Luce
Posted: November 15, 2013 Filed under: Drama, Off-Broadway, Play | Tags: congo, jclee, lct3, lincolncenter, luce, review Leave a comment
Lincoln Center is full of “thinker” plays right now. Luce, currently playing at the Claire Tow Theatre through the LCT3 program, prompted another evening full of conversation as my theatre companions and I debated what actually went down during those 100 minutes.
Luce marks the New York professional debut of JC Lee, an up-and-coming playwright and recent graduate of the Juilliard playwrighting program. He grew up with one of my best friends so I’ve known JC for a while now. I was even in a play of his back in 2007 in trusty ol’ Allentown, PA called The Nature Line. His dialogue is quick, smart, contemporary, and often provocative. His new play brings up some interesting ideas about stereotypes, privacy, student/teacher relationships, culture, etc.
As things kicked off, I wasn’t completely gung-ho about this production. The first scene turned me off. It felt forced on the acting front with everything being spelled out for us, and the blocking felt false and unnatural. Once I disengage, I admit it’s hard to bring me back from the edge, but after a couple more scenes, I was definitely drawn back in and more engaged.
So we’ve got a boy named Luce, a 17-year-old kid from the Congo. He was adopted when he was seven years old by Amy and Peter, rescued from the war, and brought over to the states. He’s now a high school senior football player, hoping to get recruited. He’s an A student, popular, and everything his adoptive parents could hope for. Look how this poor boy turned out despite his past! He’s a dream poster child to everyone around him. But after some trouble starts to brew with one particular teacher, warning flags start popping up. When the teacher discovers illegal fireworks in his locker and brings in Amy for a little parent-teacher meeting, the plot is set in motion and we get to watch how his parents handle (or don’t handle) the situation. As things escalate, we are left to wonder: Is Luce innocent? Is he still plagued by his childhood and now acting out?
Although I had trouble with some of the direction and acting, I think this was an exciting debut. The ambiguity of Luce’s innocence lasts the majority of the play. Although even that ambiguity is arguable. My friend made up her mind about Luce’s actions much earlier in the play than I did. We heard an adorable older woman leaving the play afterward saying, “I just don’t know what to think!” I personally don’t think the play leaves much doubt as to whether Luce is guilty or not of a certain act. It’s definitely left up to the audience until those last few minutes, but even then, one could argue it still isn’t 100% one way or the other. Most signs point to guilty, but do we give him the benefit of the doubt? I know I did. But is that only because I, like his mother, so desperately want him to be innocent because of his past? The play asks many questions: how much privacy should a teenager be allowed? Who’s really at fault here? But I left asking primarily: how far would you go to protect your child and your child’s future, no matter his past?
Luce
Written by JC Lee, Directed by May Adrales
Lincoln Center Theater through November 17th
Photo Credit: Jeremy Daniel
Pictured: Marin Hinkle, Okieriete Onaodowan, and Neal Huff
Julius Caesar
Posted: November 8, 2013 Filed under: Drama, Off-Broadway, Play, Shakespeare | Tags: allwomen, juliuscaesar, review, shakespeare, stanns 1 Comment
I was very excited to see the all-female production of Julius Caesar at St. Ann’s Warehouse, directed by Phyllida Lloyd and brought over from the Donmar Warehouse (a fantastic theatre in London). I know that sentence sounds like a set up for the show being disappointing. And it wasn’t, but at the same time, I also wasn’t as blown away as I’d hoped to be. Perhaps I went in with expectations too high. This happens to me more often than I’d like.
But after thinking it over since this particular Halloween outing last Thursday, I think the underlying issue is that I am simply not a big fan of the play. Is that sacrilegious to say, Shakespeare fan that I am? Caesar has never done much for me as a reader or audience member. I’ve been trying to figure out why, and I keep coming up relatively empty. Is it because I have trouble relating to the story? Do I not sympathize with any of the characters? Unclear.
Given that the story bores me, this production did a pretty decent job of holding my attention. First off, it is set in an all-female prison #orangeisthenewblack. The audience is escorted by extremely stern guards (ushers) into a sterile prison of pipes and scaffolding and lectured about how to behave before being led to our seats. I love this kind of thing – immediately transporting us into a new environment and setting the scene before we even take our seats.
These (very talented) women tell the iconic story that we know so well, straying only occasionally from the classical text for a handful of contemporary references (e.g. the prophecy of Caesar’s demise is a Libra horoscope). They have a fantastic grasp of the language, and they also stick to all of the original pronouns, referring to each other as men. This is typically a very male-heavy show, but it should be noted that the power or strength of that overwhelming testosterone is not lost with this cast.
Lloyd plays with the location and convention of the prison throughout but not as much as I would have liked. These were the moments that particularly grabbed me and made me sit forward in my seat – the recognition and awareness of the surrounding reality, like in Alan Cumming’s Macbeth. If anything, this switched things up from the standard plot. Whether or not the play does anything for me though, the cast is fantastic, and you get the feeling when the show ends that there is still more story to be told.
