I seem to be having a run of plays that have made me think
the authors all came up with a gimmick or a plot idea first and then devised a theme
or point as an excuse to use it. Back in
January, it was Tarell Alvin McCraney’s Choir
Boy at the Studio Theatre in Washington, D.C. (gospel singing); early in
March, it was New York’s Signature Theatre Company’s Big Love by Charles Mee (modernizing Aeschylus’ The Suppliant Women); and now it’s Beth
Henley’s Laugh, a world première presentation
also at Washington’s Studio. (The ROT reports on Choir Boy and Big Love
were posted on 24
January and 18 March, respectively.)
On Sunday, 22 March, I drove into the District from suburban Maryland to
see the matinee performance of Laugh at Studio’s Logan Circle base. It’s Henley’s first outing since The
Jacksonian in 2013; her previous script was 2006’s Ridiculous Fraud
(about which ROT contributor Kirk Woodward posted on 20 November
2014). Laugh started previews on
the thrust stage of the Mead Theatre, Studio’s largest space at 218 seats, on
11 March, and opened on 15 March; the production’s scheduled to close on 19
April. Though I suspect that Henley and
director David Schweizer, the writer’s longtime friend, have their eyes on
a New York transfer, no plans have been announced.
Henley,
63
this May, was born in Jackson, Mississippi, and graduated from Southern
Methodist University in Dallas in 1974 with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in acting. A
member of the university acting troupe (Henley’s mother, Elizabeth, was an
actress), she also wrote her first play at SMU, a one-act called Am I Blue. From 1975 to 1976, she taught playwriting at
the University of Illinois in Urbana (now UI at Urbana-Champaign) and the
Dallas Minority Repertory Theater. In
1976, Henley moved to Los Angeles, where she currently lives, and now teaches
playwriting at Loyola Marymount University in LA.
The playwright has been identified as a “Southern” playwright all her
career. (This is partly what Kirk
examines in “Beth Henley and Ridiculous Fraud.”) Her first professionally produced play was Crimes
of the Heart, which débuted as the winner of the Great American Play Contest at
the Actors Theatre of Louisville in 1979.
It was produced Off-Broadway by the Manhattan Theatre Club the next year
and won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 1981.
(The production won or was nominated for several other awards, including
a Tony nom for Best Play, and the playwright’s film adaptation in 1986 garnered
Henley an Oscar nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay.) Henley has also worked as a screenwriter in
Hollywood, adapting her own play for Miss Firecracker, 1989, and writing
the scripts for True Stories and Nobody's Fool, both 1986. Through the late ’70s and the ’80s, Henley
wrote essentially naturalistic tragicomedies about the small-town South, among
them The Miss Firecracker Contest (1979) and The Wake of Jamey
Foster (1981), emphasizing the female characters, but in the later
’80s and the ’90s, the writer branched out and began experimenting, though
somewhat under the public’s radar. (Like
Laugh at Studio, many of her premières have been in small rep companies
outside New York City.) As Studio
artistic director David Muse says, “If you haven’t paid attention to her work
lately, I have a surprise for you: Beth Henley is a genre-defying stylistic
innovator.” The Jacksonian, a
play about the ’60s civil rights movement in her native city, Mississippi’s segregated
capital, has been described as a noir play with a twisty and fragmented
plot that depicts extreme violence; Ridiculous
Fraud was dubbed a “crackpot comedy” by Charles Isherwood in the New
York Times.
The gimmick in Laugh
is that it mimics the antics of old movies, especially the silents and the
early talkies. The leading characters
are Mabel and Roscoe, named for silent-film legends Mabel Normand (1892-1930) and
Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle (1887-1933).
Other characters are composites or parodies of Hollywood figures in the
stars’ lives and the early film industry.
