Elisabeth Moss- Page 2

[ZiggyCringe]

Posted: 10/21/08 at 10:59pm

Honestly, Mamet wrote an UNPLAYABLE role.

That role is THANKLESS.

Madge couldn't do it, and Moss can't do it.

Not either one of their faults. The problem is in the writing.

[expatriate]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 9:58am

The role is difficult, but certainly playable. In my opinion, Karen requires a ferocious born-again sincerity coupled with playful "cuteness." If she is portrayed as especially beautiful or sexually aggressive, Bobby would have good reason to be skeptical of her apparent "hook" - the possibility of authenticity. In any case, I think Karen is entirely truthful at all times, and that she is able to convince Bobby that they are kindred spirits - soul mates, even - because she believes it herself.

Ultimately, Bobby is unable to reconcile his notion of "goodness" with the Mametian "truth" that all human interaction - even that involving love and spirituality - is essentially about power and commerce. Although Karen offers the possibility of "perfect love", like everyone else, she still "wants something" from him.

Both overtly and metaphorically, the play scathingly examines the tendency of men to demand that their gender avoid emotional intimacy. ("What if this ****ing grace exists? It's not for you.") When Bobby finally rejects Karen - after Charlie's excoriation of his nascent "goodness" - he does so out of fear ("the fear of death") rather than enlightment. The "We have a meeting" moment is not a revelation of truth, but a convenient opening for Bobby to make his exit.

I haven't seen the current production, but, based on the merchandising tagline (Mamet's quote regarding the screenwriter's role in the industry which is entirely unrelated to the milieu of the play) and the creative team's unnecessary insistence that the play is still "relevant" (it is, of course, but not for the reasons given...), I think it is probably spectacularly wrong-headed. The play is not really about Hollywood at all. It is about the real end of the world - the personal apocalypse.
Updated On: 10/22/08 at 09:58 AM

[wonkit]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 10:33am

And I think saying a production that you haven't seen is wrong-headed is pretty meaningless. I bet Ben Brantley wouldn't review anything based on a tag line and press comments by the creative team. Frankly, speaking about wrong headed, this play isn't about the end of the world, either. Mamet is writing (and continues to say that it was his intention to write) about commerce and loyalty, about effort and result. Hence the title (which one has to assume is not mere frippery). When Bobby says he is "lost," he doesn't mean his immortal soul, he means he has lost his way in the world. The line "We have a f****** meeting" (in the current production) is not an exit line - it proves that Karen just wants "to do business" like everyone else, and all her talk of goodness may have seemed genuine at the time but ends up at the same point for Bobby as Charlie's ruthlessness.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 10:46am

I pictured Anna Chlumsky in the role before Moss was cast. They remind me of each other a little bit.

[expatriate]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 12:26pm

Wonkit -

I think Speed-the-Plow is a rich and demanding work - perhaps Mamet's best. It is most definitely not dated satire. I've yet to read any review of the current production, however, which suggests that it really aims to be anything beyond a star-driven trifling entertainment.

I thought your remarks re Moss' portrayal (i.e., that she gave Scene 2 an arc, that she was talking about Bobby to Bobby, etc.), were interesting, in that they suggest that Moss may actually have captured Karen as Moss herself has described: "she's very honest, she's very open, she has no judgment and she's incapable of lying." (Purportedly she came to this conclusion after speaking with Mamet...)

But a talented cast is often not enough to save a play from superficial direction, and Pepe's comments that the play "is particularly timely" in light of "art and commerce, and what's going in Hollywood versus what's going on with the environment" make the production sound shallow. Comments on this board seem to support this proposition.

Similarly, the fact that you describe THE BRIDGE as "the weird radiation book" suggests that this production, like most, fails to treat the pretend work with any respect. I'm pretty sure Mamet regards the book - which incorporates Kabbalistic imagery and ideals - as a serious creation and not a lampoon. The book's message - that we are all paralyzed by a fear of death which can be overcome by a courageous struggle to do good (and not just make "a good film" but to actually work for the betterment of all) - is embraced by Bobby, even if he is only given the Reader's Digest version by Karen.

My comments certainly were not to be construed as a review of the production or of Moss' performance. In any case, I don't have to actually see a show to know it's probably on the wrong track if word-of-mouth has provided sufficient evidence of its wayward trajectory.

Case in point: If the new production has altered Karen's line to "We have a ****ing meeting," then I am appalled. When Moss follows up with "Did I say something wrong?" can there be any doubt that she has done so? In the original version, Karen can be properly portrayed as genuinely perplexed by Bobby's response; with the line change, her final scenes with Bobby and Charlie will necessarily seem disingenuous. This is, in a word, ****ed.

In any case, Karen's line certainly provides Bobby his exit: "We're very busy right now. If you'll excuse me. Mr. Fox will show you out."

As for Bobby's lament that he is "lost" (echoing Karen in the second scene), I have to disagree. Bobby is not confused; he is damned. (See Mamet's "Bobby Gould in Hell".) Salvation, redemption, "Grace" - they're not for him.

Moral of the Story: [You have to] Decide. Decide. Decide.

[wonkit]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 10:25pm

Expatriate -
Thanks for an exciting discussion of this play! This production is my first chance to see Mamet live, and I am fascinated by it. Mamet has such an original voice, and it certainly gives the actors a lot to chew on. Trust me - at least at the performance I saw, this was neither star-driven nor trifling but a disturbing power play by all three protagonists.

Karen comes across as honest in her enthusiasm and while she may not be lying, she isn't being entirely candid either. When she admits that she wouldn't have slept with Bobby if he didn't agree to make the movie, she discloses that even she has a hidden agenda: she may want to convince Bobby that his soul needs saving and that he can change but she really just wants the movie made. It may end up being great art but when it comes to her relationship with Bobby, she wants something from him, just like Charlie.

I think the change Mamet made to Moss's line was necessitated by the relatively stronger position of women in the workplace now as compared with the 1980's. The word "We" would have seemed more strong, bordering on presumptuous, then and I think the fear was that the modern audience wouldn't hear it that way, no matter what the actor did with the words.

My calling the book "that weird radiation book" makes me sound like Charlie Fox! I don't think Mamet gives the audience much chance to take the book seriously: we never get any truly meaningful segment of it read out to us, even by Karen who is apparently swept away by it. I guess if Bobby himself had been able to explain his embracing the book and its philosophy to Charlie, I would understand that something about the book had actually changed him. But he can't explain it to Charlie because it isn't the book that has changed him, it is Karen's influence over him. Once Karen admits (still being honest!) that she wouldn't have slept with him if he didn't greenlight the book, he is lost because even her influence wasn't directed to (or by) goodness. Even the devil, apparently, can still quote the Scriptures.

I am delighted that you call STP a rich and demanding work. Most people seem to think it is Mamet-light. I don't, and I am eager to see a couple more performances later in the run, when there is some mileage on this cast. They have the spark, even if the fire hasn't completely caught yet.

I wish I had seen the production in London. I am not much of a Goldblum fan but would have been interested to see Spacey's take on the play.