Gonna have to be a dissenting voice here. This play was a lot of things. Amazing? I don't think so. Watched it tonight and there was something, something I could not pt my finger on about it. Perhaps that the play was a mass oversimplification? That the gimmicks, if we'll call them that, may have obstructed the possibility of the play?
Dunno. I do know I paid $250.00 for a guy to totally break character, call "Line," for lights to be all over the place, audio to be nuts and for the music level to blast me to hell every 10 to 15 minutes.
Norbet, as everyone is saying, is very good, perhaps the sole redeeming thing about this production. Why it's a huge success in London, I can't say I can tell from the thing I saw tonight.
Now, please, don't get me wrong. I'm an actor. I'm a writer. I'm a theatre enthusiast. I went into this play having read it, having high hopes for the production and production values and to (dare I say wishing) to have a moving experience in the theatre. What did I get? I'm not quite sure, but moving does not come to mind.
Where to start? The writing is all over the place. Prebble manages to sandwich really interesting, complex ideas in between oversimplified, sometimes trite, paper thin characterizations. There were times I literally thought a scene and it's succeeding scene were written by different scribes. There's some inconsistency that makes for a bumpy ride. The material? What is its POV? I thought I knew until the last 15 mins when the thing takes a 180. Considering that the Enron Documentary (The Smartest Guys in the Room) and Michael Moore's films (Fahrenheit 9/11 and Capitalism: A Love Story) have all shed considerable light on this tale of hubris, I'm just not sure this play covers any new territory. Or knows what it wants to be.
I've read some others on here saying the play went over their heads, and while I don't claim to know a lot about finance, I got it. Over and over again. Greed, bad.
Interestingly, I attended the show with a few people in the business/finance sector and they laughed (and not AT the play). The general consensus? The piece was sloppily generalized, under-researched and a damn near comical rewriting of history. I can't speak to this as I'm no expert, as I say, but in NYC, the financial nerve center of this country, I'm curious if the play will be able to hold water.
In its current state, it relies heavily on the "fresh" and "innovative" presentation... but is that enough? Bigger, brighter, louder? Is this the future of Broadway? If so... God help us.
Pop Culture references and satirical caricaturing aside, I have to ask myself what's the draw of ENRON? What's it supposed to be? Who is their target audience? I saw a lot of people check out during intermission and a few more as the 2nd Act progressed and, honestly, I found the second half better executed than the first.
To give them some cred... There are some truly interesting theatrical devices and stage pictures in that act that may leave lasting impressions, but that's if and only if you don't lose the audience to some of the other (SUPER HEAVY HANDED) fluff.
The actress who played the analyst was also very good, in my estimation. Never seen her before but I look forward to watching for her in the future. Marian Mazzie (sp?) clearly was rocking the material she had but I felt it ultimately was beneath her obvious talent. I'm not sure Meryl Streep could have made gold from the coal Prebble's written for this character.
I hate to be scathing, if this could even be considered that, but I went in with high expectations and they were sorta dashed. I know half a dozen people in the cast and for them I hope the play finds an audience, succeeds and continues to help them pay their bills, but for my money... which on this particular night was a hefty sum... It did not past the stink test. As punchy as it might sound, ENRON's own slogan best sums up my experience and my feeling about the whole thing..... why? Why? WHY?
Updated On: 4/10/10 at 12:48 AM
