Centerstage has my review of the new Eclipse Theatre production of Romulus Linney's Democracy up. It sadly ended up a demonstration of the dangers of adapting novels to the stage. Very sad, because the genuinely good stuff onstage couldn't make up for the weaknesses. Ah well. Text is here:
Adapting one novel to the stage is quite difficult: it's a fine art to decide which plot points to put in, remaining true to the original text without rushing through the story, not to mention dramatizing the characters' inner lives in a compellingly theatrical way. Romulus Linney only compounded the difficulty by basing his play, "Democracy," on two novels by Henry Adams: Democracy and Esther. The result shows the pitfalls of the form. Events rush by, and while there are many worthwhile moments along the way, nothing acquires the depth necessary to be engaging.
The play takes place in Washington, D.C. in the spring of 1875. Ulysses S. Grant (Ron Butts) is coming to the end of his disastrous presidency, and two young women are struggling with matters of love and politics. Mrs. Lee (Rebecca Prescott), a young widow, is trying to decide whether to marry Senator Silas Raitcliffe (Jon Steinhagen), while the independent-minded Esther Dudley (Nina O’Keefe) is mulling a similar proposal from Reverend Hazard (Stephen Dale). Unfortunately, each man has political beliefs and connections that the women loathe.
The play should be fascinating, but in trying to cover so much plot in only two hours, it feels like a sketch for a fuller piece. There's no time for events to register or characters to grow, so it's hard to get involved. Things do improve in the second act, but by then too much time has passed for the play to be as gripping as it should be.
Director Stephen Fedoruk and his cast do what they can, and there are some strong performances — Prescott and Steinhagen, having the better-written plot, turn in the most memorable work — but in addition to the flawed script, they are hobbled by a clumsy set and sloppily constructed costumes. There is excellent work being done in places, but it never coheres into a satisfying play.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
New Review Posted: 1985
Centerstage just posted my review of Factory Theatre's 1985, a mashup of Orwell's 1984 and the history of the year that the Bears won the Super Bowl. I have no interest in football (though I did appreciate the program's shout out to Clevelanders as the only sports fans with more reason to be miserable than Bears and Cubs fans), and it's been over a decade since I read Orwell's novel (and by the way, it's pretty intense for a seventh grader), but I still had fun. It's very funny, with some very strong, very broad acting, and despite some real flaws (mostly in the second act), worth a trip. Here's the text:
Rabid sports fans watching a game can often seem like brainwashed citizens in a dictatorship. The Chicago Bears won the Super Bowl in the 1985 season.
Individually these facts might seem unremarkable, but playwright Chas Vrba had the inspired idea of combining the history of the Bears' 1985 triumph with the plot of 1984, George Orwell's classic dystopian political fantasy. The result is "1985," a sharp and very funny new play that is both faithful to Orwell's novel and rewarding on its own terms.
Winston Smith (Vrba), a journalist, lives in the play's frightening version of Chicago, Bear Nation. He writes laudatory articles about the Bears and Cubs as instructed by his superior, O'Brien (Scott OKen), and knows that Papa Bear (the play's Big Brother stand-in) is always watching for traitors from The Resistance, seeking to undermine the integrity and resolve of Bear Nation. But he's getting discontented — the constant losing would get to anyone — and new arrival Julia (Laura McKenzie) is turning his head.
The script works both as a witty commentary on the novel and a feast of jokes and references for Chicago sports fans (I missed a fair number of them), but it's worthwhile even for those unfamiliar with either. The exceptional ensemble attacks their vividly written roles with gusto. It's a rare pleasure to see nine people, working in the broadest comic style, getting their own laughs without detracting from the play as a whole. Director Eric Roach deserves much credit for keeping them all on the same page.
The production certainly has its flaws; a seduction scene in the second act falls flat, and the last scenes don't pack the punch they should. But the premise is still brilliant, and the execution undeniably strong, making the show worth a trip — and not only for dispirited Bears fans.
