Here She Is Boys

RSS

Clybourne Park – Review

The power of Clybourne Park is not immediately evident, but instead it creeps up and takes hold; a stranglehold. The construct of the play seems so simple, almost a graduate thesis on: Raisin In The Sun Ever After? Written by Bruce Norris, the first Act takes place “apres Raisin” in 1959 and the second Act is in 2009. Seven actors play the act’s different roles (or are they different?) The second Act characters are often shadows of the 1959 characters.

The story (in 1959) is that Bev (Christina Kirk) and Russ (Frank Wood) are preparing to move from their Clybourne Park home. Their housekeeper Francine (Crystal A. Dickinson) and her husband Albert (Damon Gupton) lend a helping hand. Ms. Dickinson and Mr. Gupton’s posture and demeanor portray more about the life of African Americans in 1959 than any narrative. They are simply magical. Soon Karl (Jeremy Shamos) and his wife Betsy (Annie Parisse) show up to confront Bev and Russ. It seems the house has been sold to a Negro family (unbeknownst to the owners.) Tensions are high and things get a bit ugly. It is uncovered that the owner’s son killed himself upstairs (this is seen as a real estate set-back for some reason.) Karl threatens to spill the beans to the new owners. The minister (Brendan Griffin) makes the ensemble less coupled.

The second Act curtain rises to the sight of the set ransacked, abused, neglected and abandoned. Graffiti scrawls the (once updated) wallpaper. Empty beer bottles, trash, and a baseball bat are the only decor. A neighborhood meeting is taking place to review the architectural plans for a new house in the place of the crumbling one before us. It is 2009 and the concerns over racial infiltration have been turned upside down. The African American couple is (somewhat) challenging the plans of the white couple and everyone has a lawyer. There are tremendously powerful (and often funny) moments, as Mr. Shamos’ Steve gets more and more defensive. Personal narratives unfold and we discover the modern characters connections to the neighborhood and each other (perhaps too tidily.) There is a lovely synchronicity at times. The day of the week in Act I is the same as Act II. There are several other references that make things feel solid. A great takeaway moment is the reversal of outrage (between acts) when one male character touches another male character. It is a bit confusing to see the new owners (of a house they’re going to raze) become distraught with the news of a suicide occurring upstairs (fifty years ago.) We expect to discover a horrific incident in the new owner’s past. But no. Just the idea that someone once killed themselves in the same latitude and longitude that their media room will inhabit is enough to send them around the bend.

At times, Pam MacKinnon’s direction is slightly halting and a bit overwrought. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the roles played by Christina Kirk. Her characterization of Bev in the first Act brought to mind Corky Sherwood (Murphy Brown) in her flailing mannerisms and extreme annunciations. This was no doubt intentional and brought a point home that was lost on me. Ms. Kirk is brilliantly delicate in her moments with Betsy (Annie Parisse.) Ms. Parisse is unrecognizable as a (deaf) neighbor great with child. Speaking (convincingly) as a woman deaf since birth (and being thoroughly ignored) she creates a telling vignette of her own upstage with Ms. Kirk. (It is mildly disconcerting to have this plot device alongside Ms. Kirk and her real, if slight, speech impediment. It’s distracting trying to determine if there’s intention behind the casting.) Jeremy Shamos certainly has a great role and knows exactly what to do with it. He is simply wonderful.

Clybourne Park is the story of power; who has it, who’s losing it and who desperately needs it. Race is part of that story. These are large issues Mr. Norris is discussing. Their power transcends the sometimes awkward delivery system in play. What is magnificent is how the characters (in both acts) speak and interact with each other. The dialogue is jammed packed and often tumbling out and over in competing conversations. There are painfully accurate vignettes (some involving capitals of countries) that demonstrate just how myopic we really can be, and tragically, how we probably always will be.

The Personal Is Political

16 May

During the rare moments I was cognizant of a presidential election occurring in France, I wondered why we never heard of the candidate’s personal life. I chalked it up to my own media feed not being as international as it should be. Being an American, my experience with presidential races is that the public is wildly interested in high school antics, college-age romantic dalliances, inhaling, spouse’s income sources, how the dog travels, etc. If you aren’t assured that a candidate watches the same television shows as you do or eats the same snack foods, how in the world can you make an informed decision?

Now that President Hollande is in office, a bit of his personal life is finding its way into our media. His first lady (Ms. Trierweiler) is a twice-divorced mother and works for Paris Match. They (somewhat surprisingly) will be the first non-married first couple of France. This seems to be of interest to the French from the perspective of protocol. After all, the highest offices are nothing if not bastions of antiquated protocols. President Hollande was not living in secret; the voters knew of his marital status and voted for him. It’s hard to imagine this happening in the United States. Yes, the governor of New York is living with his partner without benefit of marriage. But would voters have been disinterested in this arrangement if he wasn’t the son of a former governor and she didn’t have her own television show? Doubtful. Americans love a good scion story as much as they love celebrity.

