Adam Marple
What a fun show! I have not had a night of theatre in which I have smiled through the entire event before. Taking on the guise of a wedding party that we are all invited to, Queens Blvd. (the musical) is Chuck Mee’s newest show to open at the Signature Theatre, which has decided to premiere three of his newest works as their season. The event of the night starts the second you walk into the theater. With music blaring and the set noticeable upon entrance, all you can think is, “This is so tacky, so bright, so Queens.” The set for this show is an amazing amalgamation of everything you have ever seen if you have been to Queens. The point is driven home even more when you remember the plastic antiseptic Times Square you had to walk through to get to the theater. All the blinking lights and crazy billboards in Queens Blvd seem authentic and genuine, they feel lived through. In a retelling of the classical Indian story of Shakuntala, we are invited to attend the wedding of Shizuko (played by a stunningly joyful Michi Barall) and her husband Vijay (played by Amir Arison in a fantastic Off-Broadway premiere). With a DJ as narrator through the piece, we as an audience are invited to participate, and we gladly come along for the ride. Asking if there are any newlyweds (yes, two days) and who in the audience has been married the longest (a couple in front of me - 62 years), we are regaled with Jell-O shots and Polaroids to remember this occasion by.
Queens Boulevard (the musical) is called a musical in the loosest sense. 'Musical' is in parenthesis for a reason; this is a karaoke musical, a montage musical. The plot is very thin, but the writing is so good that you don’t even mind. There are some amazing moments with certain characters (there are 40 off them) and there are some of the greatest speeches that I have heard in any of Chuck Mee’s plays. What is not very good is the choreography. It’s as if the choreographer heard that this was a karaoke musical and they thought they could phone in the dancing as well. While Michi Baral and Amir Arison are fantastic the rest of the cast leaves something to be desired. It’s as if in search for the most multicultural cast around, they didn’t look for the best multicultural cast around. Characters aren’t just made with fake moustaches and loud accents. It was amazing to see the city we all live in proportionately represented on stage. It was disheartening, however, to see the sea of shining white faces staring back at them. If only the theatre were to bring in the people whose culture is being represented on stage, then something amazing would happen. There are problems in the middle; the director, Davis McCallum, falls into the trap that many directors that tackle Chuck Mee’s texts fall into. The episodic nature of his writing demands that you drive from one scene to the next; Mr. McCalum decides to give us blackouts and musical underscoring instead. But you get so much joy out of this piece that all is forgiven at the amazing ending. Will this change the face of theatre? No. It could introduce many new people to a form they have never seen but the real change will come to the attitudes of people. You cannot leave this love letter to Queens without being happy and being glad you are alive. Then you walk through Times Square again and actually think about hopping the N, R, W to the other borough that seems so much more real.
Showing posts with label Off-Broadway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Off-Broadway. Show all posts
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Wooster Group’s Hamlet
Adam Marple
When you hear the concept behind The Wooster Group’s Hamlet, currently running at the public until December 2nd, you ask your self, “Why?” To do the bard’s greatest work isn’t in question. To do the bard’s greatest work in front of and in conjunction with Sir John Gielgud and Richard Burton’s filmed stage version from the ‘60’s is. In 1964 Sir John Gielgud decided to direct a modern dress Hamlet starring Sir Richard Burton. It was going to be shown in over 800 movie theaters across the country and was a major event of its time that has yet to be rivaled (though the Metropolitan Opera is coming close). Filmed with 17 different cameras from varying angles, it was miles away from the electronovision version of the “shot directly on” filmed versions of stage performances. But with the Wooster Group’s Hamlet you never truly know why they have decided to mix live performance with the filmed version of the story they are representing.
However it is endlessly fascinating. The company recreates the blocking, intonations, and jump cuts of the film. The film, shown on a 40-foot screen behind the live actors, plays the 1960’s film version, while in front of the screen The Wooster Group imitates what is going on behind them. It is a directing and design tour de force where the actor gets lost in the process. How can anyone act in this show? Isn’t it all just imitation? Amongst other questions you ask yourself if you are paying attention to the story or the staging? Could they both be the same? At one point in the show I said that nothing was being illuminated from this process. By the end I realized everything was being illuminated whether they intended it or not. When the camera shifts to a close-up the actors literally move their universe downstage. When the camera takes another angle, so does the stage. Space is manipulated in a way that I have never seen before and may not have understood without the film going on behind it. The Wooster group uses technology to actually “ghost” away characters from the film so that all that is left is the empty film stage, or an arm, or head, or simply voice. It makes you focus on the live actors on stage that you sometimes forget about. As always The Wooster Group is fucking with theatre, but to what end? What are they asking? You don’t listen to the story so much as feel the tone and understand the psychology of the piece. They are also assuming you already know Hamlet well enough to understand what is going on. Does everyone know Hamlet well enough though? Everyone thinks they do, but do they? What about Romeo and Juliet?
