#1
Posted: 3/31/06 at 3:57am
Before you start pecking me to death, I only created a new thread because I felt that the other thread on FESTEN was too cluttered with arguments to post a fresh review. So with that said...
I was both intrigued and suspicious of this production going into it. The website treats the play as a bone chilling ghost story, and everything I have heard about the production has been negative. Perhaps this production has been tightened since last week's pans - I suspect that it has - and while I feel that the production I saw tonight has more positives than negatives - it is undeniable that something is just not quite right with the piece.
Eldridge's play is everything and more that you could want in a play. All of the elements are there - an interesting story, a well-written script, and a fantastically intriguing mood, set by both director Rufus Norris and designer Ian MacNeil. It's no news to any of us that this play was supposedly a smash in London - a true knockout from top to bottom.
It has been said before on the boards that the overt "American-ness" seems to get in the way of the play's progression and ultimate effect on the audience. I only half agree with that. I think much of what causes this play to only 3/4 succeed is not the choice to cast American actors, but the choice to cast certain American actors.
Larry Bryggman starts off just fine in the piece, but when his character becomes the target of the evening and the dramatic weight shifts to his shoulders as the play comes to a close, he seems almost unable to tolerate the seriousness of it. I wouldn't say that he is miscast, but I will definitely say that there are many, many other actors out there who could make this role into something truly relevatory.
Michael Hayden is generally fantastic as Christian, the tormented son and brother. I question his tactics and interpretation when he reveals the sad circumstances of his childhood. I wasn't sure whether he was joking, or whether he was serious until a good amount of time after that. That's the only point in the show where I wasn't completely satisfied with his portrayal - for as the play progresses and gets more and more serious (and more and more hectic), his performance grows from good to admirable.
Jeremy Sisto, who, admittedly, I had only known from CLUELESS, really commands the stage the entire time - even, I fear, when that's not really the point. I was completely impressed - through and through - with his performance and I felt it was really the only solid, consistant part of the evening. I don't know if the role was portrayed any differenly overseas - I presume that it was - but I had absolutely no problem with what he was doing on stage. I was, and am, very excited to discover that he has the true acting chops, charisma, and stage presence required to succeed on stage. And that he does. It's not often we see screen actors (regardless of whether or not they started their careers on stage before moving to the big screen) - and regardles of how famous they are - truly prove themselves in front of a live audience. His performance was a true revelation for me - and while others will clearly disagree - I think he is absolutely deserving of a Tony nomination - for which category, I'm still not yet sure of.
Julianna Margulies is not as strong as I was hoping she would be, but she doesn't flounder and suffocate on the stage as I feared she would, either. She's one of the stronger parts of this production and the only awkward moments for me (for her) was early on in the first act - but I think that's due in part to the writing. At that point in the story, when she's running around looking for "arrows" and other signs, the audience doesn't yet know what on earth she's talking about. It crossed my mind that she might be crazy early on in the play - but that also might be a tactic employed by Margulies to keep the audience guessing and intentionally uncomfortable. She has some wonderful shining moments in act two - in fact, she's marvelous during the second act. Other than blatant-Americanness (which is no fault of her own), I think she is an asset to this production and completely proves herself. I don't know whether she will be considered leading of featured, but regardless, I would like to see her (along with Sisto), nominated for a Tony.
And now, we come to Ali MacGraw. To be quite honest, I had no idea MacGraw was in this until I was shocked to see her entrance greeted with applause. After quickly glancing at her bio, I obviously immediately knew who she was. Brilliant, unforgettable, and Oscar nominated for LOVE STORY - I was overjoyed when I discovered who she was. Without much to say early on in the play, I kept waiting and waiting for something to come along for MacGraw to say and do. And when it finally comes along - boy, is it depressing. And I'm not talking about the material. She roams the stage nearly as cluelessly as a decapatated buffalo. Her actions and reactions to what is being said on stage appear overly rehearsed, undoubtedly calculated, and absolutely sophomoric. I hadn't yet written her off as being "bad" after Act One, and I anxiously hoped that she would rise to the occasion in the following act. Unfortunately, as you've heard, it's all downhill from there. Yes, she's truly as bad as other have said on this board. Her big speech at the table (to her three kids) is a very well written monologue, full of juicy enough lines for a role that should be - and is - so detrimental to the play. Her monologue is embarrasing. It came off as overly scripted and just plain God-awful. Unfortunately, she has the final line in the play. A great closing line - a real turning point for the character. A character who, during the course of the play, should have the most dramatic and obvious development. Again, unfortunately, she fails to do anything right in this play and is a massive liability. While she's obviously not the play's only problem, it's a problem that can easily be fixed - I can think of about a dozen actresses who would dazzle and walk away with a Tony in the role. It's sad, really - she was so promising when she was younger.
The rest of the supporting cast that rounds out the ensemble - from the little girl to the servants, including Gbatokai (Helen's boyfriend), are wonderful and are sincere assets to the production.
I think the play succeeds, despite the flaws of some of the cast members, but in a different way than it is expected to. It didn't seem like a Lifetime movie to me - it seemed like an intriguing, fascinating, brutally disturbing and ultimately moving portrait of an unconventionally dysfunctional family. Excellent script, excellent staging, and captivating lighting. While it's certainly not DOUBT or THE PILLOWMAN, it's worth a look. Some complained that the show successfully rells a story, but fails to actually SAY something. Well believe it or not - not every piece of theater has a message to it. While it may not be a blatantly obvious message (a la, acceptance, just be who you are, etc.,) I think there is one, wrapped up in this slightly misguided production. I can't exactly articulate what the message is - I'm not good at that - but I'm certain that I felt something from this production. It is a worthwhile venture that I found brutally moving.
