Review - The Revisionist

When I think about transcendent theater performances that I've seen over the years, Vanessa Redgrave's name keeps rising to the top.  One of the first productions I saw after I moved here in 1989 was Orpheus Descending, with Vanessa Redgrave and Kevin Anderson.  I can still feel the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I think of the scene where the two finally consummate their passion - Redgrave dropping the robe and Anderson taking her behind a shadowy scrim.  She was revelatory to me - such unbridled passion and fearlessness on stage.  Wow.  I also found her to be heartbreakingly amazing in Long Day's Journey Into Night, which also leaps to the top of my list of amazing performances.  Of course, she was fantastic in The Year of Magical Thinking and the recent Driving Miss Daisy, though I was less sold on those productions as a whole.  Anyway, having said all that, when I saw that Vanessa Redgrave was doing a new play at the Cherry Lane, I knew I had to be there.  Had to. 

I'll admit to not really being familiar with Jesse Eisenberg.  I haven't seen The Social Network and I missed his last play, Asuncion.  I will also admit to a skepticism about the recent rash of plays written by reasonably famous young actors - would these plays have been produced if they had been written by an unknown playwright?  The world may never know.  After seeing The Revisionist, now playing at the Cherry Lane, I can honestly say I think there's some writing talent in Jesse Eisenberg and I wouldn't be adverse to seeing what he presents next.  Not that this play is perfect, it's not, but there was enough honest character development and interesting dialogue to intrigue me.

In The Revisionist, Eisenberg plays David, a young writer who has come to stay at a distant relative's apartment in a small town in Poland.  David is a smug, entitled, insenstive hipster who can barely acknowledge anyone else in the room, let alone their needs.  Vanessa Redgrave plays the distant relative, Maria - the utter joy Maria takes in welcoming this youngster to her world is so touching, and you just want to slap him for not responding to her.  The play takes place over a few days - how their relationship grows and changes is the driving force of the piece.  Actually, Maria is the driving force of the piece.  Her story arc and late-in-the-play revelation are the wonderments of the evening.

Leading up to that is a fascinating character study, on Redgrave's part, of a woman who has built a life for herself out of the ashes of great pain.  Contrasting her joy in the idea of family with the apathy of the visiting youngster and his disregard of what he has is one of the strengths of the script.  A lot of the 'odd couple' -ish exchanges between the two are quite amusing and much of the Polish-into-English dialogue sounds very authentic.  But ultimately there's not really a lot of there there, at least script-wise.  The show is about 100 minutes long and it seems longer.  There are parts that meander and I think a trim here or there would be beneficial.  Paying more attention to the young man's character development would also help.  Most of the strength in the production comes from the genius of Redgrave's performance.

Again, she is giving an absolutely fearless performance - I swear, next to the word 'radiance' in a dictionary must be a picture of Vanessa Redgrave.  Maria is a fully complete character and you can see her past and present struggling within herself throughout.  Every gesture, every move, is a beautifully natural extension of this woman who inspires such affection and empathy from the audience, while the audience wonders why the youngster doesn't 'snap out of it.'  The other characters actually seem more like devices (there's a third character, a Polish friend of Maria's, terrifically played by Daniel Oreskes) than real people.  With a little more life (and playwriting) experience, I think all of the characters could be more fleshed out by Eisenberg.  But the evening is made completely worth it for Redgrave's performance alone.

There was a talkback after the show, and, frankly, the talkback was more engaging and illuminating than much of the play itself.  I found the discussion fascinating, hearing how Eisenberg was inspired to write this play and I wish some of his personal charm had made itself known in the text.  Also, when Vanessa Redgrave was talking about some of her inspirations during her process, the director said wished he had read the book, too.  I think I wished he had, as well.  But I'm glad I stayed for the talkback, because it was an interesting additional facet to what had come previously.

