Follow by Email

Dana H. adapted from interviews with Dana Higginbotham by Lucas Hnath
At Vineyard Theatre on East 15th Street

BS Rating: A-
Show-Score Rating: 90

This was one of the most unusual theatre experiences I have had in some time.  The mother of playwright Lucas Hnath (“The Doll’s House, Pt. 2”) was kidnapped and held by a mentally ill Aryan Brotherhood ex-convict in 1997.  In 2015, Hnath asked a friend, artistic director of The Civilians theatre company, Steve Cosson, to interview his mother and record her as she described her five months under the control of her captor.  This one-person play has actress Deirdre O’Connell lip-syncing the recording of the playwright’s mother telling her story.  Ms. O’Connell’s performance is truly amazing. 

For me, it presented a new dimension to acting.  Usually an actor’s voice is an essential part of making an audience believe what it is seeing.  As a college director with inexperienced actors, I asked my performers to match their physicality to their voice — feel and show what you are saying.  For Ms. O’Connell, she not only had to match the physical mouth gestures to the recorded voice of the mother of the playwright (which she does flawlessly), she had to create this other person’s physicality and, as good actors must, communicate an understandable interpretation of the character’s words and thoughts. The way Dana H said her lines had to drive how Ms. O’Connell acted those lines.

 “Dana H” really is not a play.  It’s a reenactment of the retelling of a story that is fascinating — a Christian chaplain attempts to save a suicidal criminal and becomes his prisoner.  He drags her all over the southern states and seems to have an immunity to law-enforcement intervention.  The story might be unbelievable were it not for the fact that we are hearing the voice of the actual victim.  And Ms. O’Connell’s portrayal is absolutely believable and insightful.






West Side Story


West Side Story

West Side Story by Leonard Bernstein, Stephen Sondheim, and Arthur Laurents
The Broadway Theatre at 52nd and Broadway

Score: B

OK, I’ll start with the inevitable question: Is it worth seeing?  My answer is a qualified Yes! 
I need to start by admitting that I am a bit of an Ivo van Hove fan, the director of this Broadway production -- a rethinking of one of the masterpieces of musical theatre.  I have seen four of his works – each a reexamination of a classic – and, in each case, I found his work fascinating (I must qualify my enthusiasm by admitting that I did not see his much-rebuked Broadway production of Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible”). 

I went into the Broadway Theatre with some trepidation.  The press and commentaries made it clear that Mr. van Hove’s production would not hold to the Jerome Robbins’ original choreography and style.  The original “West Side Story” was the culmination of the integration of dance, music, and story – an achievement that completed a revolution in American musical theatre that Agnes de Mille started in “Oklahoma!” and “Carousel.”  The elements in Robbins’ original version were so completely unified that it was almost impossible to rethink his approach to the Bernstein, Sondheim, Laurents’ and Robbin’s creation.  I know this to be true.  I tried in a college production I directed.  So, while I found major weaknesses in the current production, it was still fascinating and emotionally satisfying.

Let’s start with one of the flaws.  The choreography by Van Hove’s Amsterdam partner, Anne Teresa de Keermaeker, is very disappointing.  It appears that Ms. Keersmaeker has tried to restrict the dancing to the type of movement these characters would actually reveal.  So, the music and dance that was written to tell a story becomes an unimaginative exaggeration of contemporary street movement.  Adapting a classic needs to be a rethinking of the original, not an abandonment of its core.

That said, Mr. van Hove has substituted one of his favorite techniques to explain the meaning missing in the dance – video projections.  During the dances, we see the clues to the meaning of the music projected on a screen that is the full size of stage in the rear.  This does distract from the weaknesses of the choreography, but it also increases the awareness of the less-than telling movement on the stage.

If you saw van Hove’s extraordinary use of live action video in “Network,” you know that he can make mixed media work.  The only two realistic sets are Doc’s bodega and the clothing shop where Maria and Anita work.  They are both three-walled box sets that open up at the rear of the stage while the action of the scene is projected on the full-stage screen, making the viewer feel almost like watching a TV movie.  At times, the actors are found in the theatre’s backstage rooms and stairs that visually match the setting of the scene.  This technique is frequently quite effective, giving the extreme emotions an appropriate size and forcing the audience to pay closer attention to the content of the scenes.

However, at other times, the video is distracting.  There are several scenes, particularly in first part of the show, set on the streets of New York.  While the characters playing the scene downstage are not moving, for some strange reason, the projected view of the street that dominates the picture at the back of the stage is moving.  One of the first rules of directing is that the viewer’s eye will always go toward movement. So, rather than becoming involved in the intimacy of characters’ interactions downstage, we are forcibly attracted to the moving projection upstage.  The totally pathetic choreography of “America” is camouflaged by pictures of the real contemporary Puerto Rico – its poverty and its vulnerability to natural disasters – but Mr. van Hove is not content to remind us of our current government’s disassociation with its colony; he mixes in shots of the controversial wall at the Mexican border.  Huh? The only wall blocking Puerto Rico is an ocean.