Rabid sports fans watching a game can often seem like brainwashed citizens in a dictatorship. The Chicago Bears won the Super Bowl in the 1985 season.
Individually these facts might seem unremarkable, but playwright Chas Vrba had the inspired idea of combining the history of the Bears' 1985 triumph with the plot of 1984, George Orwell's classic dystopian political fantasy. The result is "1985," a sharp and very funny new play that is both faithful to Orwell's novel and rewarding on its own terms.
Winston Smith (Vrba), a journalist, lives in the play's frightening version of Chicago, Bear Nation. He writes laudatory articles about the Bears and Cubs as instructed by his superior, O'Brien (Scott OKen), and knows that Papa Bear (the play's Big Brother stand-in) is always watching for traitors from The Resistance, seeking to undermine the integrity and resolve of Bear Nation. But he's getting discontented — the constant losing would get to anyone — and new arrival Julia (Laura McKenzie) is turning his head.
The script works both as a witty commentary on the novel and a feast of jokes and references for Chicago sports fans (I missed a fair number of them), but it's worthwhile even for those unfamiliar with either. The exceptional ensemble attacks their vividly written roles with gusto. It's a rare pleasure to see nine people, working in the broadest comic style, getting their own laughs without detracting from the play as a whole. Director Eric Roach deserves much credit for keeping them all on the same page.
The production certainly has its flaws; a seduction scene in the second act falls flat, and the last scenes don't pack the punch they should. But the premise is still brilliant, and the execution undeniably strong, making the show worth a trip — and not only for dispirited Bears fans.
Superior Coverage
The New York Times has published a very flattering profile of Jon Michael Hill, who plays Franco Wicks in Superior Donuts, newly open on Broadway after its successful run at Steppenwolf, with the whole Chicago cast intact. Hill was incandescent the first time around, and by all reports has gotten even better since. It's the sort of life story all young actors dream about (Steppenwolf ensemble member and acclaimed Broadway debut by the age of 24? Really?), and luckily Hill really has what it takes to make the best of the opportunity.
My only request is this: I know that this show will open up a lot of opportunities for Hill, and he'd be a fool not to take advantage of them, but please Jon, don't forget us in Chicago. You grew up here, this city gave you your big break, and we'd be pissed if you pulled a Sinise and abandoned us. Just saying. Be a pal?
My only request is this: I know that this show will open up a lot of opportunities for Hill, and he'd be a fool not to take advantage of them, but please Jon, don't forget us in Chicago. You grew up here, this city gave you your big break, and we'd be pissed if you pulled a Sinise and abandoned us. Just saying. Be a pal?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Dan Savage Interviews Frank Rich About Stephen Sondheim
This interview is three weeks old, and I somehow missed it when it came out, but it's entirely brilliant. One of my very favorite journalists interviews another about one of my favorite theatre artists. It's a beautiful thing, and you should read it right now.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Tony Kushner at Symphony Center
Tony Kushner, playwright of Angels in America, Caroline, or Change, Homebody/Kabul and others (though not nearly enough), won the Chicago Tribune Literary Prize, given out as part of this year's Chicago Humanities Festival. (Incidentally, he's the third playwright to receive the prize in its 20 years of being awarded, after Arthur Miller and August Wilson.) The presentation of this award took the form of an hour-long conversation between Kushner and Chris Jones, theatre critic at the Trib, at Symphony Center. (Jones' feature on Kushner which ran last week is here, and it's definitely worth a read. Their recap of the event can be found here)
Kushner is high on my list of favorite living playwrights (hell, he's high on my list of favorite paywrights, period), so I jumped at the chance to see him speak. Here are some thoughts from the speech.
1) An hour is not nearly enough time. As anyone who has seen one of his plays knows, he is not a spare writer--words cascade from the mouths of his characters, and the man himself is even more voluble. With such a short time, his responses seemed constrained. I would have loved to see him go on even bigger tangents.
