to Crutchley to perform the work.
Classic Stage Company’s Caucasian Chalk Circle by Bertolt Brecht
Once again the Classic Stage Company produced a play by Bertolt Brecht. Last season the company presented Galileo starring F. Murray Abraham in an unusual translation by Brecht and the fine British actor Charles Laughton, now deceased. Abraham portrayed Galileo to sold out-crowds. He and the production were superlative. The current version of The Caucasian Chalk Circle stars, as The Singer and Azdak, Christopher Lloyd, the prolific theater actor who is still most noted for his role as “Doc” Brown in the Back to the Future trilogy and Uncle Fester in the Addams Family films.
Jason Babinsky and Christopher Lloyd, courtesy of Joan Marcus, CSC website
The director Brian Kulick (who also helmed Galileo last season) has chosen to set Brecht’s play in the Soviet Union, right about the time of the fall of Communism and the partitioning of its satellite regions into their present independent states. The production’s ironic description of the time and place suggests the metaphors which choppily thread through the play and could have been developed with much greater import to make the conception more powerful: “Ancient Grusinia but also perhaps the fall of the Soviet Union, when the Hammer and Sickle were replaced by the Coca-Cola bottle.”
Because the setting is specific to this time period, the play’s universality, its satire of politics, government corruption and injustice, is unfortunately mitigated. The themes are convoluted and confused. The play’s significance related to our time, when global corporations and shadow global elites deliver a fascist repression of their own, is rendered faint indeed. With a bit more innovation, and connected theatricality of spectacle and costume, the tie-ins symbolized by the Coke bottle (meretricious mercantilism) supplanting the noble beginning of philosophical Marxism (devolving into corrupt, repressive Communism) would have been stupendous. But the conception is to a great extent washed out. Gimmicks (an interruptive blackout, ad hoc audience participation at a makeshift wedding, and the gloss of comedic Russian and Russian-accented English spoken to frame the fable) distract from the interesting conception. The lackluster effects sink the production’s impact and Brecht’s powerful theme that love and human kindness will and should overthrow political class systems whatever their stripe.
The play begins with a Stalinesque/Leninesque statue being toppled by citizens as the current governor and his wife (Mary Testa) flee the violent tumult and retaliation for his repressive rule. It is regime change. The question Brecht poses: Which devils will now come to rule? Testa, true to her comedic talent, lessens the sting of the wife’s cruelty and arrogance as she picks the dresses she will take – but in the chaos leaves her infant son behind.
Christopher Lloyd as The Singer and Elizabeth A. Davis as Grusha. Photo by Joan Marcus.
The child (for expediency and symbolism, perhaps) is represented by a life-like puppet. The fate of the child is debated by a young servant girl who finds him. Grusha (Elizabeth A. Davis in a poignant though uneven performance) deliberates whether to save him. But in a typical Brechtian character tension, her humanity and the lower/middle class tenets of the Golden Rule prompt her to sacrifice her own wellbeing for the child whom she preserves. The main action of the play is the preservation of this puppet-child as she confronts danger and trials to get to her brother’s house for asylum, all the while keeping the child’s identity hidden.
The circumstances achieve a quieter resolution with strange moments of accidental kindness, and power reversal. Azdak (a hapless, loutish peasant portrayed forcefully and playfully by Christopher Lloyd) saves the disguised governor who has become his loutish, peasant equal. Through a series of inane ironies that only political revolutions can foment, Azdak turns himself in for saving the governor, but because the current political crazies have hanged all the former judges, he is in the right place at the right time to be selected as a new judge to decide matters of the law. Why not?
Christopher Lloyd and Tom Riis Farrell, CSC website, Joan Marcus photo
Tom Riis Farrell and Christopher Lloyd. Courtesy of CSC website, Joan Marcus photo.
The justice Azdak metes out is even nuttier (Lloyd shines at these moments), probably, then the decisions the former bribed, corrupt judges handed out, with one random exception. In appears that the true Just Judge (fortune, fate, God) exerts its will through this wild, roguish Azdak. The governor’s wife has returned to reclaim her child from Grusha. Azdak must make the final decision: Who is the appropriate mother? Is it the overweening, materialist, elite, selfish biological mother or the deeply human, loving peasant who exhibits the nobility, kindness and self-sacrificial traits that exemplify the finest qualities of the human spirit that we (the little people) aspire to? In a fit of Solomonic wisdom uncharacteristic of Azdak, this lout has a chalk circle drawn. Whoever is able to take the child out of the circle is the mother. This sets the competition as two women pull each arm of the child as if to tear him in half to prove “ownership.” And you know what happens.
