Wildflower: Did Anyone Else See It?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/8/09 at 12:35am

So, I saw "Wildflower" tonight, currently playing off-Broadway in Second Stage's "Uptown" Series. I have to say that I'm baffled as to how this play got produced. How did this play make its way through so many people and make it to the stage in the shape it's in. The play only runs 75 mins, but at times it felt much longer. For the most part it wasn't bad. It was a nice little quirky comedy, which seems to be the trendy new thing these days. It was quaint, I guess. Within the first twenty minutes, the play didn't really show any development of a plot, or overall story. The acting was great, and the design of the show was pretty interesting. But the last 10 mins is where the play lost me. And everyone else in the audience. It takes a turn for the worse, and it really just doesn't make much sense. I mean, what am I suppose to leave the play thinking? What was the point of the ending? How does that incorporate into the theme? And how does that ending make it into the play after it's been read by countless people including the actors and director and designers? Anyone else?

[vodkastinger]

Posted: 8/8/09 at 5:04am

I think the ending is dynamic and interesting. In fact, it makes the play. While it's not convenient and doesn't have you leaving the theatre with a nice little show in a nice little package and bow, it does something better, it inspires thought and discussion.

It is supposed to be jarring and uncomfortable, that's the point. Life doesn't always come with foreshadowing and build-up, sometimes it smacks us out of nowhere, and that is what this does.

While "Wildflower" is not a flawless piece of work, it is definitely worthy of production, and I think we should be grateful that their are places like Second Stage that are willing to take bold choices (god knows not even all the non-profit theatres do that *cough-cough-Roundabout*). I loved that it was a show that I was able to sit around with friends and discuss and debate and argue, unlike so much of the fluff on Broadway that only leaves you thinking, hmm that was fun.

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/8/09 at 7:02am

I thought the whole thing was absolutely dreadful-- the ending, and everything that preceded it.

I am so sick of these plays about troubled teens who themselves are obnoxious beyond words and whom the author evidently feels are so worthy of our admiration and/or sympathy. They're an exasperating lot, and worthy of nothing more than our irritation, which I felt in abundance in this case.

Please, no more plays about dysfunctional, rude, know-it-all, obnoxious teens! There are lots of nice, well-adjusted teens out there. Write about them instead.
Updated On: 8/8/09 at 07:02 AM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 8/8/09 at 7:09am

What was this ending?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/8/09 at 10:44am

Since it closes today, I guess it doesn't matter if I post spoilers. Randolph and Astor go up to the meadow on a date the night before Astor is supposed to leave for college, presumably to have sex. Randolph makes some soup and takes it with him in a thermos. He put a teaspoon of the Wolfsbane in it (which, earlier, he explains the book says is "a nap"). He wants her to make her fall asleep so he can see "what's where." Astor falls asleep. While she's asleep, Randolph's mother finds them, and can't wake Astor up. Randolph explains what he did -- that he wanted to be ready, he wanted to do it right, and nobody would answer his questions, so he had to figure it out for himself -- so he gave her a teaspoon, which is a nap. His mother says Astor's not going to wake up.

Anyway, vodka stinger, I totally agree with everything you said. I really liked it. I saw it twice. I thought the ending worked, and was honestly really shocked by it. I totally didn't see it coming, and found it really heartbreaking on a lot of levels: Randolph's thought process may have been totally screwed up, but he had, theoretically, what he thought were the best of intentions; Astor will never get to experience everything that's ahead of her. Randolph will have to live with this. What are they going to tell Astor's grandmother? And so forth. It's unexpected, and that's, to me, what makes this play interesting. I often cringe at plays about teenagers because more often than not they turn out whiny and obnoxious, but I thought these characters were interestingly written. Flawless? No. But these kinds of productions rarely are. That's not the point. (And Rentboy, do you like anything?)

Updated On: 8/9/09 at 10:44 AM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/8/09 at 2:57pm

Oh my god. I'm so sick of people asking me if I like anything. I like a lot of things. I really enjoyed Next Fall and The Toxic Avenger, which I saw recently. I just don't like crap, and I feel like this play had a cop out ending. It seems like the playwright didn't know where to go, so she killed off a character. And I think it's a horrible cop out to say that "life is unexpected." So you mean if I write a play and end it with everyone just dying, that's okay because life is unexpected? That's stupid. That's just bad writing. I just don't understand the whole point of the show! I mean, we learn one character has a disease and is dying, we learn one can't whole onto relationships, and then one of the characters dies, and thats' the end. What's the point? The WHOLE point of the show is just to tell me life is unexpected and we take it for-granted? Great, well Our Town did it earlier, and better. I just not buying that excuse. sorry.

[cardamon]

Posted: 8/8/09 at 5:10pm

luvtheEmcee - Was that the whole ending when you saw it? When I saw the play at the first preview, after the mother told the son that the girl was dead, she told him to go back to town, and then she lit a match and set the field with the dead body on fire.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/8/09 at 5:25pm

Yes, after she said "I'm sorry" or whatever the line was, she held him and there was a blackout. The ending changed a lot before opening.