2) Which is not to say he didn't have some great lines. At the start he mentioned his joy whenever "anything I've done succeeds in butch Chicago," especially as he's an "effete New Yorker." He was also capable of being much more serious, describing how in our interconnected world, "no part of the world isn't worth our attention"--and whenever we decide some country is, we're liable to regret it keenly. (The subject was Afghanistan, but the application is quite wide.)
3) Kushner definitely seems to have mellowed a bit. (By the way, how did he get to be 53? He's somehow become an elder statesman.) Perhaps married life agrees with him, but he didn't show quite the same appetite to offend that he used to have. However, Kushner still collowed his own advice from A Bright Room Called Day: "Overstatement is your friend. Use it." Anyone with even the slightest sympathy for the Republican Party would not enjoy his characterization of it today--essentially, that it has been reduced to a repository for "cranks...and Sarah Palin."
4) He also threw plenty of red meat to the left--in addition to his jabs at the Republican Party, he referred to the many morasses that President Obama received from "President Morass" and spoke of those who funded Prop 8 as "Pseudo-religious organizations like the Mormons and the Catholic Church." In addition to the humor, there was plenty of stirring rhetoric: again discussing Prop 8 and Question 1 in Maine, he reminded us that "it is unconstitutional to make a minority group earn its rights." That is to say--gays have the right to marry already, and it is the job of the government to recognize it. It may be a little cheap to say so many obvious applause lines to a mostly liberal group, but I don't care. It felt good.
5) He's thoroughly obsessed with Lincoln. He recently finished a screenplay on the last months of Lincoln's life for Steven Spielberg (the film will supposedly star Liam Neeson, filming has not been scheduled), and in addition to the first question being about Lincoln, he kept circling back to him. This may also be a factor in his mellowing--despite maintaining a Marxist ideology, he seems to have lost faith in revolution, and gained a belief that centrist priogressives are the most likely to achieve real progress.
6) He didn't talk much about theatre. Except for some brief advice for young playwrights (actually do the writing, rather than sitting with the play in your head, get work produced however you can, and don't read Shakespeare when you're writing, as it will only make you depressed), he didn't really discuss theatre much, focusing more on politics. Not surprising perhaps--based on the fact that the previous winners were Miller and Wilson, the prize is frequently given to those with a political perspective--but it would have been great to hear more of Kushner's thoughts on the state of theatre today and his own work. Ah well.
So it was short of being a transcendent talk, but hearing Kushner is always worthwhile. I just hope that whenever he comes by next, he'll have more time to do his thing. (And Court, when are you bringing back Caroline, or Change?)
Kushner is high on my list of favorite living playwrights (hell, he's high on my list of favorite paywrights, period), so I jumped at the chance to see him speak. Here are some thoughts from the speech.
1) An hour is not nearly enough time. As anyone who has seen one of his plays knows, he is not a spare writer--words cascade from the mouths of his characters, and the man himself is even more voluble. With such a short time, his responses seemed constrained. I would have loved to see him go on even bigger tangents.
2) Which is not to say he didn't have some great lines. At the start he mentioned his joy whenever "anything I've done succeeds in butch Chicago," especially as he's an "effete New Yorker." He was also capable of being much more serious, describing how in our interconnected world, "no part of the world isn't worth our attention"--and whenever we decide some country is, we're liable to regret it keenly. (The subject was Afghanistan, but the application is quite wide.)
3) Kushner definitely seems to have mellowed a bit. (By the way, how did he get to be 53? He's somehow become an elder statesman.) Perhaps married life agrees with him, but he didn't show quite the same appetite to offend that he used to have. However, Kushner still collowed his own advice from A Bright Room Called Day: "Overstatement is your friend. Use it." Anyone with even the slightest sympathy for the Republican Party would not enjoy his characterization of it today--essentially, that it has been reduced to a repository for "cranks...and Sarah Palin."