In this translation by James and Tania Tern, with original music by Duncan Sheik and lyrics by the poet W. H. Auden, the production has rare, clarified moments and muddied, miry ones. Coherence throughout is chopped. However, Lloyd should not be missed, and Elizabeth A. Davis manages to hew out a Grusha with whom we want to identify and who vindicates our belief in ethical intention and fine human instinct. And yes, she is rewarded for this when her love interest (Alex Hurt) reaches out to her, despite the complications. (She married a dyingman under false pretenses – his being that he was escaping the draft – then is stuck with him – but not for long.)
Article first published as Theater Review (NYC): ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’ by Bertolt Brecht on Blogcritics.
A Family for All Occasions. A Labyrinth Theater Company Production
A LABYrinth Theatre Company production at the Bank Street Theatre
I thought that A Family for All Occasions, at the Bank Street Theatre (It’s run is completed.) was well acted and directed, but missed the mark with regard to a number of areas in the play that were obviously drop dead contrived.
The actors, with the help of the director, Philip Seymour Hoffman, managed to overcome this as best they could, but the dissonance still crept through. Jeffrey DeMunn held the piece, the family and the ensemble together beautifully. He tempered his portrayal of Howard well: always striving for goodness yet receding from it at various junctures, especially at the climax when he takes out the baseball bat and begin a smash riot. DeMunn’s performance was sustained, real and alive. (His character was also the one most fleshed out by the playwright.)
Deirdre O’Connell’s attempt at portraying her character’s neurosis and anxiety was one note. In the second act, when she is finally retiring from her job (The action of massaging her feet works beautifully.) she is somewhat humanized. At that point she was more believable and relaxed, helped by that simple massaging action. Her acting choices were not spot on; she pushed as a termagant, hollowing out the character’s substance instead of making choices that revealed layers to May’s underlying angst (not just about the job) and unhappiness. The actress cannot be expected to perform miracles; this portrayal fell down in the writing and the direction also.
Deirdre O’Connell (May) Jeffrey DeMunn (Howard) Charlie Saxton (Sam)
Due to whatever, there was a problem with her characterization as there was in the relationships between and among the characters. I thought the relationship between Oz and Sue was too convenient; black man willing to do everything for this family. Oz is portrayed as Mr. Wonderful and Sue the convenient foil, a vapid, lost, presumptuous, willful blonde, demonstrating no redeemable inner characteristics (beyond attempting to find herself). The actress, Justine Lupe was remarkable and dealt with the stereotype as best she could; too bad the playwright didn’t give the character depth and substance. The character is so thinly drawn: how convenient she was orphaned by her mother who she might rather believe killed herself. How convenient she connects with no one, not even Oz and demonstrates utter selfishness. Where is her humanity, making us believe she is worthwhile? Sue is miserable before she meets Oz, but the misery is only relayed by her restlessness as a fluttering creature who never lands. Again How convenient is the playwright’s characterization as the contrived: I’m young and I can be rebellious and this baby is tying me down. (Humans have souls, spirits and complexity. This was not even etch-a-sketched in the play.)
This surface portrayal makes her a characterization device to set up the plot as was the characterization of Oz, as the hero. Both are needed to bring in the baby, create some conflict and move the play along. There is no rational explanation given as to why, selfish as Sue is, she does not get an abortion on her own. We do not see the development of Oz’s relationship with her beyond the sex scene which Sue uses to lure him. If she is perpetrating revenge on her own daughter as a sort of Orestia “sins of the fathers,” this is not apparent or reinforced with symbols. Sue is not fleshed out toward this or any end.
Jeffrey DeMunn
In fact with the exception of the father, the other characters are “types.” Just to exclaim, “Well, humans don’t have reasons why they behave as they do as an answer to the questions the play raises doesn’t cut it, especially when we see how full and deeply Howard is drawn. We know the same depth might have been added to the other characters; this is not beyond the playwright’s talents; the play doesn’t have to be lengthened to do this, either. The problem left the actors doing the best they could to fill in the gaps.
If the work is being revised and funded to go elsewhere, filling out the women characters (from their paper-thin renderings) is an imperative. We don’t need to see another caricature of a “dumb blonde slut” who abandons her baby and runs away; if she has characterized herself as this…how interesting…then this needs to be clarified through symbol, poignant dialogue, hopeless yearning. It wasn’t. What a shame. This is doubly unjust when the demonstrated home life shows no commensurate explanation for her actions except for a few convenient phrases about her past and at best we are told “she is finding herself.” Also, for the characterization of May, we don’t need to see another termagant upset with her job: is she schizophrenic? Well, then, OK. Child of alcoholics? OK. Repudiated by past loves? All right? Challenged in some way besides having no college education? OK. Something? Nothing.
A quiet moment before all hell breaks loose.
