New Review Posted: The Ghost Sonata

Centerstage has posted my review of The Ghost Sonata at Oracle. Sadly it didn't do much for me, though there was interesting stuff going on. I do want to point out something cool that Oracle is doing, though: starting next season, every single seat is going to be free, funded entirely by donations. This is something a lot of theatres have discussed, but very few do--Mike Daisey would be pleased. This is certainly worth attention and support, so those of you with cash to spare, please go help them out. Anyhow, here's the text of the review:

It's not necessarily a bad thing for a play to be confusing. Indeed, for a bizarre script like August Strindberg's "The Ghost Sonata," a clear story is entirely beside the point. So it's no criticism to say that the production directed by Max Truax is virtually impenetrable: such basic questions as who people are, what their relationships are, what they are doing, and where it's happening are only clear after much time and thought on the audience's part, and then only partially. The problem is that the audience is only rarely drawn in to the experience. Without that engagement, the evening never hits the notes of existential horror and disturbing imagery that are necessary to care. Despite the obvious theatrical intelligence of Truax and his collaborators, the audience is left in a state of mild bewilderment, leavened only by the occasional laugh or startling image.

The story, as far as can be gathered, concerns an Old Man (Rich Logan), who uses an innocent Student (Federico Rodriguez) to infiltrate the home of the Colonel (Sean Ewert). The Student loves the Daughter (Stephanie Polt), but by the time he reaches her, he has seen a world of corruption and endless frustration.

There is much to admire. The actors are completely committed (with Logan's creepy, twitchy performance particularly strong), and sometimes find the thread of horror that runs through the script. The design creates the play's skewed world, particularly Brieanne Hauger's perspective-skewing set, Jonathan Guillen's pervasive underscoring and Michael Janicki's bizarre video design. But it never goes beyond admiration. For a work pitched to this emotional intensity, it's vital that the audience be drawn in, whether by the characters' emotions, the language's potency, or the sheer weirdness of the affair. And while the production is sometimes impressive, it's stubbornly uninvolving.

Zoo/Box

This is not, strictly speaking, a review. I went to see InnateVolution's production of Edward Albee's one-acts The Zoo Story and The Sandbox because I have a friend in the cast--Casey Chapman, who plays Jerry in The Zoo Story and Daddy in The Sandbox. The show was interested in being blogged about, and I wanted to see it, especially since I'd never seen either onstage, so I went. What little journalistic objectivity I may have still had probably went away when my drink after the show with my friend turned into karaoke with the entire cast. So take this with a grain of salt.

Disclaimers out of the way, how were the shows?

The Zoo Story and The Sandbox were among Albee's earliest plays, and the former was the major hit that put him on the map. Both demonstrate a strong Absurdist influence, though it is more obvious with the latter.

Zoo appears to be a realistic story of a meeting between "permanent transient" Jerry (Chapman) and buttoned-up executive Peter (Raymond Cleveland) on a Central Park bench. Jerry tells increasingly bizarre and frightening stories to Peter, who gets more and more aghast at what he's gotten himself into. The violence that erupts is somehow both inevitable and shocking.

But pay careful attention and it becomes harder to find your way. Why is Jerry so hostile? Where does he really come from? Why doesn't Peter just leave? These questions aren't answered, and maybe they can't be. But the play hints at depths of despair and furious violence that are always just out of reach, and even at an hour long has a surprisingly intense impact.

This production mostly brings that impact across. Director Toma Langston made one very strong choice that I'm not sure about. Throughout the story, Jerry describes the residents of his boarding house. It seems to me that we should never be sure whether anything Jerry says is true, that all of these stories are inherently untrustworthy. Langston chooses to put all of the boarding house residents onstage when they are mentioned. In fact, they appear before the play proper begins, showing the chaos from which Jerry emerges.

For me, this had two effects: it gives Jerry a realistic context, which seems to take away from his status as a mysterious, inexplicable force of disruption, and it puts the audience in the place of Jerry more than Peter. Both effects are fascinating, and some might find them quite illuminating. For me, they subtly threw off the play's balance.

However, whether or not this choice works, it's certainly done well. The figures are not overused, and the characterizations are vivid and creepy. They create some startling stage pictures, and always feel like they are supporting the images in the text, whether or not they are necessary.

Incidentally, Albee himself is responsible for another problem--he recently revised the script to take place in the present day, rather than the late 1950s when it was written. However, a few references to Stephen King are not enough to cover up how rooted it is in its time, in the details--a boarding house and pornographic playing cards are not very common today--the attitudes of the characters, and the general philosophical concerns. Apparently Albee won't allow productions of the original script, which is unfortunate.

However, those concerns aside, the production still works. Much credit goes to the work that Chapman has done. He and Langston wisely realized that this is not a realistic play, and Jerry is not a realistic character. A naturalistic portrayal would flatten Jerry into a case history. So the heightened, theatrical performance that Chapman gives works very well. Jerry is a destabilizing force of nature, and that's disturbingly clear.

Cleveland, as Peter, has far less to do, and the production seems not quite to have settled on who he is. Is he a buttoned-up businessman or a more relaxed, artsy type? Is he who he appears to be or not? (And why, when his being married is constantly referenced, did he not have a wedding ring on?) Still, despite this blurred presence, Cleveland certainly stepped up at the crucial moments.

As for The Sandbox, well...big choices don't always pay off. It's a very odd show, with a sitcom-perfect Mommy (Lyn Scott) and Daddy (Chapman) taking Grandma (Patricia Tinsley) to the beach and placing her in a sandbox, while time passes suddenly and a Young Man (Christopher Boyd) stretches and does exercises. It's billed by Albee as a tribute to his grandmother and it's clearly a meditation on death.

The program notes say that it's being presented as a sitcom, rather than a drama, but that doesn't seem quite accurate. Langston has encouraged his actors to leave any subtlety or clarity behind in search of any joke they can find. There are bad wigs, spontaneous arias, dance numbers, and a variety-show announcer (who I think was completely invented for the show). The scripts genuine humor--dark and absurd--is completely lost, along with any understanding of the play's point and ideas. The actors are clearly capable of being funny, but the staging and the script clash so completely that the effect is grating rather than funny.

A few more thoughts on elements surrounding the production:

1) InnateVolution is so named because of the Buddhist concept that all people have the innate ability to evolve. In fact, the entire company is animated by the principled of Nichiren Buddhism. It's a lovely idea, but the company's name crosses the name between intriguing and silly.

2) Serving drinks in the lobby is always a good idea, even if they are flavored vodka. I hear that Thursdays and Sundays also have appetizers. Excellent decision.

3) Don't read the program notes before the show--they spell out the plays' ideas, and the production is quite clear on its own.

So should you go? If you've never seen The Zoo Story live, absolutely--it's a hugely important play, and this is a very strong production. And what's heartening is that this is a production that takes risks. Some succeed, some bellyflop, but the desire to try something new is definitely something to encourage.

The production plays Thursday-Saturday at 8 PM and Sunday at 3 PM through August 9th at the Oracle Theatre, 3809 N Broadway. For tickets ($10 Thurs and Sun, $20 Fri and Sat) call 312-513-1415 or visit www.innatevolution.org.