Margo on A Naked Girl on the Appian Way

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 11:08am

The Lapins are a close, tight knit, loving family unit -- perhaps a little too close and a little too loving, which is the central complication in Richard Greenberg's breezy new comedy playing at the Roundabout's American Airlines Theatre.

Mother and Father Lapin (a radiant Jill Clayburgh and an aptly befuddled Richard Thomas) are happily ensconced in their upper middle class Hamptons existence when two of their adult children return home after 18 months in Europe, carrying a surprise or two with them. Let's just say that somewhere between all of those churches, museums and gardens, the two (adoptive) siblings have grown a bit more fond of one another than decorum would normally allow.

In the hands of an absurdist master like Edward Albee, such a premise might lead to a serious exploration of the limits of tolerance and acceptance, resulting in tragic consequences. However, Greenberg clearly has little, if any, interest in taking on such profundities. Here, he has set up a mildly risque conflict, tossed in a humorously mopey older brother, a couple of wacky neighbors, some fun plot twists and a few hundred one liners and voila! He's come up with a delightful, if inconsequential, boulevard comedy that is an audience-pleasing, non-stop laugh riot.

Greenberg's model here clearly is not Albee's THE GOAT (as some have suggested), but a play at the other end of the dramatic continuum -- Charles Busch's farcical hit, THE TALE OF THE ALLERGIST'S WIFE. Both ALLERGIST'S WIFE and NAKED GIRL are comedic send-ups of liberal upper class sexual mores (NAKED GIRL also flirts around the idea of a threesome at one point -- the central twist in ALLERGIST'S WIFE). Greenberg even includes a foul-mouthed little old lady (the scene-stealing Ann Guilbert) wandering in and out for comic relief, as did the Busch play.

Neither play has anything significant to say about contemporary social values or issues of sexuality or family or anything else for that matter -- that's not the point of a boulevard comedy (and why I find some of the criticism of this play a bit misplaced). These sort of well-made plays exist to simply placate and entertain audiences (who's lives are in the main not disimilar to the characters on that stage) and they typically employ a provocative twist (a threesome; sibling love) to keep things interesting. Greenberg wasn't trying to make a statement here or come up with some profound insight -- he wrote a well-constructed comedy, with lots of funny characters and funny lines and most of the audience seemed to go home happy. Nothing wrong with that.

The cast ranges from solid to superb, with particularly standout work from Clayburgh, Thomas, Guilbert and James Yaegashi, as the older adoptive brother with something of a victim complex who's initial petulant reaction to his siblings' news is disappointment for having been left out -- a very funny performance. Doug Hughes demonstrates why he's the most in demand director in the American theatre at the moment, managing to sustain a consistent lightness of tone throughout -- he maintains the pace and keeps all the plates spinning until the final curtain. Special kudos also goes to John Lee Beatty's evocative set design which captures that sprawling, rustic Hamptons look to a tee. Peter Kaczorowski's lighting and Catherine Zuber's costumes are up to their usual high standard.

I must say that I had a very good time at this play as did, it seemed, everyone else around me. The laughter never abated and there were even applause breaks for many of the better lines. I'm hard pressed to name the last time I've seen such an enthusiastic response to a Broadway comedy (ALLERGIST'S WIFE, perhaps?). I won't speculate on the critical reaction to this production. It ain't art, but then it's clear Greenberg wasn't aspiring for it to be that. It's a well-made, well-constructed, well-acted and directed evening of very funny light middlebrow entertainment. There's always been a place for that on Broadway. I hope it succeeds.

[tagiunagi]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 11:13am

and what about Matthew Morrison??

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 11:24am

He's fine. His character is an odd mixture of being childishly innocent and juvenile as well as being not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but then there's also a savviness about him at times and somewhere in the writing, direction and Morrison's performance is the proper balance to make all those aspects make sense coming out of one character -- but, they haven't found it yet. He's sweet and endearing, but more a collection of traits than a fully developed character at this point.

Updated On: 9/22/05 at 11:24 AM

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 11:34am

Bravo, Margo! Your reviews are always a high point on BWW. Everything was very well-said!

[LaCageAuxFollesFan]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 12:05pm

Wish I could agree with have of what you said Margo, but there was just too much there nawing at me that was uncomfortable and forced - and Im as liberal as they come. Hopefully, as you said Thomass has gotten better (he was just simply there the night i saw it, doing much of nothing).