Fun side note: I should mention that at one point during the show, during the big senate scene I believe, all of a sudden I noticed someone sitting upstage in one of the chairs. After a little while, I thought to myself, is that person a part of the show? That doesn’t look like a woman. Yup, that’s a man…holding a program – an audience member who somehow managed to take a seat within the set and then sat there for close to 15 minutes, from Caesar’s death scene (spoiler alert) up through Mark Antony’s huge monologue. He was practically one of the conspirators. Hi-larious.
Julius Caesar
Written by William Shakespeare, Directed by Phyllida Lloyd
St. Ann’s Warehouse through November 9th
Photo Credit: Helen Maybanks
Pictured: Harriet Walter
Domesticated
Posted: November 1, 2013 Filed under: Off-Broadway, Play | Tags: brucenorris, domesticated, gender, goldblum, linctix, review Leave a comment
There are few things I enjoy as much as seeing a good new play and then talking about it the entire commute home. And I don’t mean just talking about what we liked or didn’t like, or the design, or even the acting. I mean, talking about the play – diving deeper into the ideas it touched on. I love when the conversation continues after the lights come back up.
The playwright Bruce Norris wowed me (plus a few Tony voters) with Clybourne Park a couple seasons ago, so when I heard he had a new play at the Mitzi E. Newhouse up at Lincoln Center, I bee-lined for Linctix to buy myself a ticket. Not to mention it’s directed by Anna D. Shapiro (August: Osage County) and starring Jeff Goldblum and Laurie Metcalf. It’s called Domesticated, and I do recommend checking it out.
Now I don’t want to give much away because I think the play raises some very interesting questions, and they’ll sound a whole lot smarter in the context of the play than me trying to paraphrase them here. I will say that it is a piece about gender, politics, (gender politics?), betrayal, morality, and the concept of men versus women, in all respects really.
A politician, Bill (Goldblum), is introduced. He is at a press conference confessing to a crime, resigning from his post, and his wife Judy (Metcalf) is at his side. The Good Wife, anyone? Bill is surrounded by women in his life. After that first speech of his, he is primarily silent for the remainder of the first act. It’s fantastic to watch. He is talked over and practically trampled by these women (his wife, his daughter, his lawyer, etc.). But boy does he start to talk in Act 2.
What’s incredibly impressive about the “men versus women” conversation that Norris brings up is that in one moment I found myself fully on Judy’s side, but at the same time, I was eagerly awaiting Bill’s rebuttal. This (male) playwright manages to represent both sides/genders quite effectively. Bill can be incredibly misogynistic and sexist at times, but then in the next moment, I actually find myself sympathizing with his character. But then he opens his mouth again. It helps that Goldblum’s trademark way of speaking keeps things lighter and more casual than they might typically be.
As the plot unfolds and we watch Bill’s fall from power, there are some nice surprises along the way, great laughs, smooth set changes, clever plays on media and marriage, and a really strong ensemble to tell the story. Overall, I would say that if you enjoy going to the theatre to think, I highly recommend Domesticated. And after that? I would love to hear your thoughts.
Domesticated
Written by Bruce Norris, Directed by Anna D. Shapiro
Lincoln Center Theater through January 5th
Photo Credit: Joan Marcus
Pictured: Jeff Goldblum
Love’s Labour’s Lost
Posted: August 17, 2013 Filed under: Comedy, Musical, Off-Broadway, Shakespeare | Tags: bloodybloodyandrewjackson, delacorte, josswhedon, loveslabourslost, review, shakespeare, shakespeareinthepark Leave a comment
It’s an odd thing. Sometimes it looks like everything’s been done just right: a talented cast, creative director, nice set, beautiful park, some laughs. And yet I walked away from Love’s Labour‘s Lost feeling unaffected. I sat there wishing I was laughing as hard as the people around me, but instead I felt like a bystander, observing from the outside of the Delacorte.
The very simple plot (I’m serious, there’s nothing to it) follows three men and their king who all take an oath to give up life’s pleasures and withdraw from society for three years in order to dedicate their time to their studies. In this contemporary adaptation, these men make this promise at their five-year college reunion, and in addition to rejecting women, they give up beer, bongs, porn, the list goes on. Of course, then four women from their pasts arrive, and we know this oath isn’t going to last too long, thereby making us doubt the weight of their oaths made later to love and stay committed to these women.
That’s it. That’s the plot. The women disappear for like, half of the show. There are random other characters who pop up for a few minutes here and there purely for comic relief.
So what left me feeling so untouched you ask? I’m honestly still in the process of figuring out a concrete answer. This is the second of two Shakespeare in the Park productions this summer, and it is very much a modern adaptation. It’s been turned into a musical, with a new score and adapted book by Michael Friedman and Alex Timbers. Purists, be warned: the original Shakespeare text has been left in the dust. When it does crop up (rarely), it is brief before the songs take over again or more contemporary exchanges take its place.
I don’t mind modern versions of Shakespeare plays; in fact, I encourage them and love to see new approaches. But I did have a hard time with how little original text was used. I kept wondering why they even bothered to keep it. As a result, the jokes felt thin to me. They were easy laughs because it’s funny to juxtapose Shakespeare against a profanity or colloquial phrase. He said the f-word! Such a novelty! But why not only have a couple moments like that and then work to find what’s funny in the original material? Why are extravagant, flamboyant costumes necessary to get laughs? Shakespeare gives us all that we need. I don’t know, maybe I am a purist, but I think if you’re going to change the play to that degree then leave it behind entirely, instead of just referencing it when it’s convenient.