After the work on The Jacksonian,
a play the Washington Post’s Nelson Pressley
describes as “a pitch-dark noir comedy with sex and drugs and a 1964
Mississippi murder,” Henley says, “I was exhausted to the extent I wasn’t sure
I wanted to write another play.” After
living with The Jacksonian, which American Theatre senior editor Rob Weinert-Kendt calls “bottomlessly
bleak,” the playwright thought, “I just want to laugh.” (There was a seven-year gap following Ridiculous Fraud, the longest lay-off of
Henley’s career, because the dramatist reportedly had to come to terms with her
rage at the subject matter of The Jacksonian,
based on her own experiences as a young girl in her hometown.) Making people laugh, she adds, “is the most
subversive thing to do,” and one thing that makes Henley laugh are old movies. “I just love the world of film, silent film,
and of vaudeville,” she confesses, so she began experimenting with “the world
without any language.” She was
especially inspired by Normand and Arbuckle—Normand’s “rebellious spirit,
her zest for life” and Arbuckle’s pratfalls (which are limned in Laugh by Roscoe as well as other
characters).
Watching the silent comedies of Max Sennett and Hal Roach “just
made me feel so good,” Henley asserts, and she became fascinated with a world
that was just inventing itself. She also
wanted to “explore identity,” the way we reveal and disguise ourselves to
others, especially the way actors take on alternative personas. “So I imagined an ensemble of actors to tell
this story,” Henley continues, “and I have two main characters who take on
disguises themselves.” Thus was Laugh—which follows the adventures of Mabel, recently orphaned and
independently wealthy, as she moves in with her greedy aunt who requires her
nephew, Roscoe, to woo Mabel to control her fortune—conceived, and
Schweizer’s production at Studio includes multiple disguises (including a few
quick changes), falls, pies in the face (a gag Arbuckle pioneered in film), and
other staples of vaudeville, music hall, and old flicks. Normand and Arbuckle, who made many film
together, also both worked extensively with (and for) Charlie Chaplin and
Buster Keaton. The staging shows quite a
few instances of one actor or another channeling Chaplin and, it seemed to me,
Stan Laurel and Margaret Dumont. As
director Schweizer, whom Henley affirms she’s known and admired for many years and with
whom she did a workshop in Palo Alto, California, observes,
“It’s derived from a deep affection for silent movie and early talkie culture.”
As a tribute to old movies, the two-hour, episodic Laugh (which includes one intermission)
is twice too long to sustain its internal humor. Unless you’re an indefatigable fan of old
flickers—and I’m not all that fond of the silents, myself—the conceit wears
thin before the first hour ends. But
Henley purports to have other ideas on her mind. In her interview with the Studio literary
director, the playwright states that Laugh
“is a play about love, and about understanding yourself.” It’s also about greed and power—and who
wields it (Normand was one of the first female movie stars to take control of
her own career and start her own production company)—and the disparity between
the illusion of Hollywood glamour and glitter and the gritty, sometimes nasty
reality. (The play includes a slo-mo
orgy, certainly a reference to the scandalous party that derailed Arbuckle’s
career, and a shooting much like the one that tarnished Normand’s reputation.) The problem I had was that Henley’s purported
themes seem secondary to the set-up and aren’t all that strongly
delineated. They’re also not really
topics that aren’t often explored in other plays, stories, films, and even TV
shows. The result is that the theatrical
framework, the homage to old movies and old Hollywood, overpowers the dramatic
content. To borrow a line I quoted in the
report on my last theater experience, Charles Mee’s Big Love, if the movie parody is Henley “scaffolding” the way Greek
tragedy was for Mee, and she “threw away the scaffolding” as he says he does, Laugh would simply collapse because
there’s not enough substance left to keep it standing. (Unless, as I said, you’re really queer for
old flicks.)
None of this is the fault of the performances (unlike, say,
the problem I had with the Studio production of McRaney’s Choir Boy). Schweizer’s six
actors do yeoman’s work and more as the director seems to have encouraged his
talented company to reach for the rafters.
Not only do they execute the technical demands of Schweizer’s Laugh, the physical comedy, but they
handle Henley’s overbaked lines, which she herself describes as “influenced by
the written dialogue cards between the scenes in the silent films,” with
conviction and grace—if that’s the word to describe what transpires in Henley
and Schweizer’s slapstick universe.