I can agree though, Ann Guilbert stole every scene she was in and quite brilliantly.

To me it was a mildly bland conflict, with some fun plot twists that just went way too far at times and seemed entirely too forcerd.

But to each their own. I didn't hate it, I did laugh, but I like my plays to either be comedies of the full natures or dramas of the most hard hitting kind. Naked Girl to me just blurred all the lines and I got a headache from it all.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 12:16pm

Excellent review Margo, as always. I am surprised that you enjoyed it though. I really did not find it funny at all. (i only laughed because some of the lines were just so ridiculous) Ann Guilbert's "chicken" speech was really over the top for me. I thought it was unnecessary and just stupid. Maybe this play was just over my head...still thanks for the review. Glad you enjoyed it. I am happy I only paid $7 for my ticket.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 12:28pm

Thank you, Margo, for addressing the strengths and limitations of a critical sub-genre, once a B'way staple: the boulevard comedy. Now in this increasingly tough marketplace broadway is seen as a place for musicals or "straight plays," as if the latter could possibly encompass the infinte range of non-musical dramatic writing. Plays like DOUBT or PROOF or THE GOAT are lumped in with material that has decidedly different goals. They are as worthy, those goals, even if they are comedic.

Now, it seems as if any "play" must be everything to everyone: it must feature must-see star casting, must tackle a social issue (in depth, preferably with a devastating satirical tone), must also have some resonance beyond the era we live in ("timeless"), and be the piece one discusses with friends over drinks for the next 6-18 months. A mere piece of sophisticated entertainment is set up to "fail," because its ambitions are perceived to be too narrow. I'm not hoping for a new FORTY CARATS per se, but I do miss walking into a broadway theater for that kind of time out. Bravo to Greenberg -- and Margo -- for reminding us of what we've been missing--or failing to look for.

[ShuQ]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 12:32pm

Can we switch Margo from "Broadway Legend" to "Broadway Genius"?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 12:58pm

Exactly, Auggie. This kind of comedy used to very regularly be part of the Broadway mix of offerings up till perhaps a generation or so ago, when ticket prices started to really get out of hand and audiences realized they could see quality situation comedy for free at home on television rather than having to pay $40, $50, $60 (and now $85) a piece to see it in the theatre. It's really too bad, too, because there's still nothing like the experience of being in a room with 1000 strangers and sharing two hours of hearty laughter with them.

While, of course, we exalt the work of Albee, Miller, Kushner, Williams etc.... but, there should also be a place for works like NAKED GIRL as well. It's not trying to transform the art of playwrighting or to enthrall, spellbind and provide a catharsis for an audience, it's simply trying to entertain, and make no mistake, it's not easy to construct a successful boulevard comedy of this type -- far from it.

A responsible critic should not evaluate this kind of play in the same way one would critique "Angels in America" or "Doubt" or a new Albee work. The goals and ambitions are totally different (though every bit as valid) as are the expectations.

One must ascertain what the playwright was trying to accomplish, evaluate whether he successfully achieved what he set out to do and ultimately whether or not that goal was worth attempting. And from what I can see, Greenberg and his cast and creative team fully achieved what they set out to do with this work and to my eyes it was certainly a worthwhile and very entertaining endeavor. My review reflected all of that and, as a result, was very positive.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 1:15pm

A sidebar, Margo, but not unrelated: Neil Simon is (was, in his heyday) perhaps the master of the pure comedy genre. And as boulevard comedy began to disappear, Simon began to write in another mode, producng his family cycle of plays; this was his writing era that culiminated in the multi-award-winning LOST IN YONKERS. In those works we had a commercially hybrid theatre experience, at least from a marketing standpoint. The Simon name was as prominent as the title, offering audiences the subtle safety net -- his name reassured they were meant to enjoy themselves, albeit with other ambitions part of the evening. (People sometimes forget that YONKERS, despite the Pulitzer, also had naysayers, and really got mixed reviews, including a decidedly mixed one from Frank Rich. It was the Woody Allen syndrome -- "I liked him better when he was funny." )

Now we go full circle, with the return of THE ODD COUPLE, a play created simply to entertain. Whatever the critics think of Messrs Broderick and Lane, it will be interesting to see how they re-visit this best-loved Simon, a true "classic" that reminds of an earlier day on Broadway.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 1:37pm

Great review, Margo.

