My thoughts on THE SEAFARER (possible spoilers within)

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 8:01pm

I was in the company of the theatrical gods this afternoon at the Booth Theater. Seated clumped together in the span of about 5 rows were the major NY critics - Ben, Linda, Joe, Clive - and at least 1 second string - David Cote - I noticed. I guess today was the first press, since so much is opening this week. Very interesting, I must say.

THE SEAFARER, Conor McPherson's latest, takes the popular theme, "guy battles the devil for posession of his soul" and runs with it. McPherson, who is probably on par, and at the same stage of career, as Martin McDonagh, is an incredibly consistent writer - you know going in that you're going to see some kind of ghost story, some kind of biblical parible. SHINING CITY had the heart-stopping shocker before the final blackout.

"Seafarer" has none of that. It is, for all intents and purposes, a happy play. You can automatically predict the ending going in, though, in true McPherson fashion, the route getting there is full of twists and turns.

It's Christmas Eve. Sharky (David Morse) has just returnedd following a trip to care for his elderly, recently blinded brother Richard (Jim Norton). Richard and Ivan (Conleth Hill) have spent the night drinking, and Ivan has misplaced his glasses (a running joke through the show that leads to the denouement ex machina, in the same style of "Lieutenant of Inishmore." No "deus" involved).

Later that night, their friend Nicky (Sean Mahon) arrives, complete with bottle of whiskey and a guest - Mr. Lockhart (Ciaran Hinds). We soon learn that Mr. Lockhart and Sharky will do battle for his soul - through a nice game of poker. And the whiskey keeps flowing.

The writing is exquisite - and the cast is unanimously strong, and deliver McPherson's script with aplomb. David Morse gives a strong, haunted performance as Sharky, battling for his life. Sean Mahon, as a character, who, in a normal play, would be the stuck-up friend nobody likes, is very effective. Ciaran Hinds is one guy I would not want to meet in a dark prison cell. His second act monologue about hell - and how all it is is another layer of self-loathing - is one of those "punch you in the gut" moments.

But Jim Norton and Conleith Hill grab the production by the devil's horns and run away - thankfully never returning it. Two of the most incredible, finely-tuned comedic performances I've ever seen.

Hill is a brilliant physical comedian and nails every one-liner he gets. The audience entered into rapturous applause when he finally found his glasses - and realized the result it brought.

In the perfect world, Norton would win every theatrical award known to man (to go with his Olivier) for his performance as the blind drunkard who doesn't let anything get him down as long as the booze keeps flowing. It is a dazzling drunken turn, on par with Alan Bates in Fortune's Fool and Ian McDiarmid in Faith Healer.

Rae Smith's sets and costumes, along with Neil Austin's lighting, are haunting.

McPherson's direction goes to show that nobody knows how to stage someone's play better than the writer himself. The perfectly paced and staged evening is 2.5 hours of mostly theatrical bliss. Sure, there are a few quibbles. It does take a bit too long to set up the story. Bits and pieces of the second act drag, and should probably have been trimmed, but it didn't detract from my enjoyment.

A blayden good toime to soy tha layst.
Updated On: 12/2/07 at 08:01 PM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 8:15pm

I was impressed with this play as well. I could pretty clearly see where it was going, but was interested to see what they were going to do with the situation. They managed to handle it all very well, I thought, especially Mr. Hinds, who manages some very tricky work without ever resorting to hambone tricks.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 8:21pm

Wow... I didn't see the same play at all. I found it totally predictable and BORING. Was SOOOOO glad I only wasted TDF cost on it.

Proof yet again that Roscoe and I will be on polar opposite sides of a play. :P We should just use each other's reviews to determine if we should see a show or not.

[GladysBumps]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 8:33pm

Gorgeous piece, gorgeous performances, David Morse is a revelation. I forgot I was watching a play until the audience leaped to their feet.