4) He also threw plenty of red meat to the left--in addition to his jabs at the Republican Party, he referred to the many morasses that President Obama received from "President Morass" and spoke of those who funded Prop 8 as "Pseudo-religious organizations like the Mormons and the Catholic Church." In addition to the humor, there was plenty of stirring rhetoric: again discussing Prop 8 and Question 1 in Maine, he reminded us that "it is unconstitutional to make a minority group earn its rights." That is to say--gays have the right to marry already, and it is the job of the government to recognize it. It may be a little cheap to say so many obvious applause lines to a mostly liberal group, but I don't care. It felt good.
5) He's thoroughly obsessed with Lincoln. He recently finished a screenplay on the last months of Lincoln's life for Steven Spielberg (the film will supposedly star Liam Neeson, filming has not been scheduled), and in addition to the first question being about Lincoln, he kept circling back to him. This may also be a factor in his mellowing--despite maintaining a Marxist ideology, he seems to have lost faith in revolution, and gained a belief that centrist priogressives are the most likely to achieve real progress.
6) He didn't talk much about theatre. Except for some brief advice for young playwrights (actually do the writing, rather than sitting with the play in your head, get work produced however you can, and don't read Shakespeare when you're writing, as it will only make you depressed), he didn't really discuss theatre much, focusing more on politics. Not surprising perhaps--based on the fact that the previous winners were Miller and Wilson, the prize is frequently given to those with a political perspective--but it would have been great to hear more of Kushner's thoughts on the state of theatre today and his own work. Ah well.
So it was short of being a transcendent talk, but hearing Kushner is always worthwhile. I just hope that whenever he comes by next, he'll have more time to do his thing. (And Court, when are you bringing back Caroline, or Change?)
Barely Believable
There are a lot of things I could be posting on: I could add my voice to the chorus of blog postings on the early closing of Brighton Beach Memoirs (it is a sad statement about how the business has changed and how it hasn't, and shocking that a play can close that fast after getting positive reviews) or I could write about seeing the last performance of Animal Crackers at the Goodman (Short version--completely hilarious. More to come eventually.) But I was distressed by this piece of news on Playbill, and felt I needed to comment on it immediately.
For those who didn't follow the link, it states that the appropriately named Martian Productions, a production and management group, has announced four productions it is aiming for Broadway in the next few years. I've never heard of one (a new rock musical called The Thief), and two sound promising (A show for young audiences called Wanda's World was well-received Off-Broadway, and Marc Camoletti's sex farce Don't Dress For Dinner was a huge hit in Chicago). But the first one on the list shocked me: Damon Intrabartolo and John Hartmere's pop opera bare.
I was shocked for a very simple reason: I saw this show at the Bailiwick a few seasons back, and it's terrible. The production was decent--well-acted and sung, though the rave scene was hilariously stilted--but the show itself is just not good.
I suppose I should alert you to spoilers in the plot summary below, but it's predictable enough that you'll probably see them coming scenes in advance. Still, fair warning.
The plot focuses on a closeted gay couple at a fancy catholic school, dealing with external and internalized homophobia--causing one to impregnate a girl. Angst ensues, as well as scheming, fights, drugs, an abortion, and a suicide onstage during a performance of Romeo and Juliet. And yes, every possible plot point and character is tied in to poor Shakespeare's play.
Now I'm all for angsty gay teens--hell, I was one not too long ago. I'm likely to be kindly disposed to a play about how very very hard it is to be a gay teen, especially if you put hot boys making out in the show--and, this being a show produced at Bailiwick, they did.
But I do have some standards. Power-pop music, for instance, is doubtless to the taste of many (after all, it is called popular music). I am not one of those people. More to the point, the songs in bare tend towards lyrical generalities, which is a serious flaw in their storytelling ability. Especially since bare (are you tired of the lowercase yet?) has no book whatsoever. The whole story is told through songs, and those songs are frustratingly low on clarity and specificity.
But worse than all this is the script's manipulative air of tragedy. It's like sitting for two hours while people yell about how very sorry for them you should feel. Of course, it would be hard to care otherwise--the plot is too unbelievable to get the interest of an audience on its own.