I was both intrigued and suspicious of this production going into it. The website treats the play as a bone chilling ghost story, and everything I have heard about the production has been negative. Perhaps this production has been tightened since last week's pans - I suspect that it has - and while I feel that the production I saw tonight has more positives than negatives - it is undeniable that something is just not quite right with the piece.
Eldridge's play is everything and more that you could want in a play. All of the elements are there - an interesting story, a well-written script, and a fantastically intriguing mood, set by both director Rufus Norris and designer Ian MacNeil. It's no news to any of us that this play was supposedly a smash in London - a true knockout from top to bottom.
It has been said before on the boards that the overt "American-ness" seems to get in the way of the play's progression and ultimate effect on the audience. I only half agree with that. I think much of what causes this play to only 3/4 succeed is not the choice to cast American actors, but the choice to cast certain American actors.
Larry Bryggman starts off just fine in the piece, but when his character becomes the target of the evening and the dramatic weight shifts to his shoulders as the play comes to a close, he seems almost unable to tolerate the seriousness of it. I wouldn't say that he is miscast, but I will definitely say that there are many, many other actors out there who could make this role into something truly relevatory.
Michael Hayden is generally fantastic as Christian, the tormented son and brother. I question his tactics and interpretation when he reveals the sad circumstances of his childhood. I wasn't sure whether he was joking, or whether he was serious until a good amount of time after that. That's the only point in the show where I wasn't completely satisfied with his portrayal - for as the play progresses and gets more and more serious (and more and more hectic), his performance grows from good to admirable.
Jeremy Sisto, who, admittedly, I had only known from CLUELESS, really commands the stage the entire time - even, I fear, when that's not really the point. I was completely impressed - through and through - with his performance and I felt it was really the only solid, consistant part of the evening. I don't know if the role was portrayed any differenly overseas - I presume that it was - but I had absolutely no problem with what he was doing on stage. I was, and am, very excited to discover that he has the true acting chops, charisma, and stage presence required to succeed on stage. And that he does. It's not often we see screen actors (regardless of whether or not they started their careers on stage before moving to the big screen) - and regardles of how famous they are - truly prove themselves in front of a live audience. His performance was a true revelation for me - and while others will clearly disagree - I think he is absolutely deserving of a Tony nomination - for which category, I'm still not yet sure of.
Julianna Margulies is not as strong as I was hoping she would be, but she doesn't flounder and suffocate on the stage as I feared she would, either. She's one of the stronger parts of this production and the only awkward moments for me (for her) was early on in the first act - but I think that's due in part to the writing. At that point in the story, when she's running around looking for "arrows" and other signs, the audience doesn't yet know what on earth she's talking about. It crossed my mind that she might be crazy early on in the play - but that also might be a tactic employed by Margulies to keep the audience guessing and intentionally uncomfortable. She has some wonderful shining moments in act two - in fact, she's marvelous during the second act. Other than blatant-Americanness (which is no fault of her own), I think she is an asset to this production and completely proves herself. I don't know whether she will be considered leading of featured, but regardless, I would like to see her (along with Sisto), nominated for a Tony.
And now, we come to Ali MacGraw. To be quite honest, I had no idea MacGraw was in this until I was shocked to see her entrance greeted with applause. After quickly glancing at her bio, I obviously immediately knew who she was. Brilliant, unforgettable, and Oscar nominated for LOVE STORY - I was overjoyed when I discovered who she was. Without much to say early on in the play, I kept waiting and waiting for something to come along for MacGraw to say and do. And when it finally comes along - boy, is it depressing. And I'm not talking about the material. She roams the stage nearly as cluelessly as a decapatated buffalo. Her actions and reactions to what is being said on stage appear overly rehearsed, undoubtedly calculated, and absolutely sophomoric. I hadn't yet written her off as being "bad" after Act One, and I anxiously hoped that she would rise to the occasion in the following act. Unfortunately, as you've heard, it's all downhill from there. Yes, she's truly as bad as other have said on this board. Her big speech at the table (to her three kids) is a very well written monologue, full of juicy enough lines for a role that should be - and is - so detrimental to the play. Her monologue is embarrasing. It came off as overly scripted and just plain God-awful. Unfortunately, she has the final line in the play. A great closing line - a real turning point for the character. A character who, during the course of the play, should have the most dramatic and obvious development. Again, unfortunately, she fails to do anything right in this play and is a massive liability. While she's obviously not the play's only problem, it's a problem that can easily be fixed - I can think of about a dozen actresses who would dazzle and walk away with a Tony in the role. It's sad, really - she was so promising when she was younger.
The rest of the supporting cast that rounds out the ensemble - from the little girl to the servants, including Gbatokai (Helen's boyfriend), are wonderful and are sincere assets to the production.
I think the play succeeds, despite the flaws of some of the cast members, but in a different way than it is expected to. It didn't seem like a Lifetime movie to me - it seemed like an intriguing, fascinating, brutally disturbing and ultimately moving portrait of an unconventionally dysfunctional family. Excellent script, excellent staging, and captivating lighting. While it's certainly not DOUBT or THE PILLOWMAN, it's worth a look. Some complained that the show successfully rells a story, but fails to actually SAY something. Well believe it or not - not every piece of theater has a message to it. While it may not be a blatantly obvious message (a la, acceptance, just be who you are, etc.,) I think there is one, wrapped up in this slightly misguided production. I can't exactly articulate what the message is - I'm not good at that - but I'm certain that I felt something from this production. It is a worthwhile venture that I found brutally moving.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."
-Charlie Manson