Just to clarify my own comment about THE GOAT. Obviously, these are two completely different animals - but I do think they were at least referencing the same subject matter. And while Mr. Greenberg may have wanted the overall comedic effect, I don't think it's an accident that these themes were chosen. Even in a boulevard comedy, points can be made.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 1:40pm

I'm sure that THE ODD COUPLE is now considered such an untouchable landmark that nary a negative word will be raised against it. Unless Mantello somehow screws it up (I may be the only one who finds him terribly overrated), I assume it'll receive across the board raves, as will BAREFOOT IN THE PARK (another early "funny" one) later this season. We'll have to leave it to the British imports (HISTORY BOYS, FESTEN, THE COAST OF UTOPIA this summer) and the drama revivals (SEASCAPE, A TOUCH OF THE POET) to get the "serious" reviews during the season.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 2:01pm

I agree DGrant, though I think if he was truly referencing THE GOAT, the siblings would have been biologicial rather than adoptive. Perhaps that would truly be the difference between comedy and tragedy. (If you want to see a play that blatantly references THE GOAT, check out Nicky Silver's BEAUTIFUL CHILD, which is a pale, yet bombastic imitation of it).

And you're right that points can be made in boulevard comedy -- I just don't think that Greenberg made any here. The parents go from shocked to stupefied to befuddled to .... accepting? We get to the final confrontation with the kids -- where if Greenberg did in fact have some grand point to make about the situation, that would have been the time to make it -- and Thomas meanders about confused for a minute or two, but ultimately has nothing whatsoever to say. The kids go off swimming, the old lady talks about chicken, and then in the final denouement, Thomas and Clayburgh cozily listen to the kids outside playing in the pool and just seem to accept the situation. No points were made about anything. The revelation was made, there were a bunch of funny surprised reactions, a bunch of one liners were tossed around and then they all went on about their lives, business as usual.

That's why I say this is just a little comedy with ZERO aspirations to be anything more and comparing to THE GOAT (which has tons of very serious points to make about all sorts of things) is misguided. THE GOAT really just STARTS when the revelation is made and the world turns upside down as a result; in NAKED GIRL, nothing really happens after the secret comes out and no one and nothing is changed. It's ALLERGIST'S WIFE THE SEQUEL -- presenting a semi-serious premise and then doing nothing whatsoever with it except using it as a launching pad for a few dozen one-liners.

Updated On: 9/22/05 at 02:01 PM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 2:29pm

I heart Margo.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 2:30pm

All very valid points, Margo - as usual.

Oh god, am I being a lap-dog?

[Plum]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 2:37pm

Hmm...Pomerenian or Yorkie?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 2:43pm

Truth is, if I were a dog, I'd be some big gallumping thing with a tail that knocked things over and liked to lick everything.

But I suppose I could still jump in Margo's lap.

[songplugger]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 2:54pm

I haven't seen NAKED GIRL yet, and I admit that Margo's likening it to ALLERGISTS WIFE has given me pause. As much as I love Busch, I thought WIFE was somewhat toothless (like he was trying to be a combination of Simon and Rudnick while toning down his own unique qualities). It was Okay, but not nearly as funny as I wanted it to be.

How does one make a frothy Broadway comedy something more than an onstage sitcom?



Updated On: 9/22/05 at 02:54 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 2:59pm

DGrant -- You're nobody's lapdog

Songplugger -- Very good question. The problem is that we've all seen hundreds of tv sitcoms and it's hard for light stage comedies not to in some ways remind us of them. I do think that NAKED GIRL is a bit more literate and well-constructed than 99% of tv sitcoms, not to mention that the subject matter, language and some of the jokes are probably too risque for network tv.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 3:01pm

Excellent review as always, Margo.

As I've stated before, I didn't care for the play. Jill Clayburgh is truly excellent, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if her superb work is remembered at Tony time.

Also, was it just me, or did Thomas come off a bit fey?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 3:10pm

Thomas ALWAYS comes off a bit fey. I don't think he can help it.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 3:13pm

fey?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 3:18pm

Well, it IS Greenberg - and language is absolutely one of his strongpoints.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 3:22pm

Fey is the nice way to call someone gay, WAT.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 9/22/05 at 3:24pm

thanks MEF...i had a feeling it meant that. yes, Thomas came off a bit fey.