I may be in the minority in this (wouldn't surprise me there), but when a writer dusts off a historic figure and plops him or her down onto the and has said historical figure just stand there and recite his or her life story, well I'm sorry, but I just find that incredibly lazy and boring. I mean what exactly is supposed to be interesting and theatrical about that? I would say 'if I was interested in this person I would have pick up a biography and read it,' but I'm aware enough to know that there are people who wouldn't think of reading a biography (which can take an investment in time of days or weeks) when a play will generally be over and done with in 90 minutes (if we're lucky). But you know, there are a lot more interesting ways to bring history to life than throwing an impersonator on stage and having go "and then I did this" for 90 to 120 minutes. You'll get the history buffs, and the people who were interested in the subject that the character is going to talk about - but what about the innocent bystanders who don't necessarily care about hearing a dry life story, but care more about seeing theatre first, educational content second. Not too too long ago (I think it was weeks, but it could have been months) I went to see a play called "The Paris Commune" about some obscure little revolution in Paris. And the creators of that show had a whole slew of actors on stage, and found an interesting way to present the story on stage through historical records and song and dance or the period, and I found myself surprisingly interested. I'm not saying all history needs to be presented as musical theatre (though that doesn't hurt), but dressing Laurence Fishburne or Mercedes Ruhl up in a period costumes, and having them recite a short biography of Thurgood Marshall or Louise Nevelson, well... unless the writer found a really interesting angle, or a really colorful way to tell the story (Doug Wright's version of the life of Charlotte von Mahlsdorf in "I Am My Own Wife" comes to mind an example of a well made solo bio play), well then you're just going to end up preaching to the choir and the rest of the audience will either be bored to tears or fall asleep, depending on the amount of caffeine in their systems.
As you may or may not have already figured out, over the past week (a week ago Friday and tonight) I went to see "Occupant" and "Thurgood." "Occupant," a rare misstep from my favorite playwright Edward Albee, is technically a two person play, about sculptor Louise Nevelson. My feeling on there being two characters in the play is that Albee couldn't figure out how to keep Nevelson on stage by herself because she (in his version) doesn't really want to tell her life story, so he plops a journalist down on stage next to her to prod her along and force her to stay on stage and feed us our history lesson. One wonders whether it would have been better if she had poisoned the journalist before the show started, so she could stay in peace in her grave and the audience could be spared her life story. I saw the play back when it premiered in I think 2002, and remember finding the first act to be almost unbearably boring, but the second act - with its big set reveal and when Nevelson finally got around to being famous - to be rather more compelling. I also remember that I considering leaving that production at intermission, but before the show I had read an interview with Albee and he mentioned something about how New Yorkers are good theatregoers and they won't abandon a play at intermission, and not wanting to disappoint him (I have a vague recollection that he was also sitting near me at the performance), I stuck around and was glad I did. Well, "Occupant" is back at the Signature, and though Mercedes Ruhl is now masterfully tackling the lead role of Nevelson (last time it was the understudy for Anne Bancroft, whose name I don't remember), and despite Ruhl's excellent performance, "The Lecture" (as the exciting monologue in the second act is referred to), remains really the only thing that interested me in the play. It happens to be a rather exciting moment, and almost actually made the play worth sitting through - but honestly, there was so much dry slog to sit through, I can't really say I would recommend it - master class in acting from Ruhl and all aside.
Possibly even more boring than "Occupant," probably because I find politics particularly boring, is "Thurgood." Laurence Fishburne stands on stage with the thin concept that he's delivering a speech to Howard College, where he went to school (the audience knows this mostly because there's a big seal for the school on the top of the proscenium - and I think it may be mentioned in one line or so), and recites his life story. I credit a grande iced coffee from Starbucks with keeping me awake. The only reason I didn't force myself to sleep is that I figured if I did indeed fall asleep I would surely miss "the good part." There's a somewhat interesting section, around an hour and fifteen minutes in, when we hear the closing arguments (both sides) in the "Brown v The Board of Education" case. Other than that though, I really couldn't have been less interested in his life story. It's basically blah blah blah racism blah blah blah segregation blah blah blah law school blah blah blah winning court cases blah blah blah why we should all be liberals. The end. Cue the standing ovation from everyone around me who thought this was the most brilliant thing ever. And cue me applauding the fact that it's finally over. This play, especially, reminded me of another play that I was alone hating in the theatre - the Golda Meir snooze-fest "Golda's Balcony." I take a lot for me to find a political figure standing on stage droning on ad nauseum interesting. I go. I believe the hype and get excited that this will finally be the show to break the tide and change my mind. And I inevitably sit there twiddling my thumbs and try to not be too obvious when checking my watch to see how much more of this I'm going to have to sit through.
