They've dropped the "Kowalski" from Stanley's name in new Streetcar revival — Page 5

Thanks, Nasty, I think it's a very challenging topic and one which merits some serious attention.

Theater-going mores differ from community to community, genre within national traditions (e.g., Gaveston has graced us with his extensive scholarship on the differences between noh and kabuki audiences), and over time - compare the rowdy Elizabethan audience to the generally staid Victorian one.

We might begin to ask ourselves if the way people once dressed and acted attending the American commercial theater might be on the verge of becoming passe - in some respects, the unofficial dress code, it no doubt became obsolete long ago. And what might be arguably lost and what arguably gained from the anticipated changes. A socially relativistic perspective can't be dismissed.

On the other hand, neither should an interest in not being unduly distracted when one attends the theater be dismissed as an insignificant concern. In addition to what are considered inappropriate or inorthodox audience verbalizations, we've also seen very strong opinions on bww on topics ranging from sippy cups to entrance applause to kickline applause to cellphones - and some of these arguable distractions, not unreasonably complained of, such as entrance applause, are traditional practices in the American commercial theater.

What irks me is impolite and dehumanizing commentary directed at particular theater-going communities, be they defined ethnically, sexually, etc. It's one thing to call attention to particular behavior and identify it as coming from a particular community. In fact it's interesting, worthy of discussion, and shouldn't be repressed.

It's another for it to be ugly and or mean-spirited. Complaints such as mine can easily be offset as cliche or knee-jerk "p.c." rhetoric. But they are simply a call for common courtesy, empathy, intelligence, and humility; as well as an expression of distaste when confronted with hatefulness, arrogance and or hubris.

It is not my intention to repress or censor (not that I presume to have that kind of authority) this ugliness but merely to call it what it is when I encounter it.

On another but related note, all this talk of the Streetcar audience got me thinking about my recent, and in some ways converse experience, attending Hurt Village. Because the play was presented in the round, I felt uncomfortable constantly being reminded that the audience was largely white, obviously well-heeled, mature, staid (not to imply the work was not generally well received by a great many attending fitting this profile, perhaps the majority of whom seemed to appreciate Hall's play), who seemed to be encountering a complete other world. I'd be lying if I didn't feel a measure of additional discomfiture watching this play because my view of the action included an audience that mirrored myself, and reinforced the racial American divide.

The reserved quality of the Hurt Village audience, the all but complete demographic contrast of the audience to the company, and, more to the point, my awareness of others in the audience (resulting from the in-the-round presentation) became, similar to the experience being described in threads about Streetcar and Evita, a part of the experience of seeing the play to a far greater extent than what communal audience energy usually imparts to the theater-goer.

Updated On: 4/4/12 at 02:45 PM

I was merely highlighting what I hold to be - as it happens, your post seems to suggest we concur - at the heart of the play in order to put all other matters herein discussed in their proper and relative - albeit by no means insignificant - perspective.

Fair enough, henrik. I think we do agree about the basic conflict of the play and I readily admit it is possible to be moved by that family rift while completely ignoring the historical context. I just think that gay culture and feminism have turned Blanche and Stella into such icons of gender (both positive and negative) that the play borders on unintentional camp.

As someone who loves the genre of Southern literature, I hate to see Williams' plays lose their moorings. (I, too, saw a production that became a broad comedy and was horrified: Ellen Geer played Blanche in LA when she was nearing 60. The age disparity made Blanche seem like a crazy bag lady and I assumed that was what provoked the misplaced laughter.)

***

As for writers addressing specific audiences and their behaviors (I assume that's what you meant above), I have read some who see African-American theatergoing behavior as rooted in the call-and-response of traditional African theater and passed down through the participatory nature of black Pentecostal churches. The theory makes sense to me, but this isn't my field and the pieces I've read on the subject came from academic journals. I'm sorry it's been too long to point you to a specific scholar.