Talk about your suspension of disbelief! Those guys take you there, baby.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 8:44pm

Jordan, I thought the interesting part was that it was very predictable, yet McPherson brought his usual touch to it and left you wondering how it would get to the ending everyone knows would happen.

I do admit that it's not a show for everyone, but the response at the end of the show was positively goose-bump inducing.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 8:46pm

I freely admit I'm in the minority in not liking it at all. I was like the only person who didn't stand at the end...other than to gather my stuff so I could leave. I always try to find SOMEthing good in a show I see, but I just couldn't in this one no matter what. And I'm not a lemming who jumps to my feet...you have to EARN a standing o from me, and nothing about that show did in my opinion.

How was there any wondering? It was about a stupid card game. *YAWN*

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 8:58pm

If I may, beyond the fact that it's about a card game, what didn't you like? I'm trying to get a discussion going, since I haven't heard many comments about the show!

[jordangirl]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 9:07pm

There was just nothing about the play or the characters that drew me in. I couldn't make myself care about the characters ~ they all seemed extremely self-centered with no depth or redeeming qualities about any of them. The story was trite and so worn it didn't engage me. I guess overall it just didn't make me think or move me, and I like a show (be it play or musical) to do at least one ~ the best ones are the ones that do both. It really felt like it was about absolutely nothing. I guess...I guess it reminded me of when I was in undergrad and was stuck at a fraternity party because my ride was off doing something. A lot of guys rambling about nothing and acting like it was the most important stuff in the world.

Granted, I think I saw an early preview, but I assume any play that's been elsewhere as this one was in England will have little to "tune up". Maybe they've made changes, but my money's too valuable to waste on seeing it again. Unless I desperately need a nap...but I'll just get some Tylenol PM or something. It's cheaper.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 9:14pm

This is hard to write about, because I dont' want to give anything away. I'm not sure it is a particularly excellent play, but my attention was engaged throughout. A potentially cliched set of situations was brought to convincing life. If they hadn't done what they did exactly as they did it, it would have been a real bore, silly and trite. At no time was a lot of irrelevant information projected on a screen in order to disguise completely indefensibly prolonged set changes. It doesn't sink under the weight of a lot of undigested historical information that it fails to convert into drama.

Conor McPherson is no Martin McDonagh, not by a long shot, but it was an enjoyable evening in the theatre.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 9:29pm

Roscoe's explanation is exactly how I felt.

I've seen a lot of British imports in my time, from incredible (The Pillowman) to utter crap (Coram Boy). Most of the shows I found great were the ones that weren't bogged down by plot or Stoppardian psycho-babble (though I did love Coast of Utopia.)

Seafarer is just a pleasant, engaging story that is very compellingly acted. My $0.02.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 9:34pm

That's fine. Plenty of people find it to be that. I find I like a little more depth and less triteness in the plays I see. I was bored throughout. And I really WANTED to like it. But there was just nothing there for me. If I hadn't been trapped almost against the wall (stupid Booth seating with no far side aisles!) I would have left.

Like a friend of mine says, that's why God made chocolate and vanilla.

Updated On: 12/2/07 at 09:34 PM

[DoranC]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 11:08pm

But I don't think it's fair to write this off as a trite play. I'm making no claims of it being a brilliant classic, but it does have depth amidst its craziness--its 'drink madness' (what Ciaran Hinds called it in an interview I read recently). Perhaps having dealt with alcohol in my own family, it struck me in a way it would not others. But its personification of temptation. Of a guy trying to get through the holidays without drinking but being surrounded by a culture of drink. Of the squalor that alcohol can yield, but yet, even within that, McPherson points toward hope, towards redemption. I believe McPherson was an alcoholic himself, but gave it up, so perhaps he knows of what he speaks. The one character says of the main character something like: "You're an alcoholic and a miserable gobsh*te, but you are alive. That's something." It's simply, but it's emblematic of the quiet battle against the devil in there. There's a quiet journey of resistance evoked in there, and it may not be absolutely brilliant, but it's not trite.

