At
the beginning of December, I made another visit to my mother in Bethesda,
Maryland, after we spent Thanksgiving together with family in New Jersey. Mom and a friend have a subscription to the
Studio Theatre, and she and her companion picked up an extra seat for me to
join them at the matinee of Richard Nelson’s That Hopey Changey Thing on Saturday, 7 December. The Studio is presenting the regional
premières of two of Nelson’s Apple Family Plays (Studio’s umbrella title for the series) in
rep this season, the other play being Sweet and Sad. (Mother
and her friend had only planned to see one of the two plays, but the theater
offers weekend performance schedules that allow patrons to see both in one
day.) The two-play rep began
performances on 13 November (opening for reviews around 28 November) and is
scheduled to end on 29 December.
The
Studio Theatre, one of Washington’s premier companies (I saw Harvey Fierstein’s
Torch Song Trilogy there in
September; see my report on ROT on 5
October), winner of 67 Helen Hayes Awards, was founded in 1978 (in a disused
hot dog warehouse on Church Street near its present location). Since 2004, it makes its home in a
four-theater, 14th Street building (a former car showroom redesigned by
co-founder Russell Metheny, for whom one of the four theater spaces in the
current home base is named) in the Logan Circle neighborhood of Washington’s
Northwest. The area, reclaimed several
years ago from extensive decay and deterioration, has become a sort of
Washington SoHo or Chelsea, well served by restaurants, boutiques, galleries,
and theaters. The theater’s founding
artistic director, now retired, was Joy Zinoman whose son, Jason, is a theater writer for the New
York Times. The Studio has produced
plays by Richard Nelson before, namely Principia
Scriptoriae in 1989 and Tynan in
2011; The Apple Family Plays, both 100
intermissionless minutes long, are mounted in the tiny amphitheater-shaped, 187-seat Milton
Theatre on the Studio’s second floor.
It
turned out, though, that my visit to the Studio this time was more arduous than
usual. First of all, I had to drive
since Mom’s subscription partner, who usually drives after we meet up at her
apartment, ended up being ill that weekend and we went with another friend of
my mother’s. I don’t really know my way
around D.C. in a car, so Mom had to navigate, and she’s not used to going from
her new residence in Bethesda. We left
extra time for the drive in and for finding parking in the area which is a haven
for shoppers and diners, especially on a Saturday afternoon during the
holiday-shopping period, and it was a good thing we did. It took us at least 20 minutes to find a
parking space, and it was some distance from the theater. Both Mom and her friend are elderly and the
walk back was hard on them both (I had suggested leaving them off at the
theater while I looked for parking, but they both refused the offer), and we
managed to get to the theater with minutes to spare for the 3-o’clock
curtain. Then, someone had screwed up
the extra seat, too (either the theater staff or my mother), and it wasn’t in
the books when I arrived. First, the box
office gave me another seat, but that turned out to be occupied and the spare
seat the house staff found me was behind everyone so badly I couldn’t see the
stage and I ended up standing for the hour-and-forty-minute performance. I could stand easily enough without
disturbing anyone, being behind the last row of regular seats, but I was boxed
in by a column and a railing so I couldn’t shift my weight much, and by an hour
or so in, my arthritic back was aching pretty badly. If the work hadn’t been as good as it was,
I’d have been a very unhappy chappy at the end!
Playwright
Richard Nelson’s first produced play was The Killing of Yablonski in 1975 at the Mark
Taper Forum/Lab in Los Angeles. The
District’s renowned Arena Stage premièred his Scooping in 1977 and his first New York City
première was 1978’s Conjuring an Event at the American Place Theatre. His
Broadway début was the book for Accidental Death of an Anarchist at the Belasco Theatre in 1984.
