The closing of Cain Mutiny

yes, a lot of people say it's a great play.

---

I believe Christopher Isherwood hit the nail on the head in his review of the show in the Times. A program like Perry Mason wasn't even on television yet when Caine Mutiny was originally on Broadway. Courtroom drama could still fascinate people back in those days. That interest no longer exists. You can see it practically every night of the week on Law & Order--and not have it long and drawn out with a telegraphed ending. Not to mention the subject of paranoia, an ailment which is no longer captivating to the public. Hell, we've had presidents that have publically suffered from it. What's to grab anyone nowadays?

The angle of prejudice, which David Schwimmer seemed to be so high on his horse about in articles I've read, also plays as trite today.

Why would any producers have thought this work would go over with an audience in 2006?

Oh, stop being so sensitive and learn how to read. I said "evidently" the show deserved to close, while stating that since I had not seen it I personally had no opinion.

It is NOT a great play; it's dated beyond reproach, even for a "period piece". David Schwimmer was in so over his head that he was drowning. Tim Daly was awful too; I've never seen an actor so blatantly phone in a performance in my life as he did. Only Zeljko Ivanek, haunting as Queeg, does his job.

BTW, riv: The Times reviewer is Charles, not Christopher, Isherwood. Christopher Isherwood has been dead for quite some time.

Updated On: 5/20/06 at 05:43 PM

The reasons for Caine Mutiny's closing are more complex than playing the game of blame the press agent or the casting director.

Caine Mutiny was probably revived as a result of the Roundabout's unexpected success with 12 Angry Men last season. But that work still had something relevant to say about life in America, despite what may be intrinsically dated about its material. Caine Mutiny doesn't have that same advantage. (12 Angry Men also benefitted from an excellent cast and strong direction and design).

To add to Caine Mutiny's problems, there is a glut of plays right now for audiences to choose from. And there are a very limited number of ticketbuyers who purchase plays to begin with. If you want to see a star in a play on Broadway, would you choose David Schwimmer if you could see Julia Roberts, Ralph Fiennes, Cherry Jones or Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick? Would you see Caine Mutiny, if you could see an acclaimed new play like History Boys, Lieutenant of Inishmore of Shining City, or even last season's Doubt? Or a typically and reliably well-received, well produced Lincoln Center revival, like Awake and Sing?

One never knows the ingredients that will coalesce to work for or against a particular show, but in this case, several factors worked against Caine Mutiny, before the show's negative critical reception even came into play. But in the long run, the production's failure cannot be conveniently placed on one person, even though we all like to find someone to blame.

---

Updated On: 5/20/06 at 08:50 PM

Audiences don't want to spend $110 on something they can watch on TNT 92x a day in Law and Order. The target audience, the tourist/celebrity seeker, doesn't want to see Ross, err, David Schwimmer. They want to see Julia Roberts and Ralph Fiennes. Ironically, Caine was to have played longer than both of those shows.

Personally, I wanted very much to see this show, but was conflicted. I wanted so badly to see David Schwimmer, but I was afraid that I would see him and immediately think "Ross!" and start giggling at his facial expressions or whatever... I know, that's just about the most immature reason to not see a show, but that's the honest truth. I love David Schwimmer as Ross, and as much as I wanted to support his career, a part of me wants him to be just Ross - something I'm sure he's trying desperately to avoid.

---

I saw a preview, and was also lucky enough to have seen the original production when I was 10. I agree with a lot of the reasons listed above---certainly when the play was done in 1954, the war was only nine years older and on everyone's mind. Most of the audience had served or experienced the war in some way, and that might have been a reason why it well received. In my memory, there was also a gravity in the OBC that was missing here; the actors in the play had mostly served in the war, and perhaps they brought that into the production. The OBC was more deliberate, less rushed then the first act of this production was.
I had a major problem with the casting of Maryk. It is a contradiction, because the role is not really that big, yet he is (or his act is) the center of the play. This actor seemed callow, with not much range, and so young, I doubted he could take over anything, let alone a ship in crisis. His scenes with Greenwald that begin and end Act I are so important, yet I felt Schwimmer had no one to play off--there was a spinlessness to there scenes--so how could an audience grasp the what was truly at stake.
And I think Jerry Zaks staged most of the witnesses scenes as "numbers", an excellent actor like Geoff Naufts who can go deep into a role, seemed all on one note.
Anyway, that is my take---I left after the first act, not because I hated it, but there was very little to keep me in the theater.