Who one chooses to whisper goodnight to at the end of every day has nothing to do with job qualifications. The only time when one’s personal life should become public is when his/her position and/or office are involved. So why is it that we obsess over such things? Why do we care whom and how people love? I’m not so sure we actually do. I think it is far easier to understand someone’s personal life (we all presumably have one of those) than to wrap one’s brain around the complexities of the issues. International economics, national security, international relations, national economy, higher education, medical care, aging nation, worker readiness, jobs, housing, climate… Need I go on? The issues are endless, particularly during a time of economic uncertainty.

If our candidate’s messages are being parceled out into lunchable size (and quality) it’s because we buy them and gobble them up. If there really was a time that we sat down and read lengthy narratives about a candidate, it’s long gone. Are we just lazier now; our attention spans withered into nubs? Maybe. Is it that with globalization comes too much information? Probably. Perhaps I’m romanticizing, but to my mind fifty years ago, the most one had to know about the rest of the world was; “we can kick their ass, right?”

If we’re lucky there will be one presidential debate in which the candidates discuss their ideas and what their plans are for implementation. Will we watch it (either in real time or streamed?) Or will we rely on what others tell us? Can a candidate really be blamed for going for the soundbite when it stands to reason that is what the greatest majority of voters will actually hear?

There’s so much noise now living along side so many vital issues. These are not the makings of a good marriage.

The Pious Doth Protest Too Much

14 May

There’s an awful lot of talk about equal marriage being incompatible with religious beliefs. The president has even been speaking with religious leaders to alleviate their (and his) fears. I’m not entirely sure I buy it.

I believe that people have found comfort in defending their stance with their religious convictions. I mean who would argue with someone’s religious convictions or even suggest that religion, by its definition, is a way to exclude people who are not like us? Not I. But does anyone, even the most pious of Americans, believe that legal civil rights have anything to do with religion? I can’t begin to understand how. I’ve heard people claim a fear that their religious institution will be “forced” to perform marriages. How? They are not forced to perform marriages now. I can’t walk into a religious institution with a willing heterosexual accomplice and force clergy to perform a marriage ceremony. Religious institutions, again by their very definition, are allowed to exclude whomever they please. (If you don’t believe me, just try getting married in a conservative synagogue without paperwork verifying your worthiness. Even then it will be up to the discretion of the rabbi whether to cue the chuppah.) So no one is going to be forced to do anything.

Then does just the idea that people are doing something that you believe your religion does not celebrate send a person ’round the bend? Maybe. People are entitled to interpret their religious doctrine anyway they please. Whether I think intolerance has never been the teaching of any religion is immaterial. But ya know what? It turns out that church and state are in fact separate. There are several religions that ban pork from the human diet. Yet the U.S.D.A. gives legitimacy to pork producers, manufacturers and distributors. What would help anyone feeling that the United States government is on the verge of offending his or her religious sensibilities is to cease from seeing marriage as a religious rite, and see it as a civil right and legal construct.

Consider that in many religions the birth of a child is celebrated in a house of worship. Not all babies are welcomed into that house of worship. They must be of proper lineage and deemed worthy. Yet, our government issues all babies birth certificates. Why? Because we have chosen, as a people, to have a government that ensures basic rights and freedoms of every citizen. It all starts with the birth certificate. Having a birth certificate is not a ticket to the alter/bihma it is a ticket to; social security, public education, voting and, with any luck, a marriage license.

2 Comments

Posted by Anonymous on May 14, 2012 in Cultural Critique, Marriage/Wedding

Tags: Brenda Tobias, Equal Marriage, Gay marriage, Gay rights, Religion, separation of church and state

Just Say Know

11 May

A new diet pill is about to be approved! All our cares are about to be over. This magic pill (approved by our very own Federal Drug Administration) will put an end to our nation’s demise d’jour; obesity. The drug is not new, its approval is though. The drug hasn’t changed. It’s still a wonder pill which; a) causes tumors in rats b) damages (human) heart valves c) and doesn’t cause much weight loss. Happy Days are indeed here again!

So why, after 13 years of diet pill drought, is the F.D.A. approving a drug they previously deemed not worthy of approval? Why do we think. Peer pressure is not just for teenagers. There are (to my way of thinking) only two diet pill designs that could work. A medication can either prevent or eradicate the absorption of calories or it can render a person incapable of eating (i.e., create permanent nausea.) It’s hard to fathom how either of those approaches can be safely achieved (not to mention why anyone would want to risk malnutrition of feel permanently car sick.) Why then, with all the diseases out there, would the F.D.A. (or any drug manufacturer) spend time and resources on this endeavor? Money.