This is pure imitation. But, imitation is the highest form of flattery. You realize what they are attempting is damned hard, but they fall a little short. You actually wish they had more precision behind it. Contrary to one critic’s comment of being “Shakespeare Karaoke,” this piece has something behind it. However, it could not support itself until the end. I would have loved for the technology to be stripped away and be left with an actor on an empty stage speaking the greatest poetry the English-speaking world has ever known. Shakespeare’s language was too powerful for any technology that The Wooster Group threw at it. And maybe that is the point they wanted to make. But I doubt it. They are known for their bravado and technological extravaganzas. At the rate that this show is selling out and extending I doubt they will hesitate to look at theatre any differently or any clearer than they have been for the last 30 years. As you leave the theatre with far too many questions bouncing through your mind, two things will stand out: endlessly fascinating, but why?
When you hear the concept behind The Wooster Group’s Hamlet, currently running at the public until December 2nd, you ask your self, “Why?” To do the bard’s greatest work isn’t in question. To do the bard’s greatest work in front of and in conjunction with Sir John Gielgud and Richard Burton’s filmed stage version from the ‘60’s is. In 1964 Sir John Gielgud decided to direct a modern dress Hamlet starring Sir Richard Burton. It was going to be shown in over 800 movie theaters across the country and was a major event of its time that has yet to be rivaled (though the Metropolitan Opera is coming close). Filmed with 17 different cameras from varying angles, it was miles away from the electronovision version of the “shot directly on” filmed versions of stage performances. But with the Wooster Group’s Hamlet you never truly know why they have decided to mix live performance with the filmed version of the story they are representing.
However it is endlessly fascinating. The company recreates the blocking, intonations, and jump cuts of the film. The film, shown on a 40-foot screen behind the live actors, plays the 1960’s film version, while in front of the screen The Wooster Group imitates what is going on behind them. It is a directing and design tour de force where the actor gets lost in the process. How can anyone act in this show? Isn’t it all just imitation? Amongst other questions you ask yourself if you are paying attention to the story or the staging? Could they both be the same? At one point in the show I said that nothing was being illuminated from this process. By the end I realized everything was being illuminated whether they intended it or not. When the camera shifts to a close-up the actors literally move their universe downstage. When the camera takes another angle, so does the stage. Space is manipulated in a way that I have never seen before and may not have understood without the film going on behind it. The Wooster group uses technology to actually “ghost” away characters from the film so that all that is left is the empty film stage, or an arm, or head, or simply voice. It makes you focus on the live actors on stage that you sometimes forget about. As always The Wooster Group is fucking with theatre, but to what end? What are they asking? You don’t listen to the story so much as feel the tone and understand the psychology of the piece. They are also assuming you already know Hamlet well enough to understand what is going on. Does everyone know Hamlet well enough though? Everyone thinks they do, but do they? What about Romeo and Juliet?
This is pure imitation. But, imitation is the highest form of flattery. You realize what they are attempting is damned hard, but they fall a little short. You actually wish they had more precision behind it. Contrary to one critic’s comment of being “Shakespeare Karaoke,” this piece has something behind it. However, it could not support itself until the end. I would have loved for the technology to be stripped away and be left with an actor on an empty stage speaking the greatest poetry the English-speaking world has ever known. Shakespeare’s language was too powerful for any technology that The Wooster Group threw at it. And maybe that is the point they wanted to make. But I doubt it. They are known for their bravado and technological extravaganzas. At the rate that this show is selling out and extending I doubt they will hesitate to look at theatre any differently or any clearer than they have been for the last 30 years. As you leave the theatre with far too many questions bouncing through your mind, two things will stand out: endlessly fascinating, but why?
Friday, November 9, 2007
The Brothers Size
Adam Marple
Full disclosure here- I was invited to this preview by the some of the Artistic Staff and attended the after party where I was wined and dined.
That being said I believe that I can give an objective opinion on this show.
The Brothers Size is a new play by Tarell Alvin McCraney that received it’s first presentation at the Under the Radar festival earlier this year at the Public, and was picked up for a fully supported presentation as part of the Public’s season. While it has been done before, it still has little flaws that keep it from truly standing out amongst the otherwise stellar Public season.