So good luck to Martian Productions--and anyone still risking doing new shows on Broadway. But if they want to produce a show about young people, they should really choose another one.
For those who didn't follow the link, it states that the appropriately named Martian Productions, a production and management group, has announced four productions it is aiming for Broadway in the next few years. I've never heard of one (a new rock musical called The Thief), and two sound promising (A show for young audiences called Wanda's World was well-received Off-Broadway, and Marc Camoletti's sex farce Don't Dress For Dinner was a huge hit in Chicago). But the first one on the list shocked me: Damon Intrabartolo and John Hartmere's pop opera bare.
I was shocked for a very simple reason: I saw this show at the Bailiwick a few seasons back, and it's terrible. The production was decent--well-acted and sung, though the rave scene was hilariously stilted--but the show itself is just not good.
I suppose I should alert you to spoilers in the plot summary below, but it's predictable enough that you'll probably see them coming scenes in advance. Still, fair warning.
The plot focuses on a closeted gay couple at a fancy catholic school, dealing with external and internalized homophobia--causing one to impregnate a girl. Angst ensues, as well as scheming, fights, drugs, an abortion, and a suicide onstage during a performance of Romeo and Juliet. And yes, every possible plot point and character is tied in to poor Shakespeare's play.
Now I'm all for angsty gay teens--hell, I was one not too long ago. I'm likely to be kindly disposed to a play about how very very hard it is to be a gay teen, especially if you put hot boys making out in the show--and, this being a show produced at Bailiwick, they did.
But I do have some standards. Power-pop music, for instance, is doubtless to the taste of many (after all, it is called popular music). I am not one of those people. More to the point, the songs in bare tend towards lyrical generalities, which is a serious flaw in their storytelling ability. Especially since bare (are you tired of the lowercase yet?) has no book whatsoever. The whole story is told through songs, and those songs are frustratingly low on clarity and specificity.
But worse than all this is the script's manipulative air of tragedy. It's like sitting for two hours while people yell about how very sorry for them you should feel. Of course, it would be hard to care otherwise--the plot is too unbelievable to get the interest of an audience on its own.
So good luck to Martian Productions--and anyone still risking doing new shows on Broadway. But if they want to produce a show about young people, they should really choose another one.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
"Theatre Is Life, Television Is Furniture"
Last night was the annual benefit for Stage Left, and what a night it was! It was at the Theatre Building, and there was delicious food and drink, a large group of people, and a wonderful roast of our own Kevin Heckman. He was our Producing Artistic Director from 2004-2008, so there was plenty of material, as well as brief parodies of the plays he directed at Stage Left. It was hilarious--especially the surprise roast from his parents. At the end, Kevin got to deliver his rebuttal, but he mostly stayed away from the chance to get back at everyone (though they all certainly deserved it) in exchange for some ruminating on why he loves theatre and how to give a live, immediate experience to more people. It included the quote from the title of this post. I found out this morning that it's apparently also on a t-shirt, but that doesn't make it less true.
So thanks to everyone at Stage Left who helped to plan and execute this fantastic evening, and I hope all of you in the blogosphere will come see our final show in the old space on Sheffield, M.E.H. Lewis' Here Where It's Safe, February 13-April 3, 2010.
(See M. E. H.? I told you I'd put you in my blog!)
So thanks to everyone at Stage Left who helped to plan and execute this fantastic evening, and I hope all of you in the blogosphere will come see our final show in the old space on Sheffield, M.E.H. Lewis' Here Where It's Safe, February 13-April 3, 2010.
(See M. E. H.? I told you I'd put you in my blog!)
Monday, November 2, 2009
"Mother Bear" Reading: TONIGHT! FREE!
Alright, shameless plug time.