Insurance companies would be all over a diet pill. Individuals will be clamoring for it. Can you imagine the advertising? I’m picturing men and women being unchained from their heft, the sound of angels, an appearance of a rainbow, and the hushed rushed intonation of “may cause tumors, death and does not lead to significant weight loss.” Good times. (An aside: There was a time when cigarettes were marketed to Americans as a weight loss device.)

Might I suggest that if the federal government has fear of being left behind in this 21st century scourge, that the Department of Agriculture steps up? A simple labeling policy that sets a limit to the processing a food can undergo and still be deemed food, would change our country. There is precedence for this kind of intervention. There was a time when anything could be sold as juice. It was only through the intervention of the government that our nation began to enjoy “drink.” If ultra-processed foods were deemed the equivalent of “drink” they could no longer be served to children in federally subsidized programs. These ‘food-like’ products could not be purchased with any funds linked to the government at all. Food-like items and purveyors would be limited in their advertising and marketing. The trickle down would mean a shift in product placement in movies and television. Amusement parks, movie theatres and other holding tanks for children would identify food and food-like products. Children would grow up knowing the difference between; whole foods, processed foods, and food simulated products.

It seems so easy doesn’t it? No chaos, no chastising, no food pyramids getting mauled into new shapes. So why isn’t this happening? Money. It is very hard to become morbidly obese from eating real (21st century) foods. It is also not all that profitable to grow/produce and sell whole foods. But you know what’s really profitable? Selling products as food (with all the subsidized benefits that implies) with enormous mark-up, that’s what. There isn’t much room for mark-up on a head of broccoli, but on frozen and boxed food, the sky’s the limit. Without sounding too cloak and dagger, there is a lot of money at stake and not just for the pockets of the food producers (conspiratorial wink here.)

Yes there are greater nefarious doings going on in the world. But every time a government entity waves the banner of the “Obesity Epidemic” we are reminded that we are supposed to keep our eyes on the banner, and never ever look behind it. It seems that whenever we declare “war” on a social ill, it’s actually a sign that we’re giving up.

2 Comments

Posted by Anonymous on May 11, 2012 in Cultural Critique, Media/Marketing, Well-Being

Tags: Brenda Tobias, Department of Agriculture, diet pills, FDA, food pyramid, obesity, processed food, weight loss

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes – Review

10 May

NY City Center Encores! production of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes belongs to the Ensemble, and it’s in very good hands! Rob Berman’s orchestra is superb and is neatly paired with Randy Skinner’s lush choreography. This show is filled with dance and cast with actual dancers. The chorus is actual singers as well.

There is a number towards the end of Act I, “In the Champ de Mars” when the chorus does not use body microphones. They stand on the edge of the stage and sing out. It is practically disorienting to hear sound and be able to locate its source. These singers do not need amplification or tricks of any kind, they are the real thing. If hearing truly talented singers unplugged isn’t enough to knock your socks off there are Attmore & Grimes. Yowza. This tap-dancing duo (in real life as well) perform “Mamie is Mimi” with Megan Skiro (a spit-fire dancer brimming with all kinds of personality.) It has been a very (very) long time since I have seen this kind of dancing anywhere but in an old MGM movie. Simply stunning.

While Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (Music: Jule Styne, Lyrics: Leo Rubin, Book: Anita Loos & Joseph Fields) is not the most riveting of musicals, director John Rando made much of it. There is enough fun and powerful talent in this production that I found myself fantasizing of a dream team of Kristin Chenoweth and Laura Benanti as Lorelei and Dorothy. Those roles are currently filled with Megan Hilty and Rachel York. The audience loved them, and Mr. Rando predicted it. Every number of Ms. Hilty’s was split into three parts, allowing the audience to applaud in triplicate. Ms. York came in at the end of dance numbers to throw her arms up and receive applause. I’m not sure Dorothy needs to be a dancer, so it’s best to keep her off the stage and allow the dancer’s their moment. The audience was so enamored with Ms. Hilty that at one point they wildly applauded her dress. Yet I found this duo unsettling. Ms. York almost disappeared as Dorothy (when she wasn’t taking a bow.) Ms. Hilty’s interpretation seemed more Betty Boop (with blond wig) than Lorelei. When the second act opens, Dorothy and friend enter in red dresses. The blond with her seemed so much more toned down than in Act I. I let out a small sigh of relief. Then I realized the blond was in fact Mrs. Spofford (Ella Rush) and not Lorelei.

See this show for the dancing and the incredible orchestra. See this show to remember what songs sound like with out technical tricks. See this show to experience an Overture and Entr’acte. None of these elements should be taken for granted. If you’ve ever experience a Broadway musical at which the conductor is waving his arms to an empty pit (the music being piped in from the basement and locales unknown) you know exactly what I mean.

Here She Is Boys

Clybourne Park – Review

The Personal Is Political

The Pious Doth Protest Too Much

Just Say Know

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes – Review

Categories

Blogroll

Archives

Childhood, Culture, Education, Style, Theatre, Well Being