Theatre

B

Hoo-rah!

• Wonderful use of the space– a large studio with a flat floor. It felt spacious and free when it served the story, and empty and cold when necessary.
• A fully multimedia experience. Sound, sight, cameras– awesome. Reminded me of ‘…some trace of her’ in some very good ways.
• Good restraint of the ‘infinity effect’ the cameras create when filming their own projection. Glad it was saved for the end, and it worked well.
• Great humor/comic timing. Loved the guy– especially in suave casanova mode.
• Mustaches! Somehow worked very well for allowing the female actors to play multiple genders.

Blech…

• The whole production came off as a little cold. There were a lot of ‘emotional’ moments that would have worked better if more time was spent making us care about the characters.
• Didn’t feel any stakes. Wasn’t rooting for anything. It was an interesting exploration of the whole art versus love thing, but not a particularly interesting story. It kind of just washed over me.

A-

‘Whhaaaaa…? But that’s not a theatre performance!’ I hear you grumble. But here’s my definition of theatre: a live experience involving suspension of disbelief. Here’s my definition of good theatre: theatre that moves me. This was good theatre. That being said, because it does not define itself as theatre, I will choose to forgo my usual ‘Hoo-ra’/'Blech…’ format of bullet-point review. Instead, think of this more as a recap. A thorough-recap. My goal here is for you to understand–to empathize with–how wonderful this experience was. Here we go.
Continue reading…

Normally I wouldn’t bother reviewing something that you have no possibility of seeing (it was a one-night-only thing), but this evening got me thinking about things like how short our generation’s attention span is, and how strange it is that I’ve realized I’m more likely to commute from Brooklyn to Manhattan to see an unknown hour-long production than a three-hour one. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good three-hour play (see my Death of a Salesman review), but there’s nothing worse if twenty minutes in you realize it’s destined to be a complete waste of your time. Anyway:

B+

Hoo-rah!

• There were 4 plays and I thoroughly enjoyed 3 of them.
• Common themes well-explored: dreams, war, what life must be like in a first-world country, death.
• Loved hearing the Spanish mixed with English. I don’t speak Spanish, but I was usually able to figure out what was being said and the mixing was a pure audible treat.
• The second play, ‘A White Night’s Dream’ was my favorite. In just a few lines, the two characters became real, relatable people. I loved how genuinely enthralled the male character was at hearing the progression of the female character’s dream. And his harping obsession with Al Pacino. And the female’s shortening of Peter Brook to just ‘Brook’, the visionary director.  Wonderful job making me continuously ask the question ‘and then what?’
• The final play (a monumental one-woman monologue) had excellent use of language that painted gorgeous visual images. Also great uses of sound.

Blech…

• None of the endings really worked. Well, I liked the third play (which was a little too unrelentingly serious for me) retroactively lightening the whole ordeal by claiming ‘aliens’ as the explanation for the missing daughter that tore a family apart… but it seems I’m one of the few who did. The first play just petered out, the second play had kind of a strange death sequence that didn’t resonate for me, and the fourth play should have ended about a minute before it did– on the excellent line ‘I’m going home to make pudding for breakfast!’
• Interestingly enough, all the plays could have used some editing down. I think a lot of writers decide they’re going to write a ten-minute play, then come up with a five-minute idea, then stretch it out to ten minutes.
• The first play didn’t work for me at all. I didn’t care about the characters, I didn’t feel stakes, I wasn’t rooting for anything to happen. Just awkward shit and sex jokes.

B+

Hoo-rah!

• I love me some Pinter. The actors used the pauses well and there were a lot of fun moments that you can only find in a Pinter play.
• The actors and the writing tackle some heavy subject matter (random acts of kindness for the homeless & mentally disturbed) with enough levity to keep the show entertaining without ever trivializing the issue.
• Although it was only the second play Pinter ever had produced, it felt like it could have been a sequel to my favorite Pinter play ‘No Man’s Land.’ In that play, a homeless man spends the show working up the courage to ask if they can live with someone. In this play, that’s the jumping off point. ‘No Man’s Land’ had more juicy menace, but this was funnier.
• On the funny note, there were some hilarious standalone bits. One involves Mick’s entrance where he keeps repeating the same questions to poor, already-troubled Davies, one involves a matchbox in the dark, and one involves a bag being passed around. Brilliant.
• Jonathan Pryce was magnetic. His laughing was well-considered and provided magnificent pacing to his diatribes, his anger was terrifying and saddening, his physicality was flawless. And when it came time to make us truly pity him, truly wish we could help him, he delivered. The last few moments we see him are truly heartbreaking.
• I was really hoping the play would go to where it did in the last 10 minutes, and I’m glad it did. It helped ground the entire show.