Jayme McGhan, whose play The Fisherman I assistant directed at Stage Left in LeapFest in 2008, has written a new play, called Mother Bear. It's a sort of Western-Noir-Thriller about a salt man (an organizer) for the Teamsters trying to sign up the most notorious trucker gang in the West. But, of course, nobody is what they seem and there are many surprises in store. It's a really exciting show, with an exceptionally twisty plot, five exciting characters, and fantastic dialogue.
And it's getting a reading tonight, at the National Pastime Theater, 4139 N Broadway, in Chicago. (It's accessible from the Sheridan Red Line station or the 36 bus.) I'll be reading stage directions and leading the discussion afterwards, where you can let Jayme know what you thought to help him improve the play.
By the way, the reading also has a great cast:
Freely- Stephen Crandall
Mother- Jim Ferrell
Delia- Dana Cruz
Vera- Morgan McCabe
Bones- Justin Cagney
Jayme's a good friend and a fantastic playwright. He's only going to improve, and with any luck we'll be seeing his plays produced soon. You'd be wise to get to know his work soon.
And if you are there, stick around for the discussion say hi to me afterwards. If we haven't met, please introduce yourself--it will be a pleasure to get to know you.
See you tonight!
Jayme McGhan, whose play The Fisherman I assistant directed at Stage Left in LeapFest in 2008, has written a new play, called Mother Bear. It's a sort of Western-Noir-Thriller about a salt man (an organizer) for the Teamsters trying to sign up the most notorious trucker gang in the West. But, of course, nobody is what they seem and there are many surprises in store. It's a really exciting show, with an exceptionally twisty plot, five exciting characters, and fantastic dialogue.
And it's getting a reading tonight, at the National Pastime Theater, 4139 N Broadway, in Chicago. (It's accessible from the Sheridan Red Line station or the 36 bus.) I'll be reading stage directions and leading the discussion afterwards, where you can let Jayme know what you thought to help him improve the play.
By the way, the reading also has a great cast:
Freely- Stephen Crandall
Mother- Jim Ferrell
Delia- Dana Cruz
Vera- Morgan McCabe
Bones- Justin Cagney
Jayme's a good friend and a fantastic playwright. He's only going to improve, and with any luck we'll be seeing his plays produced soon. You'd be wise to get to know his work soon.
And if you are there, stick around for the discussion say hi to me afterwards. If we haven't met, please introduce yourself--it will be a pleasure to get to know you.
See you tonight!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Graceland Heads East
Ellen Fairey's Graceland, which opened in May and is now set to run through November 15th, is set to move to New York.
The play opened at Profiles Theatre in May and has been extended four times, moving just down the street to the National Pastime Theatre. More information on that run here. (By the way, check out the "reviews" tab there, and compare their quote to my actual review. None of the words change, but the tone sure is different when you add exclamation points.)
According to Playbill, the play will be staged Off-Broadway at the Duke Theatre as part of Lincoln Center Theatre's LCT3 program, devoted to smaller-scale productions of emerging works. It is set to run May 3-29, with an official opening the 17th of that month. No casting announcement has been made, but given that it is to be directed by Henry Wishcamper (who has done some work in Chicago, most recently the Goodman's Animal Crackers), rather than Profiles' Matt Miller, it's a fair bet that the cast will be all New Yorkers.
A huge congratulations to Fairey and everyone at Profiles on the continued success of the play. I'm still a bit mystified--I thought the play had great dialogue and interesting characters, but found some of the behavior inexplicable and the plot in general pretty predictable, though the strong acting and direction helped a lot. Still, it's never bad when a show strikes a chord, and I hope that Graceland goes on to more success--and Fairey's next play is even better.
The play opened at Profiles Theatre in May and has been extended four times, moving just down the street to the National Pastime Theatre. More information on that run here. (By the way, check out the "reviews" tab there, and compare their quote to my actual review. None of the words change, but the tone sure is different when you add exclamation points.)