During the 
performance, I found 
myself thinking of my grandmother.  Again.  I was reminded of her during Ann and I was reminded of her again during The Revisionist.  The first time Vanessa Redgrave put her handkerchief inside her sweater sleeve, I thought, awwwwwwww.  It was so familiar to me!  But, also, Maria's sweetness/internal steel and utter devotion to family also was so much like my grandmother (not to mention the generosity of spirit Redgrave showed during the post-show talkback).  Maybe the older I get, the more I miss my grandmother and the more I look for her in whatever I do.  Regardless, even when I was already quite moved by the journey Redgrave took in this play, it became even more moving to me when superimposed by the image of a woman I loved so much and miss even more.  The picture at left is from Rattlestick's website, taken by Sandra Coudert (and I will take it down immediately if they ask me to).  The picture at right is of my grandmother.  Even their physical spaces are similar!  Who knew my grandparents' house in Ohio resembled an apartment in Poland!!  :) 

I'm very glad I saw The Revisionist and spent so much time up close and personal with Vanessa Redgrave and Maria.  I'll say the play was a better-than-good effort from Jesse Eisenberg and I look forward to what he brings us next.  Especially if he teams up with Vanessa again...

Review - The North Pool

I don't know how I let Rajiv Joseph's new play, The North Pool, slip by me for so long - I had put a discount offer in my e-mail box, but I guess I forgot about it.  Last week, Vineyard Theater sent me another discount offer for the last weekend of the show, so I jumped on it.

I loved Rajiv's Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo, and I couldn't figure out why there was so little buzz on this new piece.  Maybe because it was a much smaller show with more tightly contained ideas.  I had adored all the big ideas and the sweeping scale of Bengal Tiger, and at first, I was a little resistant to The North Pool, but by the end, I was completely committed.  Oh, and I should say that I almost had to change my seat due to my seat neighbor, who clearly consumed massive quantities of sauerkraut and alcohol before the show, but I found a handkerchief, turned to the side and made it through the evening.  :)

The set is a very realistically cluttered high school vice-principal's office, with cheesy 'success' posters, office supplies and a map of the United States.  Our two characters, the vice-principal and a student who has to stay after school, play a cat-and-mouse game that gets deeper and deeper, and sadder and sadder as the minutes tick by.  I couldn't have predicted where this play was going and I was quite moved at the characters' need for a connection after all the psychological warfare that preceded it. 

Both actors were terrific - Stephen Barker Turner as the vice-principal and Babak Tafti as the student, Khadim, were natural and wonderful.  They both showed many levels of truth and artifice.  I have to admit, I immediately bought Turner as an educator because he reminded me so much of a teacher I had in high school.  It was actually a little creepy, to be honest.  I can tell stories someday if anyone likes.  But this actor really caught the essence of a small-town, small-minded man who doesn't see himself as either small-town or small-minded.  The depths of his delusions are very intriguing.

Tafti was also excellent at portraying the different sides of Khadim.  One of the things I most enjoyed about the script was the shift of power throughout.  Each actor has their time of being in charge and being the one asking the questions, until you suddenly realize the questions they originally ask isn't the question they both desperately need to have answered.  Tafti's reaction to the discovery of a certain object towards the end of the play was quite touching and showed both sides of the power coin.  I found this very original in the writing and the acting.

I will say that I think there were maybe too many revelations, too many twists and turns.  I understand why there were so many layers (one of the characters refers to himself as being like an onion), but too many facets seemed to clutter the narrative.  At least to me.  But I wasn't bored for an instant.  This play was totally real to me, and if I missed the flights of fancy of Bengal Tiger, well, that's ok.  It's good to see a young writer stretch and try new things.  With such wonderfully insightful dialogue and character construction, and a terrific sense of pacing, Rajiv should never run out of things to say.  I look forward to what's next.

Thoughts on the Paul Taylor Dance Company

I went with my terrifically good-looking dance pal to see the Paul Taylor Dance Company at Lincoln Center last night.  I picked up the tickets via TDF last week and we had excellent orchestra center seats about 20 rows back.  Of course, the only drawback to orchestra center seats is that I can't cheat and take photos of the curtain calls.  Back of the balcony does have some advantages... ;)

 

Anyway, I went on the Paul Taylor Dance Company website to try to decide which evening we should attend - they were never doing the same complete program twice, so I was picking and choosing in a haphazard way.  Finally, I started listening to the sound clips on the website and made a decision based on the music in each piece.  A roundabout way to choose, probably, but I think all turned out well.  And I thank my dance pal for going along with my randomness.