When you walk into the theater, you immediately hear the drumming of Jonathan Pratt (who does a phenomenal job as foley artist and soundtrack to the production) and are struck by the sheer simplicity of the design. I emphasize the simplicity because two set designers are listed in the program, yet all you see is a pile of white polished rock, three acting cubes, and a bucket of sand. A sharp contrast to what’s going on next door with Wooster Group’s multimedia extravaganza Hamlet. Yet by the end, all the simplicity felt absolutely necessary.
So many things about this show felt essential and necessary, but so many things felt overlooked. For the first time I understand what a dramaturge could have done for a production. It needed another eye, it needed someone else to say “No”, “Yes, and…” or “Why.” Why are the costumes non-essential? Why introduce sound from an outside source when we’ve been listening to live drums for an hour? Why does only one character have on shoes? Why is everyone shirtless? These simple silly questions keep you from getting into the play early on. It took me a long time to finally immerse myself in the story and I heard a similar complaint from many in the audience.
But, once you were in it you were in it. It’s a wonderful story. Nothing groundbreaking or new here script wise, but quite the opposite, it’s very old. It plays fast and loose with an old Yoruba myth that we are all familiar with whether we realize it or not: familial love and the sacrifices we will make for it. The piece is beautifully acted by three hard working actors who fight every minute of the play to keep the through line taut. There’s a moment toward the end that truly makes the audience brace up and coalesce around them, and just as quickly it turns on a dime and throws us in a new direction. I haven’t heard an audience gasp in quite a long time, but we were at the point of loving these characters so much that we hated to see anything happen to them.
Directing wise there was no clear beginning, and the end was blown. Tiny little things throughout kept the play from rising above good, to become great. I nitpick because it’s so close to being great. After being done earlier this year and having such wonderful support, it’s sad to see such little things keep this show from shining. In a season of such amazing shows, playwrights, and actors this show will get lost. It’s almost there. But it’s the “almost there” quality that will make it disappear. I hope not, I hope I’m horribly wrong. Because it is good, almost great, but definitely good. Go and see it if you have the chance, but be prepared to wish for more and regret the lack of a dramaturge.
Full disclosure here- I was invited to this preview by the some of the Artistic Staff and attended the after party where I was wined and dined.
That being said I believe that I can give an objective opinion on this show.
The Brothers Size is a new play by Tarell Alvin McCraney that received it’s first presentation at the Under the Radar festival earlier this year at the Public, and was picked up for a fully supported presentation as part of the Public’s season. While it has been done before, it still has little flaws that keep it from truly standing out amongst the otherwise stellar Public season.
When you walk into the theater, you immediately hear the drumming of Jonathan Pratt (who does a phenomenal job as foley artist and soundtrack to the production) and are struck by the sheer simplicity of the design. I emphasize the simplicity because two set designers are listed in the program, yet all you see is a pile of white polished rock, three acting cubes, and a bucket of sand. A sharp contrast to what’s going on next door with Wooster Group’s multimedia extravaganza Hamlet. Yet by the end, all the simplicity felt absolutely necessary.
So many things about this show felt essential and necessary, but so many things felt overlooked. For the first time I understand what a dramaturge could have done for a production. It needed another eye, it needed someone else to say “No”, “Yes, and…” or “Why.” Why are the costumes non-essential? Why introduce sound from an outside source when we’ve been listening to live drums for an hour? Why does only one character have on shoes? Why is everyone shirtless? These simple silly questions keep you from getting into the play early on. It took me a long time to finally immerse myself in the story and I heard a similar complaint from many in the audience.
But, once you were in it you were in it. It’s a wonderful story. Nothing groundbreaking or new here script wise, but quite the opposite, it’s very old. It plays fast and loose with an old Yoruba myth that we are all familiar with whether we realize it or not: familial love and the sacrifices we will make for it. The piece is beautifully acted by three hard working actors who fight every minute of the play to keep the through line taut. There’s a moment toward the end that truly makes the audience brace up and coalesce around them, and just as quickly it turns on a dime and throws us in a new direction. I haven’t heard an audience gasp in quite a long time, but we were at the point of loving these characters so much that we hated to see anything happen to them.
Directing wise there was no clear beginning, and the end was blown. Tiny little things throughout kept the play from rising above good, to become great. I nitpick because it’s so close to being great. After being done earlier this year and having such wonderful support, it’s sad to see such little things keep this show from shining. In a season of such amazing shows, playwrights, and actors this show will get lost. It’s almost there. But it’s the “almost there” quality that will make it disappear. I hope not, I hope I’m horribly wrong. Because it is good, almost great, but definitely good. Go and see it if you have the chance, but be prepared to wish for more and regret the lack of a dramaturge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