Between 1989 and 1997, after a successful 1986 revival of Principia
Scriptoriae, which had received mixed response in the States, six of
Nelson’s plays premièred in either London or Stratford-upon-Avon at the Royal
Shakespeare Company, which commissioned them, before coming to the U.S.; the
author seemed better-regarded by British audiences than here for a time. (During this period, he also wrote radio
plays for the BBC for two of which he’s won Giles Cooper Awards.) Nelson later won a 2000 Tony for his book for
James
Joyce's The Dead; he received two other Tony nominations (for the
lyrics for The Dead and for Best Play for Two Shakespearean Actors
in 1992). Other awards include two Obies
(Vienna Notes, 1979; Innovative
Programming at the Brooklyn Academy of Music Theater Company, also 1979), a
Drama Desk Award (Some Americans Abroad, 1990), an Olivier Award for Best Play (London; The Vienna Notes, 2011); and a Rockefeller Foundation
Playwright-in-Residence Award for an Arena Stage residency in 1979-80. From 2005-2008, Nelson was chairman of the
playwriting department of the Yale School of Drama. Aside from Regular Singing at the
Public, he had Nikolai and the Others running at Lincoln Center Theater
in May and June. (Nelson also writes
screenplays for film and TV. His last
film script was 2012’s Hyde Park on Hudson, which starred Bill Murray as
FDR and began as a BBC radio play in 2009.)
The
author of some 50 plays and adaptations, the 63-year-old Nelson was born in Chicago
but grew up all over the country to accommodate his father’s peripatetic work as
an accounting-systems analyst and sales rep; the family settled
for long stretches in Gary, Indiana, and the Philadelphia and Detroit suburbs. The playwright and his wife moved to
Manchester, England, in 1972, right after he graduated from college, and lived
there for a year, traveling also to the Continent. Since 1983, he’s lived with his family in
Rhinebeck in upstate New York, where
the Apple plays are set. (The New York Times just ran an article on
Nelson’s intimate use of his hometown—the dramatist’s Lafayette/Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi, or Harrison, Texas—as a continuing
inspiration for these plays: “Hudson Valley Town Is a
Playwright’s Home and Template,” 7 November.) As New York Times theater writer Patrick Healy observes, “[T]he search for home—and the loss of it—has been an enduring theme” for
the playwright as he strives to “conjur[e] up a comfortable, intimate home in
which his characters feel safe enough to express fear or regret about the wider
world at a particularly unsettling moment.” Healy
mentions previous Nelson scripts that touch on this theme: Some Americans Abroad, (1989) Goodnight Children
Everywhere (1997), James Joyce’s The
Dead (1999), and Nikolai and the
Others (2013).
That Hopey Changey Thing is unquestionably among this
group, too—as, I suspect, are the other Apple plays. They’ve been generally critically acclaimed,
but Nelson asserts that because he’s set them in places he knows so well, “that leads, I hope, to an honesty, clarity, simplicity in the writing and
for the audience.” Unlike William Faulkner’s or Horton Foote’s
literary settings, Nelson’s Rhinebeck is a real place and he names real shops,
buildings, and houses as locations. Near
his home, for instance, is a yellow-painted house with broken picket fences
that Nelson calls “Barbara’s house.”
(The writer doesn’t know the people who live there; they aren’t models
for the Apple family.) “I literally imagine every moment of the plays somewhere in my own
village,” he says. “For me, it makes
everything extremely personal.”
The origin of the Apple series, however, was somewhat
unexpected, according to Studio dramaturg Adrien-Alice Hansel. In New York, Public Theater artistic
director, Oskar Eustis, had been unsuccessfully searching for a play about the
contemporary U.S. political scene. At a
breakfast with playwright Nelson, Eustis proposed commissioning a “big-cast,
big-idea political” script, “perhaps a documentary-style chronicle of the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Nelson
countered with an offer of “a series of intimate plays about a single family”
whose members “respond to the political issues of their day in their own idiosyncratic—character-based—ways.” The dramatist explains, “What has been
missing from our political forum is the individual’s voice.” Studio artistic director David Muse told the
cast that the Apple plays are “plays about politics, but not capital-P
Political Plays” and director Serge Seiden, who sees a parallel between Nelson’s work
and Chekhov’s (some of which Nelson has adapted), explained, “These plays deal
with the universal truths in ordinary details of living,” a notion that evokes
the book Jane Apple is writing in the play.
The Studio’s two plays about the Apple family are the first in the four-play cycle Nelson
wrote about the Apple siblings (plus others) in the small, Hudson Valley town
of Rhinebeck in Dutchess County (about
100 miles north of New York City). (The
whole series, which the playwright began in 2010, will be presented under his
own direction at New York City’s Public Theater, including the world première
of the last play, Regular Singing. Billed
as The Apple Family Plays: Scenes From Life In The Country, the four plays
will be performed in rep from 22 October to 15 December.) The plays are all set in sister Barbara’s dining room in four consecutive years. As the members and friends of the Apple
family eat, we witness their tensions, compromises, affections, and
resentments. Nelson describes the Apples
as “worried
liberals of a certain generation,” and each play reflects how the dramatist
imagines Rhinebeckers like them will respond to momentous events in the nation.
