I
canÕt remember the last theatre season that was so chock full with
Plays of
Ideas, much less good and notable ones with intriguing characters and
premises,
as 2007-2008. By Plays of Ideas, I mean plays that explore topics in
articulate
and provocative ways, through the interaction of characters uniquely
positioned
to debate them, because their positions on the issues are tested by
their daily
lives and actions. Two have opened off and off-off Broadway that are
well
worthy of transfer and open-ended engagements. A third, also
off-Broadway, IÕm
a little less enthusiastic about, but it still makes for a worthy
evening and
comes as a bit of a surprise.
The
first, by way of MCC at the Lucille Lortel Theatre, is Grace, by
British writers Mick Gordon and
AC Grayling. whose
(at least)
triple-edged title refers to the main characterÕs first name as well as
religious tolerance and a state of connection with the God-system of
your
choice. In the case of Professor Grace Friedman (Lynn Redgrave), she doesnÕt much experience the
third because
sheÕs an atheist; and has trouble with the second, because her fierce
conviction is that religious conviction is historyÕs #1 killer of
innocent
lives, the current wave of terrorism her most obvious and sobering
evidence.
SheÕs married to Tony (Philip Goodwin), a liberal and mostly non-religious
Jew, but he respects certain
traditions. While Grace and Tony make for an only mildly odd couple, it
is
their grown son Tom (Oscar Isaac)
who provides the contrast that challenges family ties. Because he has
discovered, in his middle twenties, that he wants to quit law school;
for more
than anything, he wishes to be an Episcopalian priest, and give himself
to God.
Unlike his mother, he doesnÕt believe that the world can only find its
equilibrium and reason when there is no religionÑan expectation he posits as
unrealistic and impossible
in any eventÑbut when there is better religion: religion that isnÕt
reactionary, but
ideal and embracing. A concept that Grace finds equally impossible for
its
absurdity. On top of this, thereÕs TomÕs pregnant fiancŽ Ruth (K.K.
Moggie). SheÕs okay
with his belief system and career
goals, but not as certain that she can take second place to God in his
life.
[As a sidebar, Ms. Moggie is an actress of Asian extraction. The text
never
directly addresses the ethnicity of the character, nor particularly
suggests
that she has one, but adding this but of multiculturalism, even
tacitly, only
strengthens the metaphor of the play.]
On
a minimalist set, presented in a non-linear style with crossing
timelines and
flashbacks (all unannounced; itÕs up to you to intuit the shifts and
put the
mosaic together chronologically) and a framing device that gives
permission for
this seemingly (i.e. deceptively) free-associative fluidity, Grace is an intermissionless 90 minutes of
bracing
thought and passionate
emotion. Under the brisk direction of Joseph Hardy, the cast is spot on and Ms. Redgrave
reminds us
once again why sheÕs one of the greats. With care and the right
marketing, this
could be another sleeper hit for MCC along the lines of Wit.
************
Shavian
dialectic is not easy to pull off. You need enough of a story to
contain
vigorous debate, characters varied and interesting enough to stand up
to their
literary functions as point-of-view symbols, and finally a locale or a
backdrop
specific enough to catalyze the particular arguments and magnetic
enough to
have inevitably drawn those particular characters together at this
particular
time. More than thatÑideallyÑyou want to write it in a way that it
holds up ShawÕs tradition without sounding like Shaw. Oh, and did I
mention?
The arguments have to be compelling and multi-faceted enough to keep us
giving
a damn enough to listen to them for most of an evening.
This
extremely tall order is met by John Ahlin with his new play Gray Area. The
premise? Curmudgeonly NYC critic-about-town and acid tongued columnist
Sherman
Farragut (Keith Jochim)
has,
for his farewell address on NPR, duplicated in his nationally
syndicated print
column, toned down not a whit of his celebrated vitriol. But it seems
that he
has finally crossed the line that he never expected to cross. The Mason-Dixon Line. For in
hurling his
abuse at civil war re-enactors. ÒThese flyover country bumpkins,Ó he
says,
Òchildishly refusing to come out of the past, are the very worst of
actors,
amateurishly pretending to defend some historical trench, which in
reality
turns out to be the septic ditch from last yearÕs porta-potty. Who
could watch
all that fakeness?Ó
Well,
this just gets under the skin of three Southern Civil War re-enactors.
The most
learned of the three and the sort of leader-teacher is Keith (Mr.
Ahlin), the
dopiest is Horse (Aaron Goodwin),
and the guy in the middle is Randall (Taylor Ruckle). And they make a plan. A plan to
kidnap Farragut
at his Philadelphia home and drag him to their secluded campsite down
South and
convince him of the error of his ways. And kidnap him is exactly what
they do.
Convince
him?
Not
quite so easy, that.