I don’t know the work of any of this cast, so I can’t say if Laugh marks a stretch for any of them or
if they are all accustomed to this kind of extreme acting, but in either
instance, they all did magnificent jobs with their roles (and four of the
actors play multiple roles over the span of the play).
As Mabel, the ward of a prospector in the California Gold
Rush who’s suddenly orphaned in a mining explosion that also leaves her
wealthy, Helen Cespedes starts off as a crude, simple pumpkin, though one with
native wiles that come in pretty handy soon enough, and ends up a Hollywood
sophisticate who calls herself Masha Snow.
Throughout, however, she’s self-reliant, strong, oddly pure (even as she
nearly gets roped into a “pornographic Valentine” scheme that she essentially
turns to her own advantage), and true to herself. Cespedes’s hillbilly miner comes off a little
over-the-top, but since all the personas are caricatures and travesties anyway,
this is a small cavil. Opposite her is
Creed Garnick’s Roscoe, the butterfly-chasing sissy ward of the
brother-and-sister team of Uncle Oscar and Aunt Octobra Defoliant who’s about
to be married off to a presumed heiress, the ludicrous and monumentally
unattractive Miss Bee Sunshine (until Aunt Octobra discovers the fiancée
doesn’t actually have any money!). As
Roscoe admits, he’s a devout coward but he’s devoted to movies and if some of Roscoe’s
transformations seem inexplicable, Garnick, whose versatility seems
boundless (he comes mighty close to Jefferson Mays’s turn as Montague Navarro in A Gentleman’s Guide To Love & Murder; see my report on 16 October 2014),
executes them with panache and glee, papering over many a small defect in the
writing.
Mabel, too, is captivated by the movies and she and Roscoe spend all the
ready cash she’s brought with her on them when she, too, becomes a ward of the
Defoliants (to keep her around and happy, Aunt Octobra offers to subsidize her
movie tickets). The two cinephiles essentially
learn about life by imitating the movie scenes they seem to channel. But while Mabel transforms herself from rude
bumpkin to Hollywood star, essentially taking on a new identity, it’s Garnick’s
Roscoe who takes on the many disguises and temporary personas of, say, Chaplin
in many of his films. (Consider 1925’s Gold Rush, for instance, in which Chaplin played The Lone Prospector, who in
turn played
an explorer,
waiter, valet, millionaire, dancer, and lover, among others.) Some of Roscoe’s changes take
place in view of us, so we get to witness his alteration. (Mabel’s shift happens off stage, during the
intermission.) In performance, the main
difference between the transformations is that Mabel’s is a change of character
to a degree—Cespedes essentially plays two different ones, Mabel and Masha,
even though her core remains unaltered—while Roscoe’s are merely disguises, so
Garnick’s character remains visible throughout even as his role alters (however
superficially—after all, this is a farce, not a tragicomedy!). Both actors handle the demands flawlessly.
It’d be nearly impossible in a relatively short report to detail all the
roles and characterizations handled by the four-actor ensemble, but I’ll
spotlight a few, with the understanding that this selection is not a judgment
of their quality. Evan Zes starts off as
Curley P. Curtis, Mabel’s uncle and the miner who dies discovering a rich
strike in California that precipitates the events that follow. Near the end of act one, Zes does a turn as a
succession of women auditioning for that pornographic Valentine series. (One reviewer affirms that this “is an actor having some serious fun with his
roles.”) He dons a series of outrageous
costumes, revealing his masculine chest and muscular legs (think Corporal
Klinger on MASH or the dancers of Les
Ballets Trocadero de Monte Carlo), each more outré that the preceding one. He’s also Masha’s mentor and director when
she becomes a silent film star in act two and he’s as demanding as any
fictional parody of von Stroheim while at the same time, (literally) madly in
love with his creation.