 

First up was Scudorama, first performed in 1963.  (The photo is from the Paul Taylor Dance Company website; the photographer is Paul B Goode; I will happily remove the photo if they ask.)  In the playbill is a quote from Dante: "What souls are these who run through this black haze?"  And he to me: "These are the nearly soulless Whose lives concluded neither blame nor praise."  What does that mean?  No clue, though the piece does seem otherworldly.  Or maybe a type of purgatory.  And Paul Taylor himself (according to the website) described the piece as 'a dance of death leavened with light touches.'  OK.  I found this piece rather fascinating.  The score by Clarence Jackson was commissioned for the company, and I really enjoyed it.  It had a sort of 60s sci-fi movie sound, which meshed well with the rather apocalyptic set and costumes.  The choreography was angular and strange, with some comic touches - people crawling around the stage, men entering while 'wearing' a female dancer almost like a scarf - and the shapes in the choreography were fascinating.  All of the dancers were outstanding, though I have to make special mention of the soloist in red, who was solitary and lovely, and the dancer who briefly appeared in the grey pajamas.  I found the freedom of that choreography and that dancer to be almost sublime.  I will admit that I'm not as familiar with modern dance, and since I'm such a plot girl, sometimes plotless choreography frustrates me, but I really enjoyed this piece.  The gal behind me?  Not so much.  She did not employ the five-block rule and started trashing the piece as soon as the first intermission started.  I hate that.

 

The second piece was Lost, Found and Lost, first performed in 1982.  The 'elevator music' (as listed in the playbill) was orchestrated by Donald York.  This was a fun and whimsical piece that was very playful yet sometimes quite poignant.  At first, I wasn't really into the sparkly unitards and the sparkly hats with the veils, but they grew on me.  According to the website, where I enjoyed doing some research last night, Paul Taylor was experimenting with ordinary posture and found movement, and how that would lead to gesture and dance.  I could see that, with a lot of standing still with arms folded, casual 'walking' across the stage, and mimicry of other movement.  There was one really funny bit when the ensemble suddenly, for no reason, formed a line, and one by one, they all walk offstage, as if they're waiting to get into a bank line or something.  The different behavior of each of the dancers was great, while there were still two ladies, not in line, posing and hoping someone would see them.  Fascinating.  Again, the shapes made in the choregraphy were terrific.  This photo, borrowed from the website and taken by Lois Greenfield, gives you a hint of the whimsical and wonderful shapes. 

 

Each evening during their run, the company is doing one of their pieces set to music by Bach.  Last night's piece was Brandenburgs, set to concertos # 6 (movements 1 & 2) and #3.  It was first performed in 1988.  LOVED.  Seriously.  LOVED.  I always forget how much I love Bach - I have no idea why it slips my mind.  But setting beautiful dance to beautiful music is always inspiring and moving, whether there's a plot or no.  It's as if there would be no other way to move to this music, it just seemed so organic and perfect.  The dancers were gorgeously exuberant, with so much air and speed.  Their arms were amazing and the fact that they did such beautiful turns on bare feet (without making that squeaking sound) was wonderful.  I loved the color of the costumes and the way they moved onstage.  There were nine dancers in the piece - a lead male, Michael Trusnovec, who was BRILLIANT, plus three ladies and five men in the ensemble.  Each dancer had moments to shine and they were all fantastic.  They just all soared.  I was enchanted from start to finish, as was the rest of the audience, if the lengthy applause is any judge.  Of course, this piece was probably the most accessible of the evening, so that could be why everyone responded to it, but it wasn't just that.  At least I don't think so.  The photo at left is by Paul B Goode.