Is there a character who makes sense? The character of Sam is the perfect Geek as counterpoint and his begrudging relationship with his father comes through due to Howard’s mea culpa admission he was wrong as he hugs his son before Sam leaves for college. There is something beyond his disgruntled existence and curt, abrupt anger. But what? The Geek stereotype is current and trending (if his phobia of being touched is pushed for effect) so the playwright can get away with it. With Howard’s well drawn characterization and Sam’s stereotype Geek carrying that portrayal, these two fare OK in the play; there is some attempt at connection, only due to Howard reaching out. As for Sam, again a one note stereotype tottering on the edge of human feeling.
My normally perceptive sensibilities ran into confusion upon confusion the play never answered and bring the questions to the playwright’s door. Oz, as intelligent as he is selects Sue when there are so many phenomenal black/white/hispanic sexy women who are alluring and predatory as well. It is suggested Oz is naive with women (All the more reason for the question, why isn’t he snapped up by anyone else as he is engaging and adorable. Here come the cougars!) and is lured by her sexual gifts. Is this not the typical “black man attracted to the white, blonde woman?” obnoxious stereotype? If so it is subliminally racist. Either hone in on this with symbolism, revealing this is Oz’s problem, OR reveal that he is not a free black man who isn’t tied down by his own racial bondages and is there for another reason. The fact that Oz hangs around also because he never had the warm feelings of family? If that is the case, his actions at the end could have been made so poignant…she runs away, he stays because he has found love from Howard and May who accept him. (This is ironic and dubious, by the way.) We see no discussion or hint of any undercurrents he will stay. The end is disjointed at best, but again, that is supposed to be the charm of this free flowing mish mash. Unfortunately, life is much more dirty, specific, real, uncontrived and deep, soulful and complex, unless you tell me that all these people are on meds.
Overall, I think I would have swallowed the incongruities, if this play’s setting was a small, blue collar city in North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri, South Carolina or the Midwest in the 1990s. A Midsize Northeastern City, the present? I don’t think so. This setting was incongruous with the characters’ beings and sensibilities and behaviors. Additionally, the fact that technology was so absent from the play was another failing (Sue has no Android? or Oz? I know folks on the poverty level who sport Smart Phones. I TAUGHT THEM.) And the only one who we see using a cheap mobile is Howard…he also gets an iPod from Oz, not at the suggestion of HIS GEEK SON? I don’t care how much of an isolated recluse he is…it’s technology, computers, smart phones. OMG.)
The setting as “the present” an eastern city is abjectly myopic and discordant with reality. I know 19th century practice in the theater TODAY prevents the use of Social and Mobile to its UTTER STUPID DETRIMENT. (Did you see Roman Tragedies at BAM? They integrated the use of Mobile devices for the audience..brilliantly. We took pictures {OMG, YES…THE TAKING OF PICTURES DURING A PERFORMANCE WAS ALLOWED! We promoted that production with the immediacy of Tweets and FB and Instagram. The audience was employed as the marketing arm of the producers. FOLKS IT WAS FREE PUBLICITY!!!! DUH!} I am glad European theater, once again, is MORE BRILLIANT than restrictive, enslaving, feudalistic old media which must in greed and cupidity HAVE ITS PROFITS. How utterly stupid. Go check out the Oreo brand and see what they’re doing if you want to be profitable.} NYC theater is downright Byzantine and Philistine and the death knell is coming as a result.) But to eliminate mobile devices from the play and say this is the present? Well, it beggars all rationality.
IS ANYONE OUT THERE IN THE LIVE THEATRE LIVING IN THIS CENTURY? Or is there a rife schizophrenia in the theater community and no overlap between onstage works whose settings are supposed to be current and theater people’s own lives where they use Mobile and Social daily? Either change the setting or, change the setting or change the setting, Bob Glaudini. Then flesh out the characters and answer the incongruities you’ve raised beyond contrivance and convenience with specificity. For Oz… What is the unconscious glitch in his being? He knows “malefic”; has he not read the culture’s twistedness in Autobiography of Malcom X to understand his attraction to a clueless, blonde, white woman to forestall it? May? One note- tra, la, la? Sue- this is a very deep woman-where? Sam just isolated by his mother’s loss into geekiness and angry reticence? Again, too many questions and the playwright’s intent doesn’t even adequately hint at the deeper whys. We are left with demonizing Sue, happy Sam escaped…not sure what he escaped, as he’s taking everything with him, feeling sorry for Oz and hopeful for Howard and May’s coming years, especially since May’s chief cause for anxiety is over and she’ retiring. That is not even the beginning of irony for this “family for all occasions.”
I so wanted to really like this play because I appreciate the work of its Director, Philip Seymour Hoffman, the actors, the playwright Bob Glaudini and the usual daring of The LAByrinth Theater Company. I was let down. I hope the play will evolve. It has possibilities if the kinks are ironed out. If no one notices these issues, all the better for them, especially if they receive backing to go farther. Visionary playwrights know this to be so and they seek ways to develop and evolve their work. Will that happen for this play?
CAROLE DI TOSTI 