Rentboy, partially tongue-in-cheek. Get a grip. You just seem to be so negative about almost everything, and often express that negativity with an attitude that seems like you expect everything to be perfect, or that imperfect pieces don't deserve to be produced. And that's something I don't buy. The only way for something to be worthwhile is for it (a) to say something that's never been said before (pretty much impossible, no?) or (b) to out-do everything that comes before it? What would be the point of producing new works, then, in a world of Our Towns and Sondheim musicals. Why even bother, if it's been done already? Why try again, to say it a new way or in a different context? It's important to take risks, or otherwise as an art form, we go absolutely nowhere, and that's a future I can't support.

You're so busy hating on things that you actually manage to miss the point of the play. It sounds like you were expecting it to be cliché, so you checked out and just assumed it was. It's not about life being "unexpected." It's about grave mistakes and misunderstandings -- look at what Randolph did and WHY. Did you even listen to the things he was saying? His actions were the result of a thought process that, theoretically, makes complete sense, but in action, it's all wrong. There's something, to me, really tragic about that. And I know this is reiterating something vodkastinger said earlier, but this play ignited a lot of really interesting discussion between my friends and I after we saw it, and I think that's more important than being perfect.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/8/09 at 5:44pm

luvtheEmcee, first, I HATE when someone says to someone else "you just didn't get it." That automatically implies that you're somehow smart, or whatever. I'm glad you liked the show, and if you looked at my initial post, you would have read that I did like the play up until the ending. I thought it was interesting and quirky and charming, but the ending didn't fit the previous 60mins. The tone suddenly shifted, and then it ended. To me, that says that the playwright didn't know how to fix the ending. And, from what I heard from people leaving, everyone else agrees. I heard it went through a ton of rewrites. The play just needs a second act. I mean, the character were beautifully crafted, and I, as an audience member, wanted to know more about them and where they were going.

And to comment on what I said before, I think you misinterpreted it, or else I wasn't clear enough. My favorite quite is from Sunday in the Park with George: "Anything you do, let it come from you, then it will be new." I'm not saying you have to have this uber original idea, but if all the play is trying to say is "life is unexpected," then what's the point? I mean, why say that now? What's the context? I didn't get that. We can agree to disagree. And I don't expect things to be perfect, lord knows. My favorite musical/play is Sunday in the Park, and there are parts of that show that I HATE, but I manage to get through because the parts I love outweigh the bad. I just didn't think this was a successful show. I think it just cheated the audience in the last ten minutes, and a better ending could have been created. She's a talented playwright, so I was just offended that she went for a cop out ending.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/8/09 at 5:56pm

Okay, first of all, stop being so defensive. I didn't say you were stupid, I'm not trying to say I'm smarter than you, you really need to chill out and relax. You can be intelligent and still miss the point of something; God knows I've done it! I do think what you saw as the "point" of the play and deemed inconsequential or unnecessary wasn't actually the point of the play at all; I think you saw the play's "message" as much broader and cliché than it is. And in turn, if you thought it was just a typical "life is precious" thing, then yes, I can see why you thought that was stupid, because that's not all that interesting. All I was saying was that, to me, the point of the play was so much more. See, now that's not calling you stupid, is it?

You're certainly entitled to think it was a cop-out of an ending. I thought it was interesting and unexpected, but that's what makes the world go 'round. The tone DID shift a lot, and that was something I thought about, and it IS jarring, but it didn't bother me. I liked that it wasn't just another "and they had sex and it was beautiful and awkward and they learned life lessons" thing. And as for the second part, yes, you were clearer this time. And I can see why the ending might have made people feel cheated. For me, I had all these questions about what was going to happen, and even though it was unsettling not to know, I think that's really powerful. There's a huge sh*tstorm about to come for these people, and we're left to grapple with all of those possibilities on our own. There were things that didn't work, there always are, especially with things produced in this kind of setting. I'm not about to compare it to Sunday in the Park With George, but I think she's a talented writer with some interesting perspectives, and it's a compelling little play.

I'm curious (and before you wrongly accuse me, I'm not trying to be a bitch here), how do you think it should have ended? What should have happened that wouldn't have made you feel like it cheated you out of a good ending?

[vodkastinger]

Posted: 8/8/09 at 7:33pm

Once again, this thread proves the strength of the play.

While lots of people love the ending, and lots of people don't. Like you said (and this isn't a judgment on you rentboy, just using your example of what you saw), when you leave the theatre you hear people talking about disliking the ending, but I find at most shows I go to, the people who are making their judgments in the aisles as they walk out are usually the ones who don't take time to process or think about what they've seen. I know that it took me a good half hour or so to be able to talk about what I had seen, because I had to digest the shock of the last ten minutes.