On the fresher side of things (not necessarily good, just newer) we have "Saved" and "Body Awareness."
"Saved" is a new musical based on a movie I admit I've never seen and hadn't even heard of until the musical was announced. It's supposed to be a satire, I think, about a Catholic school where the jock is gay, and one of the goody goody Christian gets into a bit of a not so goody goody Christian trouble at the end of the first act. The first act was completely underwhelming. It just came across as a toothless satire, blandly told through pleasant but unmemorable songs, and attempts at jokes that I really didn't find funny. I guess with the theory that it would make the show hip, there's lot's of text messaging between characters, and references to Facebook pages and iPhones. This all seemed really forced and unnecessary, with all it really accomplishing was allowing the show to be dated faster than usual. Luckily, in the second act the attempts at humor are abandoned, and the story turns fairly serious - and actually finally interesting and moving. We get a really entertaining dream sequence/dance number there (which finally allows the wheelchair bound but insanely talented dancer Curtis Holbrook a chance to dance), and finally gives the uber-talented Julia Murney her big power ballad solo. This is one case where I'd say the many merits of the second act actually make up for the many missteps of the first. I hope the writers do some major rewriting on whatever post-Playwrights Horizons productions come its way, because there's definitely half a great show in there - now they've got to do something to pep up the rest of it.
Far less promising, and really lacking any sort of redeeming value was the interminable "Body Awareness." I went to the first preview, so I'll chalk up the fact that of the four actors, only JoBeth Williams was able to create a character that felt like more than a two-dimensional bore. In an interview with the playwright (Annie Baker) this week's issue of Time Out NY that just happened to come in my mailbox just hours before the show, and that I just happened to read, she mentions how unlike the other playwrights of her generation (Sarah Ruhl, Adam Bock) she doesn't write quirky witty plays. In fact she says she doesn't like wit, because she feels like the characters speak like they would if they had two days to think up the perfect response to each line. She wants to be more real - still quirky, but more real. That's all paraphrased, but that was the drift of the article anyway. Now despite that I've never seen an Adam Bock play I've liked, and Sarah Ruhl is two (good) out of three for me, I tend to like weird witty quirky plays. Still, I'm willing to see what a play would sound like if the characters were all more realistic. The result? If I'd thought to bring a hammer in my backpack, pulling it out and banging it against my skull for ninety minutes would have been more enjoyable. I'm not saying that characters HAVE to be weird quirky and witty - not everything has to be a zany comedy. But at least make the characters interesting. And give us some reason to care about them. And don't make them so whiny and unlikeable. And Baker may have been trying to give us real people in realistic situations, but honestly three out of the four characters felt like two-dimensional cliches (the bitchy lesbian professor, the mentally handicapped kid who does something bad because he can't control himself, and the artsy 'love your body' photographer) - granted the fourth character is a generic caring mother, but there was at least something warm and loveable about her, which was certainly not true about any of the other characters. It was the first preview of a world premiere play, so I suppose it's possible that the play may improve over the course of previews. Maybe the actors will find a way to make their characters interesting or believable as real human beings (not impossible, I guess), and maybe the playwright will just re-write the whole darn thing and turn it into something brilliant (I'm skeptical). Honestly, if she's going for real and interesting drama - I had lunch Bryant Park one day last month and eavesdropped on a conversation going on next to me where this guy was talking about how his marriage was on the rocks and he installed all of these spy programs on his wife's computer to find out who she's emailing, what her password are, and what she's doing, because he thought she was having an affair (and though probably it makes me sound really rude and creepy for listening in, but I was eating and my book wouldn't stay open and I had nothing else to divert my attention). Now THAT - that totally unscripted real life conversation - THAT was real and far more interesting than anything I saw onstage at "Body Awareness."
Oh... darn it... I meant to throw in something about "Top Girls" in here too. But I think I've just run out of steam. Suffice it to say I found it to be a creaky, dated old museum piece... the sort of piece that museums keep in the back in deep storage and pull out every now and then for special exhibitions because they're not actually interesting otherwise. I will say I read about half the script before seeing it live, and I found it much less irritating to read than to see live - once I got used to the overlapping dialogue anyway. A pretentious bore. And I kept thinking each act (there were three) would be better than the last. I was wrong. It just got worse and worse. I was mighty jealous of all the smart people who escaped at each intermission. Between "Top Girls" and "Drunk Enough To Say I Love You" - those comprising an early example and a current example of the plays of Caryl Churchill, I can honestly say she's shot right up there near the top of my list of awful overrated playwrights.
And now I'm officially finished.
Good night.