The notion that "Whiskey is the devil" is such a part of the mythology of Irish drinking culture that I think it's a pretty funny idea to just put the devil himself there on the stage. He's not your typical devil either. He's quite a vulnerable devil, which is an interesting spin, I thought.

And Jim Norton and Conleth Hill are just so good, so I liked that too!!

[jordangirl]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 11:23pm

Like I said, chocolate and vanilla.

You found depth. I didn't. That's the way the world goes, ok? I've said I'm in the minority, but I'm allowed to say I found it trite, shallow and predictable.

[DoranC]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 11:37pm

"I've said I'm in the minority, but I'm allowed to say I found it trite, shallow and predictable."

Of course you are allowed to say it. And I'm allowed to point out elements of the play that I do not think are trite.

Updated On: 12/2/07 at 11:37 PM

[jordangirl]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 11:42pm

Fair enough. But when you start off with "But I don't think it's fair..." it DOES sound like no one's allowed to think it's trite.

[DoranC]

Posted: 12/2/07 at 11:54pm

You have every right to be (what I view as) unfair.

But, gosh, it's just a figure of speech. How 'bout if I said "I disagree with you that it is trite." Maybe that's better...but it doesn't make us disagree with each other any less...

[jordangirl]

Posted: 12/3/07 at 6:06am

I guess it's semantics. "I disagree with you..." at least appears to allow for a difference of opinion.

But whatever. You liked it, I didn't. And I'm not wasting anymore finger energy on it.

[DoranC]

Posted: 12/3/07 at 7:25am

Both allow for difference of opinion.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/3/07 at 11:43am

Anyone else care to enter the debate?

[starlyricist]

Posted: 12/3/07 at 2:46pm

Sure, I will.

I caught the Saturday evening performance, and was enthralled...for the most part.

I felt the pacing in first 30 minutes or so left much to be desired. Truth be told, I was bored. I wanted so much to like the play and felt that I was going to be disappointed. Fortunately, Conor McPherson had other plans in mind. He took well-worn situations (Man vs the Devil, Man vs the Drink) and wove them into a story about men that, by the end of the play, I'd come to care about. I fear that Conor McPherson may be a better writer than he is a director; however, he does an admirable job with both tasks.

In terms of the cast, while Conleth Hill and Jim Norton were giving great comedic performances, it was David Morse's restrained work that stirred something within me. Am I the only one that wasn't the biggest fan of Sean Mahon, though?



Just my thoughts.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/3/07 at 5:59pm

No, you're not alone.

Mahon's part is a bit of a throwaway...he tries...

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 12/3/07 at 9:47pm

Thanks for the review. It sounds enthralling, I only wish it was destined for a longer run. Listening to a bunch of drunks try to debate life can be a drag but considering the drunks, the topics, it should be entertaining to follow. The concept is interesting I will admit. Any bargaining with the Devil usually has some good humor behind it. Poor soul.

It is so sad what alcohol can do to people's lives. Hopefully somewhere in the message lies the escape that one can be social and avoid the stuff completely when necessary. Plenty of good things out there to drink besides liquor, if need be.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 12/3/07 at 11:28pm

Tkt... If that was in there, I missed it. Considering *SPOILERS* the on the wagon one falls right off. So I don't think "one can be social and avoid the stuff" is part of the message.

I'm honestly not sure WHAT the message was. IF there was one.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 12:07am

That's too bad. One would fear that the Irish can only make liquor, since the only message we usually get is a tombstone rather than non-alcoholic beverages. The moral is usually lost on the wicked. Such is life.

I would enjoy it though for any sea worthy stories and a rousing Cast to take me there. I unfortunately find very few Irish and Scots who can hold their liquor so I wouldn't expect many of them to do so here either. Tis a mighty shame indeed.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 6:00am

There is no mention of the sea anywhere in it. It might have been better if there were.