In the former, I find most one-person shows are about the person performing, said person finding themselves so interesting that they think the rest of us will be equally fascinated. Most of the time, these performers are simply people in need of therapy, in need of working out some childhood trauma that has made them into the poor pathetic souls they are today. They'd have to pay a therapist to listen to the drivel that comes out of their mouths. Instead, they ask me to pay to listen to them. Theatre to me is about art, not therapy, or therapy masquerading as art. I ain't payin' for that!
That said, there are two artists whose one-person shows I wouldn't miss. One is Tim Miller (see both: http://www.timmillerperformer.com and http://timmillerperfomer.blogspot.com), and the other is Anna Deavere Smith (http://www.annadeaveresmithworks.org). Why? Aside from their tremendous talent as performers, their material goes beyond themselves to the greater issues we face as a society.
"LET ME DOWN EASY"
Anna Deavere Smith's new show, "Let Me Down Easy," is simply a wonder to behold. Originally commissioned by the Yale School of Medicine, the show is a collection of some 22 interviews (out of some 300) that Smith conducted with people all over the world about end of life and health care issues. She has edited the interviews, and now performs them, adding a costume here or a prop there to assist in creating these people for us in a variety of settings. The people include celebrities, famous people, and people I'd never heard of, all struggling with health issues. My personal favorites were the late Ann Richards, who was the former Governor of Texas, and a woman who runs an orphanage in South Africa, the former making me roar with laughter, the latter moving me to tears as she tells the story of a young child dying of AIDS.The show doesn't have a message, per se, but anyone interested in the current debate over health care, or anyone who has simply struggled with their own mortality or that of a loved-one, is sure to be moved both emotionally and intellectually by the piece. Smith's performance, portraying one character after another, is a stunning feat of acting, not only because she can mimic so well the voice or characteristics of someone, but because you never lose sight of Smith herself as a loving listener of these people's stories. I became engrossed in both Smith and the people she portrayed simultaneously, so that I was never bored or distracted.
I will be thinking about "Let Me Down Easy" for years to come, and would easily see it a second time. It's playing at Second Stage Theatre in New York City for a limited run. Go.
"THE ROYAL FAMILY"
The second "I-ain't-payin'-for-it" category is shows about theatre/theatre people. It's related to one-person shows in that the writer thinks that theatre people and experiences backstage are interesting to anyone other than those with theatre blinders on their eyes. Perhaps because my whole life has been in theatre, I just don't find it all that interesting. It can become interesting to me if there's something in the show beyond the subject matter that grabs my attention. So, I love "A Chorus Line," say, because I love the music for the show. But really, "A Chorus Line" can be seen as a bunch of mini-one-person shows about people in need of therapy for the childhood traumas they experienced. Without the music, I probably wouldn't be so interested in being their therapist or seeing their show.
So, for me, the only reason to see the current Manhattan Theatre Club revival of "The Royal Family" on Broadway is not because the play itself is anything worth reviving, but because the performances by Rosemary Harris and Jan Maxwell shouldn't be missed. What's ironic here is that it's the work of these two wonderful actors, and not their personal life, that makes it interesting. You never actually see the acting work of the characters they're portraying. It all takes place off-stage, as if to say that these characters are interesting not because of what they do or the art they create, but because of their fame and personal lives, neither of which interest me. But it may interest you.
Written by George S. Kaufman & Edna Ferber in the 1920's, the play requires the deft skill of a good director to pull it off for today's audiences, and Doug Hughes has done an admirable job of it. I did think, however, that the actors were doing a "speed-through" of the first act, which helps to end it's miserable length, but doesn't allow much acting to happen. The show gets better after the first intermission and it's in the final acts that Harris and Maxwell get to really remind us what great theatre is all about. The other performances were excellent, though it did seem to me that the variety of acting styles on stage didn't help matters, and this is something that Hughes should have reined in so that the show felt more unified. Sets by John Lee Beatty and costumes by Catherine Zuber are superb, as is Kenneth Posner's lighting.
I would only recommend seeing this show if you can obtain discounted tickets, and/or your interest in "the lives of the rich and famous" is strong enough to engage you for a few hours. For those who want to see two sterling performances by Harris and Maxwell, this will be a real treat. "The Royal Family" is playing at The Samuel J. Friedman Theatre on Broadway.
