A few years ago, I was reading applicants for a playwrights program and a gal submitted a play with an intriguing premise. I definitely wanted to read more of that play. When I read the synopsis of The Submission, now being performed at the Lucille Lortel by MCC, I thought, hmmm, that sounds a little like that play I read a few years ago with the intriguing premise. I should check it out. So…I checked it out.
It turns out, there weren’t many similarities. I definitely liked that other play better. This one, I just don’t know. It’s certainly been given a slick production, attractively and perfectly cast, but I just don’t feel as if the play ultimately succeeds. It’s like it keeps scratching at something but never really gets there. There is some witty dialogue, but a lot of it seems overly precious and ‘sitcom-y’ to me. Scenes go nowhere; it’s as if we’re seeing the same scene over and over. Which I guess could be the point, since many scenes take place in various, anonymous Starbucks across the country. But if that’s the point, structurally, we didn’t get all the way there.
The cast is nearly pitch perfect, even though I feel like they’re mainly playing mouthpieces instead of characters. Jonathan Groff is physically adorable, and his charm goes a long way, but his character is so repugnant, I couldn’t get behind him at all. Which sort of destroys the journey of the play. Sigh. Rutina Wesley as the actress who gets involved in a scheme of Groff’s is very strong, and she’s certainly more sympathetic, but the lapses in logic of what she says one minute to the next is very frustrating. Will Rogers
I’ve been trying really hard to avoid discussing the plot in specifics, because spoilers will abound no matter what I say. I guess if you read other reviews, you can figure out exactly where this play is going to go. It’s run time is about 100 minutes long, but as the same scene kept unfolding time after time after time, I started to just want it to be over, though I’ll admit to my pulse quickening a bit during the girl’s final monologue (does this mean I WAS invested and just didn’t know it?) and I did start to cry when the hate speech really flew in the penultimate scene. Perhaps I’m just an overly sensitive wuss, but there are some words that make me cry. Too bad this scene has been blocked so that I couldn’t see anyone’s face. All I could notice was my discomfort and horror since I couldn’t see anyone else’s on stage. Bad directing choice.
I’ll admit to chuckling with rueful understanding at some of the one-liners about how hard it is to get a play produced in America, and I did laugh out loud at one line near the end (it referenced Bjork and that swan). I will also admit to feeling a bit incredulous that the script they’re describing throughout this play would get chosen to be done at Humana (this is a BIG plot point). Hello, I’ve seen plays at Humana. THAT play would never get done there. At least not with the most recent artistic leadership. But I guess most of the audience wouldn’t realize that. I'm also wondering what it means that two white men have recently written plays that feature characters discussing their belief that white men are now the most discriminated against minority. I honestly don't know what it means, if anything...
I don’t know. I guess I was just really frustrated. Maybe I went in with my expectations too high—this play was chosen as the first (and only?) Laurents-Hatcher Award winner, and since Arthur was so crazy picky, I guess I figured this script would be the be-all, end-all of American theater. It does raise some interesting points here and there, but it mainly just lays there. For me, anyway. There were others in the audience who were completely digging it. So…there it is. A completely unhelpful review. Sorry. J
No comments:
Post a Comment