Because
you see these good ole boys are really pretty much good ole boys, and their intention is, of
all
thingsÑfair debate, in various forms. And if their plan was conceived
somewhat myopically, wellÉwould a big city pundit like Farragut even
consider
talking to them (let alone taking them seriously) any other way?
There
are delightful surprises and revelations along that way, North/South
Civil War
issues are very quickly seen in a contemporary context, and the debate,
along
with the human comedy fueling it, is fascinating. In the end, Gray
Area is provocative
and even a little touching.
Carps?
A few. Being a product of off-off Broadway (albeit under the aegis of The
Barrow Group, whose
productions
tend to be very polished), it hasnÕt quite had the development time it
needs to
make the material optimally sharp. Horse and Randall, as the goofier
Southerners, are a little too similar, IQ-wise, for too long, before
the play
begins to particularize their individuality with more than simply
surface ticks
and jokes. And the current draft is too long; it occasionally repeats
itselfÑsometimes by way of paraphrase from a slightly different angle,
sometimes by way of explicating in overwritten detail that which has
already
been made implicit and clearÉbut these are flaws that can always be
addressed,
should there be a longer range future for the show in more commercial
venues.
As it well deserves and as I hope there are.
Under
the direction of Seth Barrish,
which manages a balance between light and low comedy (not easy to do
while
maintaining a consistent tone, but he does, finding just the right
proportion
to make the juxtaposition of Farragut and The Boys play like the more complex descendant
of Milton
Drysdale and The Clampetts that
it is), the ensemble is nothing short of superb. You never once doubt
the
illusion that these guys
are those
guys, being the parts rather than playing them. If
any play of
the season thus far has the potential to emerge as a sleeper hitÉthis
is the
one.
*******************
Finally
thereÕs 2000 Years, a serio-comic look at contemporary
Judaism
achieved by focusing on an upper-middle class London family. As alluded
to in
my intro, this is the biggest surprise of the three idea plays, because
it
comes from the p;en of British playwright-screenwriter Mike Leigh, whose usually slice-of-life plays
(and this is
one) are often studies of people at their weakest and worst (and this
is not
one); moreover, this particular production comes courtesy of The
New Group, and is
staged by its artistic director Scott
Elliott. The focus of
the New
Group tends to be distressingly dark, and Mr. Elliott too seems
fascinated by
dramatizations of depraved behavior, but compared to their usual fare, 2000
Years is positively
sunny. (But only
by comparison!)
Actually,
on its own terms, itÕs a dialectic play delivered very subtly via
verite
dialogue and situations. ItÕs about the shifts and ripples in the
family
dynamic when 50-ish married couple Danny (Richard Masur) and Rachel (Laura Esterman), secular by nature and practice,
discover that
their brooding, grown son Josh (Jordan Gelber) who still Òlives at home,Ó has delved
zealously
into orthodoxy. One may well find it frustrating that Mr. Leigh chooses
to have
Josh in high defensive mode about his new passionÑhe rarely says
anything
substantive about it, but rather rants about being persecutedÑbut I
think
Mr. LeighÕs assertion here may well be that there is no knowing more deeply why orthodoxy is a valid choice, there is
instead more
to be gleaned from the reactions of those in the ÒtribeÓ who have
turned their
backs on it. And no so whimsically either, for in the past Rachel
shares with
her harmlessly querulous father (Merwin Goldsmith) there is a period of having lived on
a kibbutz.
The play jumps
the rails, though in Act Two: For a
time it stays on point, introducing JoshÕs leftist, activist sister (Natasha
Lyonne) and her new
boyfriend
from Israel (Yuval Boim), and their
philosophies are
revealed by way
of bouncing off JoshÕs Òconversion.Ó But then, as if the playwright
decided enough
with religion already,
he
introduces RachelÕs sister Michelle (Cindy Katz), estranged from the family for ten
years,
appearing in the wake of her motherÕs death (weeks before; she was out
of the
country and has only just now heard of it), and assuming, with the
sublime
insensitivity that only the most oblivious and self-absorbed can bring
to bear,
the mantle of victimhood, spiced with a shrill sense of entitlement.
Thus
recreating her alienation of the family all over again. This is all
funny and
awful at the same time (and, it must be remarked, a glimpse at the
colors Leigh
and Elliott usually like to fly high, albeit even here not quite so
darkly),
but it carries the tone of an altogether different piece. Perhaps Mr.
Leigh
intends MichelleÕs sublime selfishness to be the perspective-granting
extreme
against which any more humanist Judaism is preferable, but it doesnÕt
play that
wayÉthough it does sort of unite the other factions.
Nicely
acted, meticulously directed, 2000 Years will not be, here, the sellout hit it
was in the West End and on US
tourÑit wonÕt tap into an American sensibility in the same wayÑbut
itÕs worth a visit.