Felicia Curry first
shows up as Miss Bee Sunshine, Roscoe’s one-time fiancée, a grotesque with
missing teeth, dressed in a preposterous yellow dress only a costume designer
with a peculiar sense of humor could have devised. She also embodies the pornographer’s
rifle-slinging cowboy assistant (there must be something in the juxtaposition
of a female actor in drag in the same scene as Zes’s female drag turn—but I can’t
suss it out) with considerable swagger (all the more noticeable because Curry’s
a small woman) and a panoply of other characters such as the film director’s
angry wife. (A quick note here: the
supporting ensemble of Studio’s Laugh
is the product of color-blind as well as gender-blind casting. Just as women play men and vice versa, the
roles aren’t assigned with any consciousness to race. It’s simply irrelevant.)
As the Defoliants (named, I suppose, because their rapaciousness and
greed operates at a scorched-earth level—but that’s just a guess), Jacob
Ming-Trent and Emily Townley depict perhaps two of the most eccentric
characters I’ve encountered on any stage in recent memory. Ming-Trent, a portly man, never moves without
an armchair attached to his butt (possibly a comment on “Fatty” Arbuckle who
refused to perform roles in which his size—he, too, was a large man—was the
source of humor, such as being stuck in a doorway or a chair). Ming-Trent also appears as the pornographer,
whom Mabel blackmails into becoming her butler in Hollywood, and later as a
Hollywood dowager in the mold of Margaret Dumont. (It’s he, not Townley, who seems to have
channeled Groucho Marx’s foil.) Townley’s
Aunt Octobra may be one of the nastiest villains
on any current stage and the actress portrays her with a single-mindedness that
suggests you don’t want to get in her sights.
She may be poisoning Uncle Oscar and she certainly intends to do away
with the wealthy Mabel—after marrying her off to the now-eligible Roscoe. Octobra’s demise comes when she starts
scarfing down bon-bons, initially brought out for Roscoe to woo Mabel with, and
accidentally swallows the diamond ring she gave her nephew to propose to Mabel
with. The look of realization on
Townley’s face when she understands what’s happened—Roscoe, Mabel, and Oscar
have all fled—is almost priceless.
Townley handles many other roles as well.
Schweizer keeps the proceedings moving apace, but they lack the sharp
edges and split-second timing that this kind of slapstick parody needs to be
really effective. The director imparted
the requisite style to his cast, and they seem to have gotten into the world
of the play, but it's soft and mushy overall.
Schweizer, who’s directed both opera and performance art as well as
theater for 40 years, should have the wherewithal to get this right, but he
seems to have missed the bull’s-eye by several inches.
In another nod to
classic silent films, Henley includes a score of original piano music in her
performance text for Laugh. Composed and performed live on stage (albeit
on the periphery of the action) by Wayne Barker (2012 Tony nomination and 2011 Drama
Desk Award for his music for Peter and the Starcatcher), who also acts not so much as Narrator (as
he’s credited in the program) than as a living title card announcing the time
and settings or little labels for scenes, the music is so reminiscent of the
accompaniment for the silents that I thought at first Barker was using existing
music. (According to the Washington Post, this gig came out of early readings of the play, presented last
August at Vassar College’s New York Stage and Film’s Powerhouse Theater
with Schweizer already in the director’s chair, and apparently stuck. Assuming there are revivals of Laugh,
I can’t imagine Barker himself will play them—except maybe a New York première.) Barker’s playing and discontinuous patter
helps keep Laugh flowing and smoothes over the gaps in the sometimes
disjointed action.
Andromache Chalfant’s
set, a changing but essentially unit environment that evokes the locales—the
mine, the Defoliants’ rural home, the porn studio in the middle of nowhere, a
train car, and so on—and still lets us imagine a silent-movie set, is open
enough to permit plenty of movement, including pratfalls and a couple of stage
fights (Joe Isenberg is the fight director and Elena Day is the movement
consultant) on the Mead’s smallish stage.
(Set pieces are changed in view of the audience by stagehands who behave
much like movie-set grips: noisily and unapologetically.) Paired with Michael Lincoln’s lighting, the
performance environment is effectively apt.
Add the often outrageous costumes of Frank Labovitz, of which Miss Bee
Sunshine’s absurd yellow dress and Zes’s three crazy sex-worker outfits were
standouts, and the look of Laugh is perhaps
the best part of the whole show (with the possible exception of the acting).
