Elisabeth Moss — Page 2

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.

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.

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.