In Hopey Changey, the first play in the cycle, it’s 7 p.m. on the evening of President Obama’s first midterm election in 2010 (2 November, the day the play opened in New York), and Barbara Apple, an unmarried high school English teacher, is hosting dinner for the family. During the meal, the diners dig into family secrets the answers to which have been lost, the cultural significance of etiquette, and the precarious shape of American politics. In the second installment, Sweet and Sad, a year has passed, and Barbara is serving brunch on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks (also the day the play débuted, 11 September 2011) and the family members talk about loss, memory, and ten years of change. Uncle Benjamin, a once highly-respected classical stage actor, has amnesia from a heart attack; sister Marian, a second-grade teacher, is politically active for liberal causes and candidates (such as Andrew Cuomo and Kirsten Gillibrand, both of whom were running that day for election as governor and senator, respectively); and brother Richard, a lawyer who’s left state attorney general Andrew Cuomo’s office on the eve of the politician’s election to the governorship to take a job with a corporate-law firm, is moving rightward politically. Youngest sister Jane, a writer living in Manhattan who’s taken a gig at Bard College (in nearby Annandale-on-Hudson, seven miles north of Rhinebeck along the Hudson), has brought along her new boyfriend, Tim, an actor and much younger man.
In Hopey Changey, the first play in the cycle, it’s 7 p.m. on the evening of President Obama’s first midterm election in 2010 (2 November, the day the play opened in New York), and Barbara Apple, an unmarried high school English teacher, is hosting dinner for the family. During the meal, the diners dig into family secrets the answers to which have been lost, the cultural significance of etiquette, and the precarious shape of American politics. In the second installment, Sweet and Sad, a year has passed, and Barbara is serving brunch on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks (also the day the play débuted, 11 September 2011) and the family members talk about loss, memory, and ten years of change. Uncle Benjamin, a once highly-respected classical stage actor, has amnesia from a heart attack; sister Marian, a second-grade teacher, is politically active for liberal causes and candidates (such as Andrew Cuomo and Kirsten Gillibrand, both of whom were running that day for election as governor and senator, respectively); and brother Richard, a lawyer who’s left state attorney general Andrew Cuomo’s office on the eve of the politician’s election to the governorship to take a job with a corporate-law firm, is moving rightward politically. Youngest sister Jane, a writer living in Manhattan who’s taken a gig at Bard College (in nearby Annandale-on-Hudson, seven miles north of Rhinebeck along the Hudson), has brought along her new boyfriend, Tim, an actor and much younger man.
(If you spot a pattern in
the opening dates of Nelson’s Apple saga plays, you’re right. Each play is not only focused on a moment in
American political history, but each one debuted on the auspicious date on
which the play is set as well. Play
number three, Sorry, is set on the morning of the 2012 election, 6
November, and that’s the day the play opened at the Public. Regular Singing is set on 22 November
2013, the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination; it premièred on that date. Nelson’s even been known to make changes and
updates to the Apple scripts right up to opening if there’s breaking news or
new commentary on the events depicted.
I’ve heard of gimmick-casting before, but this is my first encounter
with gimmick-opening. I’m not sure how
much that adds to the performances themselves, especially if you don’t see the
plays on the original opening nights—like I won’t be doing—but I guess it
doesn’t do any harm. Maybe it makes the
theater writers perk up and compose quirkier notices, such as New York
magazine reviewer Scott Brown’s remark in his notice for Sorry in 2012:
“I've
been trying to find words to describe what it felt like to be inside that
theater as the election raged noisily outside, what it's like listening to the
Apples speak to each other in inside-voices. It was a lovely, near-religious feeling of
shared citizenship, one of the things theater was invented to foster.” Whatever . . . .)
