The Christians @ Playwright's Horizons

Without using spoilers, can you explain a little more what the play's about?

This show is coming to LA this season. Thanks for sharing your experience. Now, I'm more excited to see this new play.

I'm glad to hear the positive reports. Hnath is one of my favorite contemporary playwrights, a wholly unique theatrical voice. I loved the last two plays of his presented in NYC (Isaac's Eye at EST and A Public Reading of an Unproduced Screenplay About the Death of Walt Disney at Soho Rep) and am very glad to see another play of his here.

I was asked to consider directing this show locally - but the script (an earlier version from the first performance, I believe), to me, was preachy and even a little obvious. It purports to address a deep philosophical question in Christian theology, but acts as if it were a new question, rather than one which has, I believe, been discussed for a long time. (which, in and of itself, is an indictment of american preachers without theology training). The responses of the characters - to me - were simplistic - albeit somewhat honest to their outlined characters. It probably can be engrossing with excellent performances beyond the words on the page. The "twists" are not surprising. The author's refusal to answer any questions raised seemed - to me - a lack of courage. The play left me with a bad taste regarding "faith" - rather than the ambiguity the author inteded to spark conversation. But, then, I'm not a member of a megachurch - and ultimately felt that I would not be able to draw out the respect and honest feelings of faith that I think the author intended - so I declined and recommended some other directors. And the local company decided to not do the show this season.

The passing of microphones is called for in the script in the first megachurch scene. I don't recall if the script called for their continued usage. However, thematically, the microphones fit, because part of the conceit is that the play's audience is the church membership - and even the private scenes are meant to evoke responses and discussion among the "church membership". I have read that at the first performances, the audiences - made up of many churchgoers - instantly fell into their role as church members and reacted as if they were in Church.

I interpret it as the private conversations are still being directed to the "Church" - meaning the audience. Even the tough conversation between the Preacher and his Wife - as the discussions are still about the topics of concern to the Church. There is nothing "private" in the discussions. The questions being discussed - the thoughts and innuendoes are in response to the issues supposedly being thought by the "Church" i.e. theatre audience.

I'm not saying I agree with the choice - I just understand it.

Updated On: 8/30/15 at 01:31 PM

"Are you suggesting that the audience is the Congregation the entire play? Because I don't agree with that theory at all."

Yes - I think that was the general intent. The private discussions between the Preacher and his Assistant and between the Preacher and his Wife while overtly not directed to a congregation - nevertheless address ideas/questions that a congregation may have, but just are being espoused by the wife and the assistant. The Preacher who from the beginning bares his soul - or purports to bare his soul - to the Congregation continues to bare his soul to the Audience and thus the Congregation. It's a conceit - not an actuality. Hnath wants the audience to feel as if the Preacher is addressing their thoughts/concerns/questions throughout.

Even in the first scene, the fourth wall is not actually broken as much as the audience interjects itself into the play - at least by reports of audiences bowing their heads when the Preacher says "let us pray" and the audience actually responding to liturgical entreaties. (Unless the director breaks the wall more by perhaps having handouts with prayers in the audience or passing out scraps of paper for the vote of the congregation)

That's what I got from the written script. I don't know how it plays with actors. It may not be successful - and I'm going off of the year old script I read.

Thanks ChrleyKringasInc.

I had a new and different thought just now - perhaps the microphones are suggestive that the Preacher is always on - and he communicates with a microphone just as he has does when leading a service, because that's the only way he can communicate. And he can only hear others when they use a microphone just as in the service. In the opening sequence, the discussion between the Preacher and the Assistant are done with microphones.

It's an interesting conceit - but whether it works may depend entirely upon the actors.

Also, I think Hnath has done talk-backs - so there may be a discussion about this piece of staging. - Yes- here is the author's note at the beginning of the script:

"And there are microphones, enough microphones for everyone in the play, and some microphone stands, whenever needed; because everyone will always speak on mics, just the way pastors do, or just the way congregants do when they testify. The whole play is a kind of sermon. Sometimes it's a literal sermon. Sometimes it's made up of scenes that use the formal elements of a sermon. And as such, even the most private scene has a kind of declamatory, performative, sing-songy quality"https://www.centertheatregroup.org/Global/Casting/THE%20CHRISTIANS.pdf SPOILER. The link is to the full script

Updated On: 8/30/15 at 02:35 PM

Is there any audience participation in this show? Do they ever talk DIRECTLY to any *one* person in the house? Definitely intrigued...

The show runs 90 minutes. No intermission.
They never directly talk to any one person in the audience. At least not that I remember.

ggersten, Thank you for your insights. I just came from watching it and also felt conflicted. I do find the subject matter interesting and many of the ideas workable but the writing still needs way more work than I can fathom being accomplished in the scope of previews.

Inasmuch as the choir is "cute" it does not forward the plot for the 6 minutes it runs, especially with a 10 min late curtain. The mics didn't bother me. What did bother me was the narration gimmick from the pastor which is not framed in the beginning and when it is used a quarter into the play it comes jarring. A little word in narration from the pastor in the beginning would have framed it enough.

SLIGHT SPOILERS

To watch a preacher full of 'revelation' stumble of explanations or simply fall silent to accusations was hard to swallow. The author seems to be pointing to a broad encompassing New Age vision of Christianity when in fact, after the show is over, it is only about the minor point whether hell is real or not. But without the entire framework of a new religion, the point becomes meaningless. How is it possible that in 90 min of a 'religious' themed play, the words: love, compassion and forgiveness are never even mentioned. Even the couple uses simply: do you "like" me....

I didn't know much about the play, but wound up winning the LiveforFive lotto for Friday's performance and my friend and I both really enjoyed the play and performances. There were a few directorial decisions that we didn't care for, but the text and performances were both pretty solid.

It actually came at a really great time for me, since I just finished East of Eden, which devotes so much time to the importance of translation when interpreting holy text (a big point of discussion in The Christians), and think The Christians is an interesting companion piece for Hand to God, which was one of my favorite plays from last season. My friend and I are planning to go to Lucas Hnath's symposium at Playwrights later this month, and I'm really interested in hearing more of what he has to say about the piece.

Thanks, followspot! This expands on Hnath's note in the script about requiring the use of microphones.