However, the strength is that you felt something. People feel betrayed, and angry, and upset about the ending. However, very few people feel nothing about it--they have strong reactions. Theatre, as I see it, is a chance to feel. Whether or not you like where the piece takes you, at the very least you felt the need to discuss it with other people. Lots of shows I see, I walk out of the theatre and just think "oh, that happened; what's next." And that is so much worse.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 2:48am

I totally agree with that point. I think a good play should ignite conversation and debate, but I just felt like this play was building and building and building and then bam, and we're done. It just felt like someone was like "oh hey, we need you to end this real quick" and so they did.

And as for the how the ending should work, I mean, I don't proclaim to be a brilliant writer, so I'm not sure what should have been done. Like I've said before, and you've pointed out, I don't really think I understand what she was going for, so I'm not sure where it should have been taken. I mean, I don't HATE the fact that she died, but what purpose does it serve in the context of the play. Just to show us that Randy's a little off and his actions can't be counted for? I think flat-out, the play needed a second act. It's okay to have loose ends and keep people guessing, but this play didn't resolve anything, and I think that's a miss. Just to tie up one of the stories would have been nice. The best part of the evening was when the two gentlemen connected.

I think the reason I'm so "bitchy" about the play is because I honestly did enjoy it. I mean, it was worth my $20, but I think it could be SOOO much better than it is. It was so well designed and acted, so I felt like the ending was just cheated. I mean, what was the whole metaphor about the "wildflowers?"

I think it would have been nice had the play had some sort of foreshadowing. I think that's just a nice general playwrighting tool. I mean, it doesn't have to be some big major like "something bad is going to happen," but maybe just foreshadowing that Randolph has done something bad previously, which is why they moved, or something. That would have made the ending work to me. Like, they're in this new town, and they're settled, and getting along, and then BAM, he does it again, and they have to move again. I think that might have worked a little bit better, but what do i know?

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/15/09 at 12:17am

"However, the strength is that you felt something."

You offer an argument which is often voiced, and one with which I have to disagree.

Many very bad plays--- of which "Wildflowers" was one-- make you feel any number of strong feelings, such as contempt, irritation, exasperation, disgust, etc. etc. That doesn't mean these plays are any good. If that were the case, everything from "The Mother Lover," and "The News" to "Romantic Poetry" and "Moose Murders" would deserve the Pulitzer Prize. Making you feel is not enough-- the play has got to be good.

Moreover, I don't go to the theatre to feel. I feel all the time outside the theatre. I go to the theatre to have a rewarding theatrical experience, whether it be a drama, a comedy, or a musical. And if I feel strongly that what I see is garbage, then, no, that does not prove the play is of value.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/15/09 at 1:30am

And just to sort of take over my own thread, I saw "A Lifetime Burning" tonight, and can I just say how OVER IT I am when it comes to female playwrights writing "snappy" dialogue about woman in chic, stylish apartments (God of Carnage, Theresa Rebeck, Lisa Loomer, and whoever wrote this play). I know I'm making a generalization, but it's not cool and it's been done way too much. We get it. People who live in "normal" apartments have problems. Yes, we get that loud and clear.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 8/15/09 at 2:30am

RentBoy, I'm not going to jump on the "I feel like you hate everything" bandwagon, but I will say this: it seems like you dislike a lot of similar material in terms of genre.

As someone who clearly has very specific tastes, I'd suggest you perhaps narrow down what you choose to go see rather than continuously walk away disappointed (which you seem to be quite often.)

I'm having a hard time seeing how you can think you'll like some of the things you inevitably don't based on your previous opinions.

Updated On: 8/15/09 at 02:30 AM

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/15/09 at 8:03am

RentBoy86, I agree with you wholeheartedly about "A Lifetime Burning," and all the other plays of their ilk. "Lifetime" was an ill-conceived, badly written mess, but less irritating than horrors like "Becky Shaw," and "Spike Heels." Frankly, I'm sick to death of the whole lot of them.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/15/09 at 12:41pm

somethingwicked, I understand your point, and you're probably right, but at the same time I'm not willing to admit defeat. These are the kinds of plays that are getting produced, so these are the kinds of plays that are out there for me to see. I'm waiting for the one play that sort of breaks the genre and makes it work for me, but it has yet to happen. Just like I'm waiting for the one Craig Lucas play to really grab me and pull me into his style of work. It hasn't happened yet, but I feel like I've got a pretty broad sense of taste. I liked Shrek, and I've seen Mary Stuart twice. I think that sufficiently sums up my tastes.

I always hear people complaining about the lack of presence of women playwrights, but if this is all they have to offer (and I know I'm making a generalization), then who cares? At least some female playwrights are taking chances and writing interesting pieces like "Ruined" (even if I didn't think it was all that great), and Suzan-Lori Parks. Like they said in "A Lifetime Burning," what happened to American's lack of imagination? Is "A Lifetime Burning" as imaginative as we can get? Are theater patrons not willing to think anymore or willing to grasp thinks that are more theatrical like an Ionesco play or an Albee play, or something that isn't so linear and straight forward?