I’ve
already intimated how I felt about the presentation of Hopey Changey, so let me start there. As I’ve always found at the Studio, the stage work,
from the acting and directing to the design and tech, is top-notch. The only artist in this production with whose
work I’m familiar is Ted van Griethuysen, who plays the
amnesiac uncle, but everyone acquits him- or herself excellently here. (I’ve seen van Griethuysen as Dogberry in the
Shakespeare
Theatre Company’s Cuban-themed production of Much Ado About Nothing in 2011 and as Malvolio in STC’s Twelfth Night in 2008—both in New Year’s
Eve performances. As the winner of six Helen Hayes Awards, he’s one of Washington’s most respected actors, and
deservedly so.) I found the play a
little brittle and set-up, about which I’ll say more shortly, but the staging
was solid and engaging (hence my lack of choler at having to stand to see
it!).
The
Milton’s small stage, a semi-circular thrust with only a back wall, was
convincingly decorated to evoke the dining room of a comfortable small-town
house. Debra Booth’s set design relies
on just a Scandinavian-style wooden dining table with four spoke-backed chairs,
an oriental rug centered on the wood floor.
A card table is set up down stage right, covered with a table cloth, to
accommodate the extra diners (the main table having been shifted up center,
also covered, so that the family can eat buffet-style when they all
arrive. The chairs are scattered about
because, except for the elderly Uncle Benjamin, the family and guests are expected
to balance their plates on their knees.
The lone wall has a kitchen door at center, with a sliver of the kitchen
visible within when the door is opened.
According to the Studio’s newsletter, there’s actually “a full-fledged
kitchen” back there, even though we can’t see most of it, “to emphasize the
reality of the play.” (There’s a barking
dog somewhere back there, too—a replacement for Uncle Benjamin’s beloved pet who
had to be euthanized and of whom the older man can’t let go in his mind.)
That Hopey Changey
Thing
opens as members of the household bring out the card table, move the dining
table, drape the cloths, lay out the tableware and the food, all in
silence. Occasionally, the lights dim,
accompanied by a piano chord, and everyone stops briefly (as will happen later
during the dialogue scenes as well), indicating that time is passing, after
which the actors take new positions and the action restarts as the set is
assembled for the play itself. I don’t
know how Nelson has described this opening sequence, so it may have been his or
director Seiden’s invention, but this business is carried out nearly
choreographically, with many movements, such as the unfolding of the table
cloths, performed in unison. The actors
barely relate to one another, and when they do, it looked to me like pro forma
“recognition,” not organic, character-based interaction. This stylization wasn’t reprised during the
body of the play, so it stuck out and set up an expectation that wasn’t borne
out. (Now I’d like to see the
performances directed by Nelson at the Public Theater in New York City so I can
see how he staged this bit.)
Except
for the surrealistic dim-outs both in the opening sequence and the later
dialogue scenes, Daniel MacLean Wagner’s lighting is essentially realistic, a realistic
indoor scene. Helen Huang’s costumes are
also appropriately current, precisely what I’d expect middle-aged, middle-class
people to be wearing on a fall evening in 2010 in a town like Rhinebeck, a town
of about 8,000 residents who resent how “New Yorkers” come to look at the
locals and their habitat as if it were a theme park. Two sisters are, after all, school teachers,
the third an academic writer, and the brother a (now corporate) lawyer—these
aren’t flashy people. Casual but
respectable—and that’s how they all looked (even actor Tim and former actor
Benjamin).
The
acting is in the same vein—no one (meaning the characters in this case) stands
out, steals the focus, takes the stage (again, not even the actors in the
group). I’ve seen a lot of ensemble
productions recently, and this is another in that line, and excellently
executed by both the cast and the director.
I’ll say a few things about the writing in a bit, but all the actors
depict a family, with all its closeness, familiarity, and fissures, who all
know each other up and down, know the buttons to push (and not to, as Barbara
warns Richard about Marian right at the beginning) Uncle Benjamin is often lost, as his memory,
which comes and goes, fails and Tim, the outsider in the gathering, behaves
like a man who wants to make a good impression for the sake of Jane but has his
own personality and thoughts—polite, without being obsequious. (He engages Benjamin in a conversation about
acting that shows what a stage master the older man must have been, and even
asks Benjamin what his amnesia is like—not a topic I’d expect a guest to raise—because
the young actor has a theory that “great acting is simply willed amnesia.”) If it weren’t for politics, not a taboo
subject in this family but a hot one, the Apples and their circle would be . . .
well, boring. Of course, I mean
“normal,” but not many dramatists write plays about people like that.