This production is played without an intermission and that decision certainly makes the tragic ending all the more powerful.  But it also means that Mr. van Hove has to modify the text and music to make the show short enough for an audience to comfortably tolerate its length (one hour and forty minutes).  “I Feel Pretty” has been entirely cut and many of the dances have been edited.  Given Sondheim’s own disowning of some his work on WSS – as he said in a 2010 interview, "It embarrasses me," he said. "It's very hard for me to listen to some of those songs." “I Feel Pretty” is like something his early supporter, Oscar Hammerstein, might have written and it is unquestionably unSondheimian.  However, shortening of the dances is an unexpected relief, given the state of the choreography.

The performances are pretty good although all of the voices are comparatively small, even with the help of good sound engineering.  This is probably intentional.  Mr. van Hove wants a truthful, contemporary feel – belting a song is unrealistic.  This naturalistic vocalization is frequently effective, but there are dramatic moments that lose their power even with artificial amplification.  Isaac Powell is an appropriate Tony, handsome and looks na├»ve.  His voice is pleasant but too small for the dramatic musical conclusions.  Shereen Pimentel is a totally believable Maria and she has the strongest vocal cords.  Anita is no longer the swaggy sarcastic tough-girl of the past.  Yesenia Ayala plays her convincingly as a strong and independent realist.

There is a large orchestra by today’s standards under the wise direction of Alexander Gemignani.  One of the most interesting adaptations in the show is the transformation of “Gee, Officer Krupke” into a serious commentary on the psychological damage the characters’ environment has unleashed upon these men.  In the original, this song was the required comic relief in the second act.  In van Hove’s version, there is no relief and that is one of the production’s true accomplishments.

The Sharks all look Latino; the Jets are mixed Whites and Blacks – an interesting portrait of contemporary gangs.  Unfortunately, Ms. Keersmaeker does not reflect those differences in her choreography, something Jerome Robbins made into a defining and truthful element in his dances.  It’s tough to turn current Broadway singers into threatening gang members, but the makeup and costume designers have allowed us to accept their menacing look. And Mr. van Hove has underlined the visual updating of the text with a gay man working in, and accepted at, the Puerto Rican dress shop.

Even with these reservations, I recommend this production.  It’s absolutely more interesting and moving than the lame production by author Arthur Laurents several seasons ago. Mr. van Hove’s focus on the story and its amplification in projections draws the audience into the terrible actions set against a story of unconditional love.  And that is what the other collaborator, William Shakespeare, had in mind.


A Soldier's Play


A Soldier’s Play by Charles Fuller
Roundabout Theatre Company
American Airlines Theatre on 42nd Street

Score: A-

Charles Fuller’s “A Soldier’s Play,” currently receiving its first Broadway production in a revival by Roundabout Theater, won the Pulitzer Prize in 1982.  Plays about the African Americans were pretty rare on Broadway in 1982 and most plays about and by Black people were usually produced by “specialty” theatre companies.  “Soldier’s Play” was first produced by the Negro Ensemble Company, a theater producer and educator that still thrives.

Last year, another play by an African American playwright won the Pulitzer Prize. As I reflected after seeing Fuller’s near 40-year-old portrayal of Black men in the military during World War II, I could not stop thinking about last year’s Pulitzer winner, Jackie Sibblies Drury’s insightful and very disturbing “Fairview.” The two plays could not be more different.  However, the way that each dealt with the audience’s role in assessing intra- as well as inter-racial issues haunted me.

Set in Fort Neil, Louisiana, in 1944, Fuller’s play is a commentary on the oppression of Black men by a white society that, in the 1940s, would not even allow them to risk their lives in the company of White men.  While Fuller portrays the unrestrained racism of White “superior” officers, he also weaves a complex “whodunit” murder mystery around issues of intra-racism. His very well constructed plot reveals each soldier with a different sense of self, their place in society (positive and negative), and, the level to which they desire or reject “whiteness.”

Ms. Drury’s play could not be more different on the surface.  At first, in the style of a situation comedy, we see an African American middle-class family preparing to celebrate the birthday of an elder.  In the second part of the play, the Black actors repeat the same scene as four White actors enter the scene commenting on, and eventually disrupting, the Black actors around a game that asks, “What race do you want to be?.” Finally, the main character comes down stage and orders the White members of the audience to leave their seats and come on stage while the people of color in the audience (and the cast) sit in the audience viewing them.

Much has been written about the power and controversy surrounding Ms. Drury’s awaking of her audience to the difference between viewing and being viewed.  And that is why I had such a strange reaction to the “Soldier’s Play” revival.  It is easy for a white New Yorker to disassociate him- or herself from the bold racism of the White characters in Mr. Fuller’s play.  So, we are left to respond to the intra-racial issues that he so deftly raises.  We fall into the trap of using our White sensitivities to evaluate and even judge the complexities of a Black soldier’s experience in what seems to be a long-ago but disturbingly contemporary set of circumstances.  As observers, how should we respond? We, who are not Black; who can only perceive a play with our White perceptions. 

