by Kirk Woodward
[After making some
very pertinent and interesting comments on Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton (6 December), frequent guest-blogger Kirk
Woodward returns now with his assessment of the current Broadway revival of
William Finn and James Lapine’s Falsettos. This time, Kirk provides a more standard
performance assessment, but he has an interesting (and, I think valid, from his
description—since I haven’t seen the production) take on the performance. Pay particular
attention to Kirk’s opinion of Lapine’s direction because not only is it
perceptive in its own right, but it makes a point about some (I’d say many)
published reviews: they don’t cover directing very well.]
When I read about the current revival on Broadway of the
musical Falsettos (music and lyrics
by William Finn, book by Finn and James Lapine, directed by Lapine, opened at
the Walter Kerr Theatre on October 27, 2016 for a limited run of fourteen weeks),
I ordered tickets immediately for two reasons.
I wanted to see Brandon Uranowitz, who plays Mendel, the
psychiatrist, in the musical. He is a family friend and a Tony Award nominee
for his performance as the composer in the musical An American in Paris.
I also wanted to see Christian Borle, who plays Marvin in Falsettos and is unquestionably one of
the finest actors on the musical stage. I have written about both of them in
this blog (see Kirk’s “An American In
Paris (Part 2),” 13 November 2015, and “Something
Rotten! 1,” 11 May 2106)
Falsettos was
created by combining the second and third of a trio of one-act musicals. The
first of the three, In Trousers,
entirely written by William Finn, premiered in 1979 at Playwrights Horizons and
introduced the character of Marvin, a man who comes to realize that he is gay and
ultimately leaves his wife and young son.
Mr. Finn collaborated on the books of the next two musicals
with James Lapine, who directed them. The story of In Trousers leads to that of March
of the Falsettos (premiering in 1981, also at Playwrights), which finds
Marvin trying desperately to discover or create some kind of viable family amid
the chaos of his relationships with his ex-wife (Trina), his current lover
(Whizzer), his son (Jason), and his psychiatrist, who is also Trina’s
psychiatrist and who falls in love with and marries her.
By the end of the show Marvin has left Whizzer but has
achieved some rapport with Jason. March
of the Falsettos becomes Act I of the musical Falsettos.
Act II of Falsettos is
the third of the one-act plays, Falsettoland
(premiering in 1990 at Playwrights). In the course of this piece Marvin and
Whizzer resume their relationship, while the family wrestles with the details
of Jason’s bar mitzvah. Two more characters, a lesbian couple, join the
fractured but real “family” scene: Dr. Charlotte, a medical doctor, and
Cordelia, a caterer specializing in Kosher food.
The dates of these plays and of the combined work Falsettos, which opened at the John
Golden Theatre on Broadway in 1992, are significant, because 1981 was the year
of the first clinical diagnosis of AIDS (for Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome; it is also known as HIV, for Human Immunodeficiency Virus), and by
1990 the brutal disease was ravaging the gay community, and, although not then
acknowledged as such, was well on its way to terrorizing the entire world.
The AIDS epidemic was at its height when the various
components of the musical first opened. AIDS is a looming presence in Falsettoland – Whizzer contacts the disease. There is no cure
available for him (nor is there today; however, much progress has been made in
controlling the disease). Dr. Charlotte treats him, and his painful death has
the effect of bringing Marvin’s formal and informal family together in a real
if uneasy kind of working truce.
Wisely or not, people take AIDS more for granted today, but Falsettos is valuable also as a family
story, a quirky but significant one. The show has significant strengths beyond
the historical: the family story; the sympathetic portrayal of varying kinds of
sexual relationships, both homosexual and other; the meaty roles for the seven
actors; and the sizzling score by William Finn, who writes songs that sound
like conversation that has somehow been nuzzled into musical form.
The seven characters I have identified are the only ones in
the play, a remarkably small size for a cast of a Broadway musical, but then the
show originated off-Broadway, where small musicals are more common, and almost
all of Mr. Finn’s creations have opened off-Broadway.