When
I see a show like this one in which the whole cast works as a unit, I often
don’t single out actors by name, but this work was so good in that way, I want
at least to name the performers for the record.
Brother Richard is portrayed by graying, already-paunchy Rick Foucheux
as somewhat irascible and somewhat defensive (he’s leaving the family political
cocoon for Republican-lite—Javits Republicanism, as he says, which his sisters
point out doesn’t exist anymore); Uncle Benjamin, as I’ve already noted, is
D.C. stage stalwart van Griethuysen, very convincingly in and out of focus—an
active, engaged mien switching instantly to a vacant, lost gaze as he
concentrates on the food on his plate; sister Barbara is played by Sarah
Marshall, a matronly, soft-voiced mollifier, obviously the peacemaker among the
Apples who also takes care of Benjamin—the mother-figure of the family group;
sister Marian is depicted by Elizabeth Pierotti as a militant liberal who brooks
no deviation from the party line and whose advice to anyone who isn’t sure how
to vote just to be sure to vote for the Democrat—even if you don’t know who the
candidate is; baby sister Jane is Kimberly Schraf, also the intellectual of the
family who’s writing a book on manners and etiquette as a form of cultural and
societal infrastructure; and Tim, the actor whom Jane has brought home to meet
her family, is played by Jeremy Webb with clear avidness both to be
well-received and to cultivate Benjamin whom he’d seen read Oscar Wilde some
months earlier at the 92nd Street Y—Tim’s giving a performance, but a very good
one that seems natural even as it’s controlled and scored. (A note: one of the hardest roles for an
actor is to play an actor. A good actor
playing a bad one is difficult, but a good actor playing a good one is even
harder because the role-playing actor has to let the audience know he’s
performing without the actor-as-role being obvious about it at the same
time. It’s a complete paradox—to show
he’s acting without showing he’s acting!)
While each of the characters has her or his individual quirks and
foibles, none of the actors displays tics or mannerisms and the cast and
director Seiden have avoided histrionics and empty emotionalism, letting the
feathers fly only when dramatically necessary.
As far as Nelson lets them, they turn in honest, grounded, and
believable characters.
It
may be that the cast and director’s being so good at what they’re doing in Hopey Changey is why the faults in Nelson’s
script show up so clearly. (Or maybe I’m
hypercritical—these plays have gotten great reviews since they began appearing,
including the two in rep at the Studio.)
I broached the notion that Hopey
Changey was set up, a characteristic that was most prominent at the
beginning of the play, but suffused the whole script. (I considered if this perception was caused
by the performance, but I concluded that it’s endemic in Nelson’s text, though
I’d be curious, again, to see how it comes out in his staging at the
Public.) What I mean is that the
situation not only of the evening depicted in Hopey Changey but the whole circumstance of the Apple siblings as
Nelson seems to be laying it out in the four plays is arranged. Now, maybe it’s necessary to do that in this
first script so that the others can link up logically and narratively. (From the evidence of Hopey Changey, by the way, though it may be more satisfying to see
all four plays, the coherence of one doesn’t depend on seeing the other three. That may become less apparent in the later
plays, however.) First of all, the
characters are very precisely constructed, like pieces in a puzzle, so that
they can interact in the ways Nelson has worked out for them. If, as the feminists of the ’60s and ’70s liked
to insists, “the personal is political,” the first Apple Family Play (and
probably all of them) is a self-conscious study in the political as personal. Marian, for instance, is the rabid
liberal/Democrat so she has to react strongly to Richard’s sliding toward
conservatism. (I have no evidence of
this, but I suspect that Richard Apple, the disillusioned liberal who perceives
the hollowness of the political divide, is a stand-in for Richard Nelson. His bitterness—the nasty, vulgar jokes, the
pointed remarks about Democratic politicians, the quasi defense of Sarah
Palin—may be Nelson’s, or perhaps what the writer sees ahead for himself.) The play opens with Richard delivering the
very vulgar punch line to a joke about Senators Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer,
and Barbara even warns him not to repeat the joke to Marian when she
arrives. (He, of course, does, and it
sets her off predictably.) In addition,
Richard has taken a position with a big law firm for the money, a direct
contrast with his sisters—a writer and two school teachers: not professions
people go into for the pay scale. Jane
is the academic and writer (though we do learn that Barbara wrote some fiction
years ago) so that she can stick out in a family of pragmatists and political
idealists and be the foil for their lack of understanding when she tries to
explain her work, which immediately makes Barbara feel as if she’s being
studied as a subject for the book. Her
study of manners as the way we reveal or hide who we are and what we really think
is a reflection of what Nelson’s doing with a play about eating and communing
with family. It’s also very convenient
that Tim is an actor—just like the failing Benjamin. The characters’ personalities and interests
are all very carefully established pretty quickly and definitively and they all
hew to expectations for those traits.