Were there not commentaries going on in our heads not unlike the White intruders in Ms. Drury’s play?  Are those internal remarks our imposition of our view in lieu of our ability to fully understand what the Black couple sitting in front of us was observing?  There has been no shortage of challenging plays from African American playwrights produced on- and off-Broadway in the last few years.  However, it took a very traditional well-made play, written 40 years ago by Mr. Fuller, to stimulate my thinking about the issues raised by Ms. Drury. 

Frankly, I didn’t like “Fairview,” but in some ways that proves Ms. Drury’s intention.  At least she made me (and my White compatriots) feel uncomfortable.  By comparison, Mr. Fuller’s play made me feel comfortable, and that disturbs me.

BTW:  The Roundabout production of “A Soldier’s Play” is near perfect. All of the acting is top-notch, lead by David Alan Grier and Clair Underwood.  Director Kenny Leon has done a good job of balancing the racial commentary with a skillfully woven “whodunit.”  The real credit for the play’s success rests with Mr. Fuller’s commands of the elements of drama.  As I stated above, even though the play raises interesting internal commentaries, the production is comfortably enjoyable, at least for this White viewer.



The Young Man from Atlanta


The Young Man from Atlanta by Horton Foote
Signature Theatre
The Pershing Square Signature Center

Score: C

This week, I finished teaching a class on acting theory and practice at the “senior-peers” program I am involved in at The New School.  One of the most rewarding comments from the participants in this peer-learning study group was that my class changed the way they will be watching acting in the NYC Theatre.  That prompted a story from my days teaching at Antelope Valley College in Lancaster, California.  One day, in my Introduction to Theatre class, a student asked whether I can enjoy a play with all the analysis that I do.  I responded that if the production is good, the play affects me like anyone else.  If it is not good, at least I have something to think about and analyze.

So, it was ironic that I had exactly that experience as I sat through the Signature Theatre revival of Horton Foote’s “The Young Man from Atlanta.”  The 1995 Pulitzer Prize play is set in Houston in 1950, and it lives in the shadow of another, much more deserving Pulitzer winner, Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman.”  Foote’s portrait of the failure of the American dream is about a life-long employee (now the COO) of a produce company who is replaced by a younger man that he trained.  Rather than the lower-middle class environs of Miller’s masterpiece, Foote shows us a well-to-do executive, who lives beyond his means, facing the same disillusionment that drove Willie Loman to his end.  But in spite of the differences in economic status, the two plays are very similar, except that one is a masterpiece and the other only makes you wish the playwright had a new and engaging take on American dreamers.

But instead Foote litters his play with WASP-ness in the 1950s.  The former exec, Will, just built a mammoth home and has always given his wife, Lily Dale, everything she ever wanted. Not only do they have a loyal black housekeeper, but their former servant appears in the second act to tell the couple about her cherished memories of working “in someone else’s kitchen.”  In a less than subtle reinvention of Willie Loman’s obsession with his sons, Foote’s Will and Lily Dale live with a constant pain that they might have failed their son who evidently committed suicide. Foote has several other plot twists, some unresolved, that might have engaged an audience if the Signature production had been up to its usual quality.  It was not.

The acting was mediocre at best.  Aidan Quinn as the fallen provider was one dimensional. He had a lot of brooding mixed with outrage, but never revealed anything about this character’s struggles.  I am a great fan of Kristine Nielsen, but here she is miscast.  She is well known for her comic roles; she can make you laugh simply with a look on her face.  And usually her comedy is rich with reflection.  Foote has written a sort of “past her time” Southern Belle in Lily Dale.  Unfortunately, I felt that Ms. Nielsen got more laughs than Foote ever intended and, after repeatedly reminding the audience of her comic perfection, was incapable of getting the audience convinced by her emotional breakdowns. The rest of the cast’s performances were not worth talking about.  However, Harriett D. Foy, a well-established character actor, made the most of the faithful and busy maid, even if Mr. Foote’s portrait of African Americans sometimes makes you cringe.

Director Michael Wilson did little to shape the production.  Characters walked on- and off-stage seemingly with no consistent sense of the layout of this “very large” house.  Mr. Wilson also seems to have left his actors with very little sense of believable interactions. He seems to have clearly selected effective character actors but never really shaped their characters, something that was at the core of Foote’s success.  Even the set design made no sense.  We are repeatedly told that this new house is among the costliest in Houston circa 1950. But the steps in the living room to the upper level are open-slabs and the railings are painted pipes.  The set is meant to suggest three walls of the living room and some characters exit up the steps and through the doors at the back of the set.  However, others simply walked off stage in either direction, not always in the same direction for the same destination. Sloppy!

Signature Theatre has a well-deserved reputation for excellent revivals of significant plays.  They always bring a high standard of talent, values and resources to their productions, not to mention that they have managed, through generous benefactors, to keep their ticket prices at just $35. But significant plays can have significant weaknesses and Signature’s strength has been to show us the play’s strengths.  This production lacks those strengths. But it certainly provided one more example of “how you enjoy a play” that I described to my college students old and new.

Dana H. adapted from interviews with Dana Higginbotham by Lucas Hnath At Vineyard Theatre on East 15 th Street BS Rating: A- Show...