But as for theater audience behavior in general, I suspect but can't prove that the dominance of musical spectacles, amped up to 11 and automated to the hilt, has taught audiences that what they do or don't do really doesn't affect the performers or those around them. (The concurrent advent of Dolby sound, etc., in movie theaters hasn't helped.)

***

But back to STREETCAR: I loved, but was surprised by the silhouette of the poster; it makes more sense if the play is now set in 1953. Skirts didn't flair like that until the textile industries were restored in the years after the war, making material available for dresses again (instead of uniforms, tents, parachutes, etc.).

I'm just guessing, but moving the play to 1953 might have to do with the ages of the cast. Stanley was a vet in WWII, in which men were drafted from ages 18 to 38. So a late 30s/early 40s Stanley might have been possible in 1947, but would be more likely a few years later.

.

Updated On: 4/4/12 at 05:27 PM

lol

Do you remember what they were eating at the time?

This is one of my favorite plays of all time so I went to the matinee today, I really couldn't wait. I think while this is at times a flawed production, it's pros more than outweigh it's cons. First, Parker is PHENOMENAL. I mean, I've always been a fan of hers and I don't know what I was expecting but she really just blew me away for a second preview. I think it's one of the hardest roles in all of theater to play and she pretty much nailed it. Of course there's things she'll grow into and discover as time goes on and I really can't wait to see it again down the line to see her again. Daphne is superb as well (as always) and didn't miss a beat the entire show.

Watching this today, I thought that Underwood still needed to discover who Stanley really was because he really just plays him to be mean most of the time. But after talking to the director after the show about "The Scene" at the end which was done so brutally, I asked her "Why did you make the decision..." and she stopped me and said "Because Blanche was raped and I wanted there to be NO doubt about that". So I guess his Stanley is just a mean, sadistic MoFo.

The only really negative thing about the production I can say is Wood Harris. His acting is painful. It's like watching a community theater's understudy's standby go on. I mean, if there was ever an actor who should take some classes, it's him. Is it too late to get someone else? Anyone else would do. Randy Jackson would be better.

Other than that, like other people said - I didn't realize this was such a comedy! I felt so stupid for not getting all of the humor all these years. And when I saw Blanchett, I should have yelled out "WHORE!" to her in Act 2 like someone did today. And in case you didn't know, when Stanley attacks Stella THAT. IS. SOME. FUNNY. SH*T. (I mean, that's what the guy in front of me yelled). The woman in back of me was too busy going through her purse for more candy bars to really notice I think, but had she been watching the stage instead of her Baby Ruths, I just know she would have LOL'd, too. Funnily enough, when I was seated I was seated right next to a HUGE group of high school students and you know no matter WHAT show you go to, that just means trouble. But if any of them are reading this, you guys ROCK! I've never in my life seen such a great group of kids at any show. Too bad people around you couldn't take your lead.

But all in all I really do recommend going to see this. In a couple weeks it's going to be even better, I think and Parker is a DEFINITE contender for that Tony this year.

Updated On: 4/4/12 at 08:53 PM

Re: The kids in the audience

When I was teaching, STREETCAR was an extremely popular part of my curriculum. No matter what group of kids I had in that class, they responded to the play on different levels. It took a bit of prodding, but the kids eventually caught on to the color symbolism in the play and wrote decent--and in some cases--perceptive essays about it on the state Regents exams (Although there was the one kid who wrote about something called A STREET CARNATION DESIRE and another who thought the author was Mississippi Williams).

It doesn't surprise me that young people behaved properly during this production. There's something about it that truly engages kids.

---

Mississippi Williams sounds like an aging playwright who would make an appearance on THE SIMPSONS.

I could probably write a book about the literature essays I read (and graded) in 36 years of teaching.

Now, however, back to the STREETCAR discussion. I'm finding it very illuminating.

---

...and The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stoned

---

The Glass McNuggetrie is my favorite.

I was always partial to "Eccentricities of a Bloomingdale"

---