The
situation, of course, is also made to order for family conflict: election night
when the Republicans take over the House of Representatives and almost the
Senate as well. Marian is enough of the
committed Democrat that she’s been poll-watching in town, making her late to
the family dinner; her unseen husband is still at the polling place. Yet Jane eventually reveals that she didn’t
vote (though she would have voted for Cuomo and Gillibrand, she says), offering
flimsy excuses. On the larger canvas,
Benjamin’s come-and-go memory will clearly get worse as the story advances year
to year—and what could be worse for an actor than to lose his memory. Richard will probably get more and more
conservative—he’s already arguing with Marian that the Democrats are no better
than the Republicans anyway—and be drawn by his new colleagues further and
further into the Republican camp. “Since
when has not being worse,” he challenges Marian, “become who we are?” Late in Hopey
Changey Barbara and Marian disclose that their father had run off when they
were children—Jane was too young to remember much—and that Uncle Benjamin took
up the slack and looked after them, but they’ve never learned why his brother
left and now that his memory is dissolving, they fear they never will. I predict this will be a recurring topic,
probably growing in importance in the succeeding plays, but it’s pretty baldly
dropped into this script like a little bomb—a time bomb, I guess. And that suggests what’s perhaps the biggest
set-up of all: the play has no conclusion.
The conversation, the arguments, just stop and everyone goes home. (These politically addicted siblings don’t
even listen to the returns, though Barbara keeps suggesting that.) It’s open-ended so the next play can dovetail
from this one, and the next from that one, and so on.
I’ve
only seen a few of Richard Nelson’s plays, and the only one of which I have any
recollection is Some Americans Abroad,
which I saw at Lincoln Center in 1990, and I have very little impression of it
23 years later, except that I found it rather dry and cold. Obviously, Nelson never became a playwright
whose work I made a point of catching, and I suggest that the reason is the
sense I’ve tried to outline concerning That
Hopey Changey Thing. (By the way,
the play’s title, for those who lived under a rock from 2008 through 2010, is
an allusion to something Sarah Palin said in a speech on 27 March 2010, seven
months before the play is set, at a Tea Party rally in Searchlight,
Nevada—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s hometown: “That bumper sticker that
maybe you’ll see on the next Subaru driving by—an Obama bumper sticker—you
should stop the driver and say, ‘So how is that hopey, changey thing working
out for ya?’” Palin gets a brief mention in the play, and
the mockery of Obama isn’t cited, which strikes me as another kind of set-up—using
a semi-recognizable line that has no direct applicability to the play.)
Nelson’s
dramaturgy seems so deliberately constructed, so preconceived, that I just
don’t find his plays moving. They’re
more intellectual exercises for me—for instance, in Hopey Changey, trying to keep track of all the references and
allusions to New York State politics of three years ago. Andrew Cuomo’s full name is mentioned early
in the play, but thereafter, he’s always called just “Andrew,” and
former-Governor Eliot Spitzer is only called “Eliot”—and I kept wondering how
many in the Washington audience got that.
Washingtonians are attuned to politics, of course—it’s a supremely
political town, after all—but not necessarily New York state politics. There’s also a quick mention of Spitzer’s
short-lived talk show on CNN, Parker
Spitzer, a month old at the time the play takes place, and I wondered about
that, too. There were many more obscure
references to New York politics as well, especially about Albany and the
state’s infantile political structure and hidebound government. This is not the stuff of national headlines
for the most part—it’s inside baseball to which most New Yorkers don’t even pay
attention! Indeed, Nelson himself must
have had an inkling of this difficulty since he’d initially dubbed Hopey Changey “a disposable play”
because he figured audiences on its first outing in November 2010 would be
interested, but that it wouldn’t mean much to subsequent theatergoers.
