Is He Dead?

Jason Platt

I was quite unsure of what to expect when I walked into the Lyceum to see this long lost/newly discovered Mark Twain play. (It was written in 1898, then forgotten until discovered in 2002 in his private papers). Previews had only just begun when the strike hit, so I knew nobody who had scene it, the advertisting campaign has been unagressive, and of course the piece hasn't ever been performed. To my great delight -- and likely that of 1,000 others -- the production is outstanding.

The plot is a simple one. A painter, Jean-Francois Millet, who is deep in debt and down on his luck, decides to fake his own death in order to drive up the prices of his paintings. He then masquerades as his twin sister to reap the financial benefits. Then there are of course a number of other complications; the piece is a rowdy combination of farce and unapologetic melodrama, so there is a villain avec mustache as well as frequent door-slamming and shenanigans. Given its almost amateurish simplicity, whether the play works on its own or could succeed in any other production is a more complicated question, but the direction of Michael Blakemore is so tight and precise, and the cast give such fantastic performances that the play is one of the most enjoyable theatrical experiences I have had in years.

As Millet, and cross-dressing as his fake sister, Norbert Leo Butz is nothing short of incredible. As Millet alone he is not particularly memorable, but once he puts the dress on . . . dear me, the part and the play immediately shift into fourth gear. Thankfully, this happens quite early, and we are treated for an hour and half to the obvious relish and bliss with which Butz devours "Daisy." The supporting cast -- and this is an ensemble piece when one considers the farcical nature -- are also very strong and beautifully energetic, particularly Michael McGrath and David Pittu. Blakemore has done an outstanding job in handling this text, which because of its over-the-top humor and often stereotypical matter could easily fall flat, but he has everyone on the same page and enjoying themselves. It did take some time for the audience to catch up on the fact that we were all meant to revel in the ridiculousness (indeed, the first scene is somewhat slow and unengaging, though this may change as previews continue), but once the viewers committed themselves to playing along, it was downright raucous. There are one or two questionable directing decisions, particularly the convention of having actors be lit by specials when delivering asides to the audience (but only sometimes), but nothing so frustrating as to ruin the piece.

The design of the play is very good if unexceptional. Peter Davison's perspective sets are great fun and quite lovely, though the door-slamming did at times have the effect of a small seismic disturbance. Pakledinaz's costumes (particularly in the second act when everyone is rich and happy) are sumptuous. His dresses for Butz-as-sister are just, well, they're just super.

I must admit that it is very infrequent that I not only enjoy, but subsequently admit to enjoying, a piece with as little intellectual and artistic depth. Aside from the basic commentary on the art market and values of pieces there is very little to stimulate the mind. However, there is a great deal of the historical nature to enjoy. The piece plays up both its melodramatic and farcical influences, engaging the audience in a sort of appreciation for theater history gone by. Similarly, for the art historians in the audience, the play makes a number of visual gags out of the fact that Millet's masterpieces (The Gleaners, The Sower, Evening Prayer) can't be bought for any price; each new painting revealed by the actors garners a laugh.

I would be curious to know just how much of the piece is Twain and how much is David Ives (who adapted it), because there seems to be just a tad too much self-referential humor and po-mo irony for Twain, though god knows the numerous jokes at the expense of the French and Germans are likely his. In the end, though, the question is academic; the production is delightful and engaging, and an absolute success, without question a step forward for the Broadway gruel. I will now make a joke that every shameless reviewer will at least be tempted toward. Is He Dead? No. And I hope this play won't be for quite some time.