AISLE SAY New York

LITTLE WOMEN

by Kate Hamill
Based on the novel by Louisa May Alcott
Directed by Sarna Lapine
A Production of Primary Stages
at the Cherry Lane Theatre

Reviewed by David Spencer

Oh gosh, I sure wanted to like Kate Hamill’s adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s novel Little Women more than I did. She has been so on-target with other adaptations of classic novels…but this one, presented by Primary Stages at the Cherry Lane, though respectable, is a mild experience.

            To a certain degree, the source material itself is the problem, or at least the problem Ms. Hamill hasn’t entirely cracked. Alcott’s Civil War era novel of a family of sisters, father off to war, Mom coping as best she can—and in the center of it, renegade sister Jo, who doesn’t want the conventional things, but desires instead to be a writer—is episodic. This is fine in the page of a novel, because narrative description and internalization interact with the reader’s imagination to create a cumulative build, even when there’s more incident than actual story. But dramatization, even with use of theatre’s poetic devices—such as time compression, open space staging, selective abstraction of the physical world, locale via suggestion, etc.—works on the imagination differently…you invite a book into your head; a play performed invites you into its “head,” as it were, by soliciting your complicity in its schema. You don’t get to mull it, it moves in real time, and your sense of movement requires something propulsive. There’s no one-size-fits-all formula for what that something must be, but for the likes of Little Women, it needs to be a sense of story threading through Jo’s recollections, not just continuing portraits of familial development. That something can even be the illusion of story, away of reframing the content within a context that makes the audience hunger for what happens next; that kind of reframing takes a good deal of deconstructive analysis, because you have to build it in organically while not violating the things most important to you in the source material…but it can be done, and it provides a motor.

            Ms. Hamill’s Little Women is pleasant enough, but absent that motor, it often seems too leisurely, though director Sarna Lapine and a very nice cast maintain what I assume is the script’s sense of technical and scene-to-scene fluidity, which is no minor infusion within the writing and no minor accomplishment to realize onstage.

            Plus there’s a factor of this production to which my own reaction surprised me. The entire ensemble is Caucasian, at least of appearance, except for the actress playing Jo, who is black (Kristolyn Lloyd). And I say this as a fellow who has passionately debated in favor of diversity casting, even in cases where it requires the viewer to make a poetic adjustment and set aside literal representation.  I don’t find it “confusing” (one of the favorite words from the opposite camp) when, for example, a black actor plays Jean Valjean in Les Misérables, nor when a black actress plays the matriarch in August: Osage County, because I’m happy to make that mental pact with a production. There are times when a script dictates otherwise—Mart Crowley’s The Boys in the Band can and must only have one black actor or large passages of it stop making sense, just as Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun can and must have only one white actor—but if the script is not dealing with ethnicity as a literally acknowledged issue, I think almost anything goes.

            But absent any other conspicuous persons of color in the cast of Little Women, Ms. Lloyd, who turns in a very engaging performance, became conspicuous to me as a metaphorical symbol…of difference, of unconventionality, of rebelliousness, of the fight to break free of restraints (and tacitly of the novel's background Civil War issue of slavery, which is never specifically mentioned). The choice to throw her into such stark relief makes the actress not merely the messenger of the theme, but the message itself. And that made the point too boldly underlined for verisimilitude to gain much of a foothold.

            The flip side of this argument is that Ms. Hamill, Ms. Lapine & Co. are being forthrightly bold at a time when such boldness adds to the case for America’s return to humanism, despite a draconian White House and Senate. And that while you and I get the message without help, there are others who may come to see the show, in this or perhaps future productions, to whom it will be a revelation. Where children are concerned, maybe even an inspiration. I can’t discount that potential. But I can’t quite retroactively factor it into my experience of the show as I was watching it, either.

            But let's put casting scheme aside. The subject of children brings us back to the play in general: Having worked as a musical dramatist in the arena of young audience theatre, I would be very interested to see this production performed for children. Based on the very specific principles that involve getting them engaged and holding their attention—TheatreWorks/USA (for whom I wrote) has them codified, and you can experiment with bending them, and sometimes that’s possible, but they tend never to break—I rather think Ms. Hamill’s play needs to solve the structural issues posed above before it can truly have a lasting family theatre life; but I wouldn’t mind at all being proved wrong…


Go to David Spencer's Profile
Return to Home Page

  • Road (National) Tour Review Index
  • New York City & Environs Theatre Review Index
  • Berkshire, Massachusetts Theatre Review Index
  • Boston Area Theatre Review Index
  • Florida Theatre Review Index
  • London Theatre Review Index
  • Minneapolis/St. Paul (Twin Cities) Theatre Review Index
  • Philadelphia & Environs Theatre Review Index
  • San Francisco Bay Area Theatre Review Index
  • Seattle Area Theatre Review Index
  • Toronto, Ontario (Canada) Index