I
said the press was strongly positive, and the Washington Post led the pack by opening its review with: “Give thanks this week that the Apples fall among us.” Peter Marks calls the two-play rep “without
question a capital occasion” and declares that the plays “are, in a quiet way,
thrilling.” He feels that “the
playwright’s generosity of spirit allows an audience to feel as if it, too,
always has a place at his table.” In Washingtonian magazine, Missy Frederick,
calling the play “engrossing,” writes that the play eventually becomes “a
bracing critique of the current administration, but it happens in a way that
just feels like people sitting around, gradually spitting out their pent-up
frustrations and realizations” so that “it feels realistic, like the audience
is spying on an actual conversation.” “It takes some time to get to that point,” Frederick
advises, “but it’s worth the wait.” “As
directed with great sensitivity by Serge Seiden,” writes Chris Klimek in the Washington
City Paper, “these plays are so patient and closely observed that the
emotional hold they assert over you is insidious.” The reviewer admits to having been mostly “entranced”
and “captivated,” though he’s “still trying to work out exactly why.” Klimek’s final remark about the Apple family
seems also to be his conclusion about the plays: “They’re slow burners, . . . but
their effects are lasting.”
On
the website MD Theatre Guide, Robert Michael Oliver (who actually draws a parallel between Nelson’s
plays and the work of radical South American theater innovator Augusto Boal), declares,
“That Hopey Changey Thing offers us a chance to hear ourselves talk
to ourselves about our political hopes and anxieties.” “After watching the Apple Family Plays,”
writes Oliver, “you leave the theatre feeling like you have attended someone’s
family dinner, with . . . the ideas
quite satisfying.” He believes the plays,
which he dubs “inquisitive, investigative, insightful,” are so provocative that
as you leave the theater you’ll ask yourself, “[W]hy haven’t I thought of that
before? Why haven’t I asked that question before?” With respect to the performances, Oliver
states that the “ensemble of superior thespians serves Nelson’s script to
perfection.“ DC Theatre Scene’s Ben
Demers complains that he “became increasingly frustrated as the family members
repeatedly ran over each other in conversation” as none of them were able to
finish a thought to Demers’s satisfaction.
Nonetheless, the reviewer finds, “The pleasant veneer of setdesigner [sic]
Debra Booth’s cozy dining room conceals buried doubts and resentments, which
slowly emerge as the wine begins to flow.”
Demers also feels that “Director Serge Seiden has skillfully delved into
Nelson’s script, managing a slate of fine performances” though in the end, he
found that although the play raised questions for him, “The overall message of That
Hopey Changey Thing is unclear.” On DC
Metro Theatre Arts, Sydney-Chanele Dawkins calls the play “an engrossing
slice of family life populated by challenging, complex, ordinary people full of
American pie appeal.” The plays respond,
Dawkins writes, “to rich, universal themes, intelligent story subtext, and the
focus of idiosyncratic character motivation” and “resonate with eye-opening
relevancy and a remarkable immediacy in a powerfully irresistible way.” Especially complimenting the “extraordinary”
finesse of the cast’s “listening skills,” the review-writer
also notes the “moving, dynamic interactions and the fresh, riveting
performances” of the company.
It
seems, at least as the professional reviewers go, I’m a minority of one. I agree pretty much across the board with the
estimation of the journalists concerning the work of the Studio Theatre’s
company; in fact, their work was exemplary in all respects. But I’m just not as enthusiastic about the
play as most of the published reviewers are.
Maybe I’ve become jaded, or the Capital area writers don’t get to see as
much quality theater as I do—but I don’t feel the impact they seems to or see
the import of Nelson’s themes that they do.
Given that there is this dichotomy of opinion, I suppose it’s fair to
say that you all will just have to decide for yourselves if The Apple Family Plays are your kind of
theater or not. Then again, that’s
pretty much always the case, isn’t it?
In
any case, I also have to confess that I’m glad I saw this production; since the
Apple plays have been so well reviewed and so popular with theaters, I feel it’s
worthwhile to have experienced at least one of them, particularly in such an
exemplary presentation. I expressed a
curiosity about Nelson’s own staging of the plays, currently on stage at New
York’s Public Theater as I reported, but
I probably won’t see them. I’m not curious
enough to want to sit through another performance of the same play, and I’m not
enamored enough of the whole work to want to sit through the other three just
to see what the playwright’s done with them.
If someone donates tickets for me, I might change my mind on that, however.
No comments:
Post a Comment