According to Playbill, the play will be staged Off-Broadway at the Duke Theatre as part of Lincoln Center Theatre's LCT3 program, devoted to smaller-scale productions of emerging works. It is set to run May 3-29, with an official opening the 17th of that month. No casting announcement has been made, but given that it is to be directed by Henry Wishcamper (who has done some work in Chicago, most recently the Goodman's Animal Crackers), rather than Profiles' Matt Miller, it's a fair bet that the cast will be all New Yorkers.
A huge congratulations to Fairey and everyone at Profiles on the continued success of the play. I'm still a bit mystified--I thought the play had great dialogue and interesting characters, but found some of the behavior inexplicable and the plot in general pretty predictable, though the strong acting and direction helped a lot. Still, it's never bad when a show strikes a chord, and I hope that Graceland goes on to more success--and Fairey's next play is even better.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
That's FRAHN-ken-steen!
New review posted on Centerstage, of the Hypocrites' production of Sean Graney's adaptation of Frankenstein. It's not consistently successful--in fact, in places it's pretty much a mess. But there's still enough of value to make it probably worth a trip for those who enjoy Graney's style, and avant-garde theatre in general. And if you're going, you might as well attend a late-night show. Here's the text:
Take Mary Shelley's original novel, quotes from its influences and adaptations, the 1931 film projected in the background, a few creepy songs, moments both of visceral terror and high-flown intellect, and a staging that has the audience alternately following the actors around and jumping out of their way, throw them all in a blender, and you'll have some idea of what you'll get at this version of "Frankenstein," adapted by director Sean Graney and his four-member cast. There is an awful lot going on during this show's swift running time, and not all of it works. The parts that do are hugely exciting, but it hasn't yet formed a satisfying whole.
Graney's four-actor adaptation shows its alternately grim and playful tone from the beginning, when the audience enters to see both bloody dolls hanging from the ceiling and a game of balloon-toss in process. This mix continues when the play proper begins—it can switch from moments of stomach-turning violence (brilliantly choreographed by Matt Hawkins) to Frankenstein (John Byrnes) and his monster, here called Daemon (Matt Kahler), joking that the pen used to sign an oath in blood is "ginormous."
And for the first 25 minutes or so, it's brilliant. But the play never follows through on its best parts. It goes in too many directions without follow-through, and there are a few too many sections of speechifying that don't satisfyingly tie in to the play. (The huge space at the MCA also dissipates the energy, leaving too much of the audience too far away to really engage.) There's no doubt that this is a group of intelligent, talented artists and it's wonderful that they have the chance to explore their ideas on such a large scale. It's just that the whole is less than the sum of its often stunning parts.
Take Mary Shelley's original novel, quotes from its influences and adaptations, the 1931 film projected in the background, a few creepy songs, moments both of visceral terror and high-flown intellect, and a staging that has the audience alternately following the actors around and jumping out of their way, throw them all in a blender, and you'll have some idea of what you'll get at this version of "Frankenstein," adapted by director Sean Graney and his four-member cast. There is an awful lot going on during this show's swift running time, and not all of it works. The parts that do are hugely exciting, but it hasn't yet formed a satisfying whole.
Graney's four-actor adaptation shows its alternately grim and playful tone from the beginning, when the audience enters to see both bloody dolls hanging from the ceiling and a game of balloon-toss in process. This mix continues when the play proper begins—it can switch from moments of stomach-turning violence (brilliantly choreographed by Matt Hawkins) to Frankenstein (John Byrnes) and his monster, here called Daemon (Matt Kahler), joking that the pen used to sign an oath in blood is "ginormous."
And for the first 25 minutes or so, it's brilliant. But the play never follows through on its best parts. It goes in too many directions without follow-through, and there are a few too many sections of speechifying that don't satisfyingly tie in to the play. (The huge space at the MCA also dissipates the energy, leaving too much of the audience too far away to really engage.) There's no doubt that this is a group of intelligent, talented artists and it's wonderful that they have the chance to explore their ideas on such a large scale. It's just that the whole is less than the sum of its often stunning parts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
