Saw "Still Life" at MCC and am trying to decide what to make of it: anyone else?

[April Saul]

Posted: 9/26/09 at 11:58pm

Still Life at MCC has a wonderful cast--Frederick Weller, Sarah Paulson, Adriane Lenox and Dominic Chianese--is very strange and sad and didn't quite work, although it had some lovely moments and a very powerful ending, at least for me. I'd love to hear what other people thought of this one...

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/27/09 at 3:01am

So you'd say it's worth it? I love Weller, and so he's the main draw. But the play is good, or at least a good evening out?

[artgirl007]

Posted: 9/27/09 at 12:54pm

I thought that somewhere there was a good play within this play but as an artist I was embarrassed by the character of Carrie Ann. While the photographs were quite provocative in their visual symbolism of the feelings of Carrie's generation, the character and the words of Carrie did not match the work. I think it would have been a good idea for Mr. Dinelaris to have contacted someone at the New Museum or Artists Space in order to get a better idea of how a photographer from a show like "A Generation Younger Than Jesus", who was so gifted in Contemporary art at an early age, would respond not just to MFA students but to an assignment to photograph animals for National Geographic. It just didn't ring true. Thoroughly enjoyed the character of Terry and what he was saying about his generation. As I said, there is a good play in here somewhere but artist part was offputting to me because it just didn't ring true of the personality characteristics of artists in that generation.

[April Saul]

Posted: 9/27/09 at 6:50pm

RentBoy--Sorry to be posting on this without even a clear recommendation as to whether to see it or not! I'd give this play a B or B-minus. The playwright has a heartfelt essy in the program about the death of his father; yet, strangely, the father character played by Dominic Chianese, who was so great in the Sopranos, is only on stage for about ten minutes of the play and is totally expendable. Lenox' role is almost as slight. It's really Paulson's and Weller's play, and I thought they were both passionate and believable in their roles.

But the play itself is all over the place. The ending, in particular resonated with me because I'm a photojournalist, like Paulson's character, even though some of the photography stuff was not very realistic (see earlier post by artgirl). I don't think this play will be made more cohesive and satisfying in previews because the problem is with the playwright, not the actors. I'd say if you are a fan of Weller and can get an inexpensive ticket, give it a try; I did not regret going. It's thought-provoking and moving at times, but ultimately falls short of being truly satisfying. Hope this helps!

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/3/09 at 1:40am

I love Weller, and he's a huge inspiration, and I happen to find a cheap ticket, so I went.

I actually really enjoyed it. I think at times it bordered the line between cheesy/ movie-of-the-week, but I think overall it was an enjoyable show.

I agree that the two characters are pretty much pointless, and I was really excited at the opening sequence because I loved how it was written and all that, but it sort of fell into the standard scene-by-scene play format. The only thing in the writing that truly irked me was the way one scene would end with like "I was cold" and then the next scene would begin with "I was cold" as a random example. It would have been more theatrical to me to have the two actors overlapping their lines. I think it would have been more effective and worked well given the set and the fact that there really isn't one and it's all very free flowing.

The ending was a little too sentimental for me, but that said, I think it's the ending we all wanted.

The actors were great and Paulson is one of my new favorite actresses. I haven't seen her in anything else, but I was with her the whole way.

I'm curious to know where the critics will stand, but I enjoyed it.