His other shows include A
New Brain (1998), an autobiographical account of his experience with brain
surgery, and the song cycle Elegies
(2003). His writing tends to be autobiographical, although this was not the
case with his delightful The 25th
Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee (2005).
So, to the 2016 Broadway production of Falsettos: the acting did
not disappoint. Not just Uranowitz and Borle, but the entire cast, are
wonderful. The show stopping number of the musical is “Trina’s Song,” performed
with mountingly manic energy by Stephanie J. Block in the role of Marvin’s
ex-wife.
I was charmed by the lesbian couple played by a businesslike Tracie
Thoms (Dr. Charlotte) and an exuberant Betsy Wolfe (Cordelia, the caterer). Anthony
Rosenthal (Jason) is a match for the older cast members, and Andrew Rannells is
just right for the role of Whizzer, who must come across as both sketchy and
valuable.
And yet, and yet… the production left me with an unsatisfied feeling. I
have only seen it once before, in a community theater production that presented
the material realistically. The current version has a divided personality. The
acting is realistic; but the production, with James Lapine returning as
director, is remarkably abstract.
When the audience enters, it sees a bare stage with a huge gray cube in
the center, like a giant irregular construction by Rubik. The audience
certainly anticipates that the cube will be taken apart and used as furniture
and other set elements, and that’s what happens, very ingeniously. (The set, by
David Rockwell, is beautifully augmented by Jeff Croiter’s lighting).
As a result there are no pauses between scenes; also as a result,
however, the actors are continually moving blocks around, which however
smoothly choreographed nevertheless continually pulls the audience out of the
play as it watches the gray geometric shapes being rearranged by actors looking
to make sure they set their pieces exactly on their “spike marks” on the stage
floor.
I attended the show with a friend who genuinely did not like
this approach. “I don’t come to Broadway to see off-Broadway shows,” my friend
said, “but I may want to hire this cast when I’m ready to move.” I’m not sure there’s not something to her
remark.
Put in its simplest form, she wants sets that appear to move
by themselves! She referred to this production as a “black box show,” that is,
a studio theater presentation rather than a Broadway show. Perhaps her attitude
is a little extreme, but if there’s strength in a typical Broadway show, surely
one element is the audience’s satisfaction when a play is surrounded by an
environment that embraces it.
One thinks on the other hand of productions like the
director John Doyle’s 2005 and 2006 productions of Sweeney Todd and Company respectively,
in which the actors both performed their roles and played musical instruments.
That and similar approaches are clever, but do they really serve the play, or
do they pull our focus out of it? Is the play the thing, or do we leave mostly thinking
that that director really is a clever fellow?
Lapine doesn’t go to extremes in Falsettos, but his directorial hand shows in every moment of the
play, which is so thoroughly directed that the actors come to seem like
marionettes – so much so that when in the song “March of the Falsettos” the
cast actually act like marionettes, the concept of the number doesn’t seem
particularly startling.
In the second act, in particular, it seems to me that this
approach does not serve the play, robbing it of a good deal of the emotion
necessary for us to understand how the new ad hoc family is finally able to
coalesce. When Marvin and Whizzer stand face to face and sing “What Would I
Do?” practically down each other’s throats, for the entire song, it seems to me
that the staging almost combats the emotion of the scene. Borle’s and Rannells’
acting is strong enough to prevail; but should they be put in that position?
Lapine “puts people in positions” throughout the entire
production. He is a clever and imaginative director; but I still left the
theater feeling I’d seen a display, rather than a story. The cast has been hard
at work; but for me the aftertaste that’s left is the effort, not the people.
I might well be accused of inconsistency here: in my recent
article “A Note About Hamilton” (6 December 2016) on this blog, I championed productions in
which a director invents what I call a “new theatrical language” for the piece.
That is emphatically not what Lapine does in Falsettos.
Nothing in his staging is “transformative.” Using blocks instead of furniture
has been a theatrical staple for decades. Virtually every director wants to
“physicalize” the action of a play. Lapine does both, but to the extent that
the result feels like busywork, falling far short of what in the Hamilton piece
I call a Bright Idea – not giving the play a different locational concept, just
making it hyperactive.
