#1
Posted: 2/9/08 at 11:11pm
Just got back from the first preview of DEAD MAN'S CELL PHONE, just figured I'd write a few thoughts if anyone's interested about seeing this production.
I have to preface this by saying that this is my first Sarah Ruhl play so I'm not sure if this is her style or trend. Having said that, this is one of the oddest plays I have seen. The play revolves around Jean (Mary-Louise Parker), a very very odd and lonely woman who develops an obsession for a dead man, his cell phone, and his life. She meets a series of people involved in his life, ranging from his mother (played by Kathleen Chalfant) to his brother (David Aaron Baker).
I have very mixed feelings about the play. At times it is incredibly hilarious (mostly due to the actors' genius deliveries), deeply romantic in a weird way, and it eventually does raise some interesting points about the need to connect, the ways we find to connect with others, and certainly about the privileges that come with dying. However, at moments the play just dragged (particularly the scenes involving Jean and the brother), and at the end I just felt it got too much out of control for my taste. Don't know how to explain it, and again it may be the playwright's style, but I felt like she pushed it too hard and what started as an excellent work of the absurd just became slightly annoying. I did think Act II was much better than Act I.
The cast, however, is as top-notch as it sounds on paper.
Kudos to Carla Harting and Kelly Maurer whose great comic timing and line deliveries made some of their scenes better than the text itself. Maurer in particular has a scene in Act II that was fascinating to watch, and Mary-Louise Parker and her seemed to be having quite a blast up there (I'm not saying what roles Hartin and Maurer play on purpose not to provide spoilers).
Bill Camp is pretty good in the title role, but again don't want to give any spoilers, but you do get to hear a bit from him.
Chalfant was pure genius as usual, even if I didn't enjoy what the playwright did with her role at the end. I had been wanting to see Chalfant live since I knew she played Hannah in ANGELS IN AMERICA, she did not disappoint, what a great actress. A cell phone actually rang during her first scene and she made sure to confront the audience, it did get me a bit out of the frame of the play but I applaud her for saying what she did.
Of course the play belongs to Mary-Louise Parker, who has to be one of the great actresses of her generation. What a glorious performance. I didn't really care for the role itself but Parker gives a hilarious, touching, out there performance and it pays off. I'm glad I finally got to see her up on stage, she had the audience eating at the palm of her hand.
David Aaron Baker was the only weak link for me, he wasn't bad but he wasn't great either. Maybe it's more from the way the role itself was written, I don't know.
Overall, I feel it is a so-so play that is worth watching for the excellent cast.
I have to preface this by saying that this is my first Sarah Ruhl play so I'm not sure if this is her style or trend. Having said that, this is one of the oddest plays I have seen. The play revolves around Jean (Mary-Louise Parker), a very very odd and lonely woman who develops an obsession for a dead man, his cell phone, and his life. She meets a series of people involved in his life, ranging from his mother (played by Kathleen Chalfant) to his brother (David Aaron Baker).
I have very mixed feelings about the play. At times it is incredibly hilarious (mostly due to the actors' genius deliveries), deeply romantic in a weird way, and it eventually does raise some interesting points about the need to connect, the ways we find to connect with others, and certainly about the privileges that come with dying. However, at moments the play just dragged (particularly the scenes involving Jean and the brother), and at the end I just felt it got too much out of control for my taste. Don't know how to explain it, and again it may be the playwright's style, but I felt like she pushed it too hard and what started as an excellent work of the absurd just became slightly annoying. I did think Act II was much better than Act I.
The cast, however, is as top-notch as it sounds on paper.
Kudos to Carla Harting and Kelly Maurer whose great comic timing and line deliveries made some of their scenes better than the text itself. Maurer in particular has a scene in Act II that was fascinating to watch, and Mary-Louise Parker and her seemed to be having quite a blast up there (I'm not saying what roles Hartin and Maurer play on purpose not to provide spoilers).
Bill Camp is pretty good in the title role, but again don't want to give any spoilers, but you do get to hear a bit from him.
Chalfant was pure genius as usual, even if I didn't enjoy what the playwright did with her role at the end. I had been wanting to see Chalfant live since I knew she played Hannah in ANGELS IN AMERICA, she did not disappoint, what a great actress. A cell phone actually rang during her first scene and she made sure to confront the audience, it did get me a bit out of the frame of the play but I applaud her for saying what she did.
Of course the play belongs to Mary-Louise Parker, who has to be one of the great actresses of her generation. What a glorious performance. I didn't really care for the role itself but Parker gives a hilarious, touching, out there performance and it pays off. I'm glad I finally got to see her up on stage, she had the audience eating at the palm of her hand.
David Aaron Baker was the only weak link for me, he wasn't bad but he wasn't great either. Maybe it's more from the way the role itself was written, I don't know.
Overall, I feel it is a so-so play that is worth watching for the excellent cast.
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