"SUPERIOR DONUTS"
I had great expectations going in to see "Superior Donuts" by Tracey Letts, based on how much I enjoyed his award-winning "August: Osage County" last season. To say those expectations were not met is not to say that "Superior Donuts" isn't good. It is. And I acknowledge that it's totally unfair of me to bring such expectations to the theatre with me. But, honestly, the initial draw of this show is it's author, since the wonderful actors in the production are not household names, and I would guess, probably unknown to the general theatre-going public. Many come from Steppenwolf Theatre in Chicago, where this show originated.
I have a problem with shows that interrupt action to introduce exposition in the form of monologues to the audience. "Superior Donuts" is rife with such expository interruptions. We're moving nicely along in the story about Arthur, owner of a donut shop in Chicago, and his new employee, Franco, a black boy from the 'hood, when Letts stops the action, and Arthur delivers the first of several monologues about his past. These monologues contained no information that I needed to know to better understand the action of the play, nor did they make me feel more sympathetic to Arthur. Had I never known, though the monologues, that Arthur grew up in the 60's and went to Canada rather than be drafted, I never would've missed the info, especially since Michael McKean, who gives a terrific performance as Arthur, tells me that in his portrayal, with the help of great costumes and make-up (sorry, lost the program, so no credit here or -SHAME - on the play's website). That Arthur avoids things in life is evident in the action. We don't need to hear about it from him in monologues to the audience. And hear about it we do...again and again.
So, the constant interruptions of the action, especially in the first act, never let me fully get into the show. This improves greatly in the second act, where there are fewer interruptions. The second act is much better, and I'm sorry that people around me didn't come back to see it. But I'm not surprised, either.
The second act is not only much better, but also different than the first, as if the two acts were written years apart or after a change in heart by the playwright. One of the ways this is evident is what happens to two characters from the first act, both cops in uniform, who aren't seen in uniform during act two. Officer Randy Osteen, played by Kate Buddeke, and Officer James Hailey, played by James Vincent Meredith, show up in civilian clothing and serve totally different functions than they did in act one. In the first act, they investigate the vandalism of the donut shop. In the second act, Randy is now the love interest for Arthur, and seems to be almost working in the shop; James, wearing a Star Trek uniform for part of the act (he's a "trekkie," you see, but for no reason dramatically that I can detect), becomes more of a social worker/father/big brother figure to Franco. It works, but it's a bit unsettling at first, since we see no evidence that would suggest such a change in roles for these two cops.
It seems like Letts is trying to create a family here in the second act, like he did in "August...," but I found it awkward and not convincing. Perhaps you can say that this rounds out the cops characters, seeing them in both their work uniforms and civilian clothing, but how cops became family to Arthur/Franco is somewhat murky. Murkier still is Arthur's budding interest in Randy, given that he's a product of the '60s radicalism and she's a cop, and if Franco hadn't said anything and nudged Arthur about Randy, the connection between them might never have occurred naturally.
The real connection here is between Arthur and Franco, and even that feels somewhat forced at times. Franco walks into the donut shop one day and asks for a job that without doubt seems to be his for the asking. He's written a novel, in longhand, on legal pads and notebooks, that Arthur reads for reasons unknown. (Well, Arthur wins a bet from Franco that he can't name 10 black poets, and his prize is permission to read Franco's novel. Why he does so, though, is a mystery.) Why Arthur pays off Franco's $16,000 gambling debt later in the play is murky as well, made more confusing by the fact that he had to sell the donut shop to do so, which he vowed not to do in act one.
But Franco, played by Jon Michael Hill, is so charming and bright that almost anyone would want to help him out. The performance by Hill is superb, and I wouldn't be surprised if he receives a Tony nomination for it next year. The show's almost worth seeing for his performance. The stage is filled with energy when he's on.
The supporting cast is wonderful as well, especially Jane Alderman, playing Lady Boyle, the (required) homeless crazy woman who frequents the donut shop. The role as written is more caricature than real, and Alderman brings a humanity to the role which makes it more than it is.
The audience I was with loved this show, and you may, too. But find a discount ticket if you go, and keep your expectations under control. "Superior Donuts" is playing at the Music Box Theatre on Broadway.
NEXT WEEK: "The Starry Messenger" and "In The Next Room."
Posts