Most of the reviews that I have read do not focus on
Lapine’s direction at all. Falsettos
generally received positive reviews, led by Charles Isherwood in The New York Times (27 October 2016), who wrote that “there’s hardly a
moment in the exhilarating, devastating revival of the musical “Falsettos” that
doesn’t approach, or even achieve, perfection.”
High praise indeed. Where reviewers had reservations, they
tended to be about two things. One involves the issues of whether or not the
play accurately portrays gays and Jews. (I was taken aback by the vitriol of
Hilton Als’ New Yorker review of 7
November 2016 – “hideously cheap sentiment . . . one of the most dishonest
musicals I have ever seen.”) I have no competence to answer such questions.
The other reservations tended to be about the set design.
Isherwood’s review typifies the praise:
David Rockwell’s set resembles a child’s building blocks, which are manipulated by the actors. Placed against a shifting Manhattan skyscape, it’s an ingenious illustration of what we are watching: people laboring to arrange a comfortable life for themselves and their loved ones, and continually having to readjust it.
The reservations may be represented by Alexis Soloski’s
review in The Guardian (27 October 2016):
The set, by David Rockwell, with its chintzy cutouts of the Manhattan skyline and peculiar cube of furniture, is one of the ugliest to galumph onto the stage in recent years.
Christopher Kelly, in the Newark Star-Ledger (27 October 2016), is no kinder:
The set design . . . mostly consists of what appears to be a rubber foam cube, made up of many pieces that are removed from the cube and used as furniture or props. More than once, you worry the pieces of cube are going to fall on someone's head.
Actually, you do, sometimes. On the other hand, the use of
the component pieces is consistently clever, a real triumph of engineering. But
the important point is that a set designer’s work must reflect the director’s
approach to the play; the set is not an equal among equals, but one component
in an overall approach that’s coordinated by the director (or should be). Whether
it’s “attractive” or “ugly” is fundamentally irrelevant; the important question
is how well it serves the play.
To my mind the Falsettos
set illustrates what I see as Lepine’s desire to tinker with the show, as
though he were trying to include in the new production all the possibilities
he’d thought of since the first Broadway production opened in 1992.
Isherwood says that Lepine’s “work is so sharp it’s as if he
were seeing the show with a new pair of eyes.” Yes, but is that what the show
should be about? Christopher Kelly,
in the Star-Ledger, comes a little closer
to my opinion, referring to “sometimes awkward staging” and saying:
Lapine directed this revival, just as he did the 1992 Broadway original -- and my guess is
that "Falsettos" ultimately needed someone not quite so close to the
material to make it resonate fully with a contemporary audience.
We are blessed these days with a number of outstandingly
talented directors, and James Lapine is one of them. The risk involved in all
that talent is that directors may come to feel their job is to make the
production “go” or “work.” The script and the actors do that – or it doesn’t
get done.
If our primary impression of a show is that the director put
a lot of effort into it, surely that’s not a mark of success but of failure –
at least, of failure to respect the play being produced.
That’s a subjective judgment, no doubt about it, but it’s one we need to make.
[Kirk’s remark about reviews
not saying much about Lapine's directing is a truth about most reviews in
general. Directing usually gets short
shrift (except for comments about pacing occasionally). I think the
reason for that is that few reviewers (or anyone else, really) understand what
directors do. I once edited the
newsletter for an organization (now unfortunately defunct) called the American
Directors Institute that was formed for that very reason: that most people—not just
lay people, but theater pros as well (including reviewers)—don’t know what
directors actually do beyond moving actors around the stage. ADI’s mission
was to try to introduce directing to the public through panels and conferences—and
Directors Notes, its newsletter. (Geoffrey Shlaes, ADI’s artistic director,
once approached renowned theater critic, editor, writer, and historian Eric
Bentley to be the keynoter for one of ADI’s conferences, and he disparaged
directors as unnecessary.) Anyway, reviewers can't very well criticize
directing if they don't know what it is, can they?]
No comments:
Post a Comment