Some will argue that this production makes Shakespeare relatable for a modern audience, but I don’t think all of the hoopla is necessary. People continue to attend Shakespeare in the Park, not only because it’s free, but because Shakespeare remains relatable and entertaining even today. As I exited the park, I found myself thinking about Joss Whedon’s recent film, Much Ado About Nothing. This was a fully contemporary approach to Shakespeare, but the text remains, the comedy reads, and an audience packed with Avengers, Buffy, and Firefly fans connected to it and found themselves enjoying (and understanding) a Shakespeare play thanks to this medium.
This production left me thinking: are any of these choices justified? Most of the “bits” felt random because they knew they would get laughs. The songs make up the majority of the play, but they felt put on and not fully earned by these characters. I like this composer; I’m a big fan of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson (the same creative team). But except for “Love’s a Gun” (sung by the always-amazing Rebecca Naomi Jones) and a couple of other fun numbers, the music didn’t add to my experience.
Please don’t get me wrong; this is a wonderfully talented cast including Daniel Breaker, Colin Donnell, Jeff Hiller, and Rachel Dratch, not to mention director Alex Timbers whom we all know I love (see my Here Lies Love review). But this comedy felt mapped out. There are some genuinely funny and surprising moments. I just wish the rest of it had been as genuine.
Love’s Labour’s Lost
Written by William Shakespeare, Song by Michael Friedman, Book Adapted and Directed by Alex Timbers
Delacorte Theater, Shakespeare in the Park 2013
Photo Credit: Joan Marcus
Pictured: Bryce Pinkham, Colin Donnell, and Lucas Near-Verbrugghe
Nobody Loves You
Posted: August 8, 2013 Filed under: Comedy, Musical, Off-Broadway | Tags: elizabethmitchell, mormon, nobodylovesyou, realitytv, review, secondstage Leave a comment
Hey readers. Long time no see. The summer season is so painfully quiet in the theatre world! But I have returned to the blogosphere to review Second Stage Theatre’s production of Nobody Loves You.
If you had asked me how I felt about this show during the first scene or two, man oh man, was I ready to walk out. I sat there thinking, “Oh god, what have I gotten myself into?” Luckily, the show began to redeem itself with its clever one-liners and quirky self-awareness. I gotta say, that’s hard to do – reversing a first impression and bringing me back from the brink is impressive.
Here’s the basic premise: Jeff, a philosophy graduate student, auditions for a reality show dating competition called “Nobody Loves You” to try to get his ex-girlfriend back. Don’t worry, his reasoning makes sense: it’s a musical! He is also ready to prove to his ex (who’s a big fan of the show) and the world how reality TV is manufactured and fake, and no one makes any real connections. You can probably guess how things pan out, but it’s definitely entertaining along the way. If you’re looking for bubblegum fun, this is the place to be.
The tight-knit ensemble cast stays super busy for 90 minutes singing pop tunes and jumping around playing multiple roles. My personal favorite is Heath Calvert as Byron, the charming-as-he-is-dumb host of the competition. Stand-outs also include Leslie Kritzer as Nina, the hilarious, ball-busting Executive Producer, and Rory O’Malley (The Book of Mormon’s Turn It Off star) as super fan Evan, who provides an excellent way to watch the show within a show from the outside in.
Another nice surprise was Aleque Reid as Jenny, the equally-annoyed-as-Jeff backstage assistant to the show. Amidst all of the heightened “reality,” Jenny’s character keeps things grounded. Not to mention she reminded me so much of Elizabeth Mitchell that I went home and fell into a YouTube wormhole watching LOST Juliet clips (spoiler alert in that link, if you still want to watch the series one day).
I did think, however, that the main character was problematic. Jeff just wasn’t likable in my book. I’m stumped as to whether this was due to the actor, the writing, the directing, or a combination. Granted it’s a tough sell to get you on his side; he has to be a Negative Nancy for most of the show, and it opens with him being kind of a jackass. But he could be a lovable jackass, right? Nonetheless, I didn’t care about him, which leads me to my main issue with the show.
Since these characters are all archetypes and spoofs of themselves, not to mention that the show is one major mockery of reality television, it’s hard to care for them on a deeper level. The show is definitely fun and the campiness hilarious, but when it tries to get “real,” the script falters. I don’t watch reality TV; I dislike it almost as much as Jeff does. I prefer the spoofs like Burning Love or Baby Bachelor. In that vein, Nobody Loves You is actually quite a smart commentary on reality shows, and musicalizing it works. But in the end, it is about reality television, so it never really gets beneath the surface. Leaving me to ask: is that the underlying flaw of the show or the point?
Nobody Loves You
Written by Itamar Moses and Gaby Alter, Directed by Michelle Tattenbaum
Second Stage Theatre
Photo Credit: Joan Marcus
Pictured: Heath Calvert (right) and the cast of Nobody Loves You
Becca on Broadway 