Blech…

• In the moment, I enjoyed the ending. In retrospect, it leaves a yucky taste in my mouth. Without completely giving it away, it hints that a lot of what happened in the play could have been imagined. Maybe one or two of the characters never existed? It’s a fascinating idea (if done right), but as far as I could tell, the seeds for such a contention were never planted in the show. Needlessly spooky.
• The actor playing Mick… either he needed more of a history to justify his behavior, or he needed to act more human and take time building more to his extremes. None of his outbursts felt particularly earned–just like shock value.
• As much as I love Pinter’s dialogue, a lot of it in this play felt excessive and like it needed the work of a good editor. At the same length as ‘Death of a Salesman’ (2 hours and 45 minutes), this show had maybe one third of the emotional discoveries. I think the show could get the same story across and ultimately pack more punch if it lost about an hour.
• Because I love ‘No Man’s Land’ so much, I couldn’t help but keep comparing the two shows, and be secretly thinking how ‘No Man’s Land’ conveyed a lot of elements concisely and powerfully that were still being fussed with in the writing of this play (e.g. quiet threats are better than vocal ones, monologues should be earned and are most interesting when you’re deeply invested in the reaction of the listener(s), the nature of memory loss is more interesting if there are dots to connect). But hey, ‘No Man’s Land’ came much later in his career, so that shows improvement.

Tales from the Stagedoor…

• Actually, a talkback session with the actors and a Pinter scholar.
• Jonathon Pryce played Mick in this show back in 1980. He says “when the writing is really good, it’s like working with an orchestra behind you.” Also, his dad was sent to an asylum, so this was a very personal production.
• “What is the nature of the Buddha statue?” Enlightenment. A precious object. Smashed to bits. Metaphors abound.
• One person said that it felt like too often they were just ‘playing for laughs.’ The response from the actors was a well-reasoned explanation of being true to the material and never playing for laughs, but keeping in mind that laughs are certainly intended by Pinter. They argued that tragedy feels that much darker when its contrasted with the levity of humor. I agree.
• When asked ‘why does Aston invite Davies to live with him at all’, the actor said that his character’s life was a very boring one and more activity could help. In addition to being a random act of kindness, this was kind of like having a dog or a cat. It’s just nice to have life around.
• The whole session was very enlightening, both looking at the craft of acting, and doing justice to a solid piece of writing. Listen to the whole talkback here.

A-

Hoo-rah!

• You saw it here folks. My first true NYC Catharsis. Lucky me. Copious weeping on all fronts.
• It is truly one of the great American plays, and they did it absolute justice. The text was brought to life in ways I never imagined.
• Possibly the most powerful moments for me were watching Willy Loman’s delusions blend with real life– I have to give due credit to the lighting and the blocking for making these moments feel lonely and truly unsettling.
• I enjoyed the contrast between the father/son relationship of Willy/Biff and Charley/Bernard. Willy pumps Biff so full of hot air and is incredibly involved in Biff’s life and he ends up a failure. Charley, on the other hand, had what seemed to be a laissez-faire approach to fathering. He was kind and genial to Bernard, but was never a super active part of his life, and look at how Bernard turned out– presenting cases to the Supreme Court!
• How do Andrew Garfield and Philip Seymour Hoffman maintain their throats, performing this once, sometimes twice a day? The level of visceral anger and yelling and sobbing they produce (never unjustified in my opinion) would undoubtedly destroy the voice of mere mortals.
• Again, Biff and Willy– just… oh god. Their rapport is so genuine and heartbreaking: such wonderful intentions turn so very sour. Their refusal to level with each other is infuriating and a fundamentally timeless element of families. Andrew Garfield and Philip Seymour Hoffman invest everything they have into these roles; I’ve never seen such raw, unabashed emotion on stage before.

Blech…

• Not a critique of the show, but rather the audience: am I the only person who hates the tradition of raucous clapping when a famous actor enters a scene for the first time? Ughh… completely kills the moment.
• I appreciate the intention of using the music from the original production, but I felt the play would have been better served with a different soundtrack. Sorry, the flute is just a hokey instrument to me.
• while undoubtedly a masterful performance well-deserving of its Tony nomination, Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Willy Loman seemed one too many times exactly like the performance Dustin Hoffman gave in the 1985 film. Particularly his laugh.
• I did not enjoy the performance of the actor playing Howard. At all. Way too over the top and farcical.