The press was decidedly mixed nearly across the board. Nearly all the reviewers praised Henley’s
invocation of the old movies and her revival of slapstick, but almost all of
them also remarked that Laugh is
episodic and disjointed, barely holding together as a play. Headlines and subheads read “Equal parts
funny and peculiar” (Washington Post) and “Though the laughs in
Studio Theatre’s ‘Laugh’ may be strained at times, the quirky play is pleasant”
(Washington Life Magazine). The sentiment was just about universal. The Post’s
Pressley, for example, after reporting “zest in the wordplay and some brave
over-the-top performances,” laments, “The absurdities don’t always cohere.” Labeling the play “oddball,” Pressley adds, “The
fussy throwback stagecraft feels as if it is jostling with Henley’s writing,” and concludes, “It’s intriguing, and yes,
there are real laughs. But it all keeps
hitting jarring potholes; it’s pretty peculiar.”
In the Washington City Paper, Chris
Klimek, calling Laugh a “throwback”
(a word Postman Pressley also used), describes the production as “a Muppety
assemblage of outrageous zut alors! accents, awful fake beards,
pendulous fake boobs, and cream-pies-in-faces.”
Schweizer’s Laugh is “staged
and performed with a vigor and precision that frequently gels into a persuasive
illusion of effortlessness,” continues Klimek in probably the area’s most
positive notice, “and unless you’re an incurable sourpuss you’ll probably have
a good time.” (I guess that tells me, huh?) The cast’s “energy never
wanes, even when what seems like it would make a delightful 85-minute one-act
stretches out to a mildly enervating two hours and 15 minutes.” Chuck Conconi acknowledges in Washington Life Magazine that “without
question, ‘Laugh’ is quirky, but in spite of all the pratfall antics, it is
pleasant, but the laughs are often strained.”
Conconi concludes, “‘Laugh’ is disjointed, sometimes funny, sometimes
strained” and that Schweizer’s “direction lacked the split-second timing necessary
to take advantage of the play’s madcap demands.”
On Examiner.com, Kyle Osborne labels Laugh
“a love letter to pratfalls and props, to double-takes and dreams of
Hollywood and striking it rich. And pies
in the face.” Praising the performances
and some of Schweizer’s and Henley’s bits, however, Osbourne reports, “But
these bits of brilliance feel more like vignettes than a cohesive story, which
makes it hard to get inside the proceedings.” The cyber reviewer explains that the audience
seemed more amused by “the meta tone” (by which I assume he’s referring to the
recreation on a live stage of silent-movie scenes and business) and also
observes (as did several other reporters) that pianist-composer-narrator Wayne
Barker “may have gotten more laughs than anyone else onstage.” Jayne Blanchard opens her review in DC
Theatre Scene by stating that playwright Henley “slips on the banana peel
trying to recreate the side-splitting in Laugh.” Though she says, “It’s worthwhile to dodge
the myriad potholes along P Street to take in Laugh,” the DCTS
reviewer goes on to note that the “florid dialogue often sounds like it was composed
with a calligraphy pen” and that the play “lurches along episodically” to the
extent that it “doesn’t seem to know whether it wants to be a sendup or a
stylistic experiment.” Blanchard sums
the experience up by asserting, “Aside from some daffy bits—and you don’t know
whether to give credit to Henley or the cast’s demented inventiveness—Laugh is
more strange than funny.”
MD Theatre Guide’s Roger Catlin warns
that Studio’s première of Laugh is “not always a smooth road to laughter,”
opining, “It almost feels like she’s trying anything that works after a while,
and in comedy such perceived desperation can dry up the mirth.” After a litany of ideas that don’t quite
work, Catlin concludes, “Laugh is good for one or two, even if it
strings things a bit too long.” In the
first paragraph of his DC Metro Theater Arts review, Robert Michael
Oliver asserts that the play “elicits laughter, a good deal of it—nay, an
excellent amount if the play were only 100 minutes long and tight as a pair of
lips suppressing a laugh.” Then he goes
on, “Unfortunately, Henley’s new farce reaches 2 hours and has too much air,
not enough invention, and way too many scene changes to gather any momentum.” Oliver does back off slightly, though, to
concede, “Now, none of this is to say that there isn’t a lot to like
about Laugh,” naming the design team and the cast as high points,
but then he comes back to complain, “What Laugh doesn’t have
is the clarity and joy that a farce requires.”
The DCMTA review-writer finds that director Schweizer doesn’t
pace the performance “quickly enough” but admits that “Laugh is a
pleasant enough theatrical experience,” even though “you’ll find no
humor-catharsis in” the production.
In the New York-based cyber press, Pamela
Roberts writes on Broadway World that “Laugh, like a
frontier tumbleweed, is a bit aimless, loosely formed and messy.” Roberts expected “movement and pace to be at the
forefront,” she explains, but found “the play is far more rooted in language.” Describing the Studio production as “over-long”
for something labeled “slapstick,” it “needs to be trimmed,” Roberts believes. Nonetheless, given Henley’s talents for “heightened
language and quirkiness,” the BWW reviewer acknowledges, “Laugh has
some fine moments.” On Talkin’ Broadway,
Susan Berlin writes that Laugh “is a valentine to early cinema” that includes
Henley’s “familiar way of finding humor in the outrageous” that Studio
premières “with a sincere heart.” Berlin
expressly praised the “solidly entertaining and heartfelt performances,”
especially of Cespedes and Garnick.
I probably shouldn’t make predictions (I’m
usually not good at them), but I’ll dare to say that if Laugh makes a
move to New York off of this début, it won’t fare well. One reason Henley (and others) sometimes
première their new plays in small, out-of-the-limelight theaters (and that’s
not a comment on their quality) is that it’s safer than a New York City preem
(or even a Chicago, San Francisco, New Haven, or Cambridge opening) because,
first, it’s less heavily scrutinized and, second, the press is kinder (that’s
particularly true in comparison to New York City). You can see that the Capital area reviewers
weren’t well-disposed to Laugh; if you know the New York scene, you can
imagine how our theater desks will cover the play. (Personally, I can’t see why any major
theater in New York would want to produce Laugh as it now stands. My companions at Studio that Sunday afternoon
asked the Big Question directly: why did David Muse, Studio’s artistic
director, choose to put Laugh up at his troupe? Did he read it and say, ‘I really have to do
this play,’ they wondered. Despite that
response, however, he did, and some AD in the Big Apple might make the same
decision—because it’s a Beth Henley script, a new play, an actors’ play, or any
other nonce rationale.) Should any
theater present Henley’s play, without substantial rewrites and—sorry,
Schweizer—a change of director, it’ll get lambasted in the reviews and
disappoint audiences and subscribers in droves.
(It may be revealing that several Studio spectators left at
intermission and I heard others contemplating that choice.) The author said she
needed to write the play essentially to decompress from her previous
effort. Well, now she has. I hope it worked for her, because I don’t
think it’ll have much of a stage life after its Washington run. If I were a betting man . . . .
That's a pretty extensive review. Laugh seems to be an interesting experiment, but the length might be an issue. Perhaps it could be refined for a shorter, more compact version?
ReplyDeleteThanks, folks at McCallum Theatre. This is a first: I've never had a response from a whole theater before!
DeleteYour suggestion is reflected in many of the reviews here in the Washington area. I have no idea how receptive Beth Henley might be to such a proposal, however.
By the way, if you look around on ROT, you'll see that this report--they're not reviews--is no more "extensive" than any of them. One or two may be shorter (is that what you mean?), but they all cover pretty much the same aspects of the productions. (Since they are reports and not reviews, and since this is my blog, I get to write about what interests me; but I do try to mention most elements of the shows.)
I hope you found my discussion of 'Laugh' interesting and even informative. I have three (count 'em: three!) plays coming up in May, and each will be the subject of a blog report soon after I see it. Come back and give them a look. (Meanwhile, there are other topics covered, by me and others, on ROT, so poke around.)
Your comments are welcome.
~Rick