 

I'm not very good at really dissecting choreography or assessing quality of dance, I just know what I like when I see it.  And I really liked last night's program.  Every time I see the Paul Taylor Dance Company, I think to myself "why don't I see them more often?!"  I will definitely have to do something about that from now on.  :)

Review - The Dance and the Railroad

Last night, I made yet another trip to my home away from home, Signature Theatre, to see the revival of David Henry Hwang's The Dance and the Railroad.  It was an extra-special treat to find out there would be a talkback with David and the creative team after the show!  Super bonus!  Golly, Signature makes me happy... ;)

I didn't know this play at all - I only knew it was an early piece in David's career, but I've never read or seen it before.  I also didn't read any of the reviews, so it was nice to go in with no expectations or preconceived notions.  Well, ok, of course I had preconceived notions.  I generally love David's work, so I went in expecting to love it.  I'm a big old optimist in that way. 

And I did love it!  It's a lovely, delicate rumination of sacrifice - for your family and for your art - and notions of identity and self,  hope vs hopelessness.  It's a young play, definitely, and maybe a little unformed (David was only 23 when he wrote it), but that doesn't negate its power.  I think it takes a great deal of courage to write something so spare and honest; that there's so much fullness in a 70-minute piece is a terrific achievement. 

The play is set in 1867, during the building of the transcontinental railroad in the U.S.  Historically, the Chinese laborers did go on strike to demand better working conditions, and this play takes place during that strike.  Two of the workers connect and build a relationship while the strike plays out.

The older of the workers, Lone, generally keeps to himself, heading up into the mountains to practice moves of the Chinese opera.  The younger, Ma, has only been in America for a few weeks and he wants to learn and study the moves.  The conflict between these two, and their very real differences that melt into similarities, is what drives the piece.  The climactic mock opera the two perform, using their own stories as the text, is breathtaking.  And what happens after is poignant and true.  Watching their faces and bodies and attitudes completely change was just amazing.

Both actors, Yuekun Wu as Lone and Ruy Iskandar as Ma, are fantastic.  Wu is all elegance and grace when he is performing his carefully choreographed opera steps, but is more jagged and rough when dealing with other people.  Iskandar is more innocent and youthful, with a very sunny outlook that gradually begins to comprehend what his life in America is actually going to be.  Tracking the rise and fall of each of these characters emotions is quite interesting, and both actors are wonderfully open and honest in their portrayals.





The physical production is outstanding as well (photo at left, by Joan Marcus, is from the Signature website.  I will take it down if they ask).  The set by Mimi Lien and the lights by Jiyoun Chang are realistic yet theatrical and provide a beautiful backdrop.  The original music by Huang Ruo is gorgeous and beautifully used throughout.  May Adrales has directed the piece seamlessly, threading the text and the story with the music and the dance.  Really.  Thumbs way up.  The run has been extended so stop reading and go buy a ticket.

 

The talkback afterward was also fascinating.  I had no idea that David had been commissioned to write this play by the Department of Education!  Wow!  Can you imagine that happening today?  I can't.  But hearing about the evolution of the piece was really interesting, as was seeing the real personalities of the actors. They were both quite charming.  Yuekun Wu told us he was the third generation of his family to study with the Beijing Opera!  Another wow.  The director was very thoughtful in her answers to the audience questions (seriously though, does someone pay someone to ask 'how do you learn all those lines?'  it is at every Q & A ever done.  has an actor ever responded 'that's what I get paid to do'?) and it was exciting to hear they're going to be doing this production later this year in China!  The first time this play of David's will play in mainland China.  That is thrilling.  I love talkbacks and this one was especially good.  So it was a terrific evening at the Signature.  Yet again.  I think I need to get a second job so I can hang out there more often...

Review - Old Hats

I've always been a big fan of Bill Irwin and I became a big fan of David Shiner when I saw him with Cirque du Soleil many years ago.  Then, I saw Bill Irwin and David Shiner's Fool Moon several times when it was on Broadway - I even took my mom!  I can't believe it's been 20 years!  Anyway, as soon as I saw the news that these two genius performers were putting together a new piece for Signature, I knew I had to go.

I just find their kind of humor inspired and riotous.  Plus, it's warm and inviting, even with the crabbypants persona of Shiner.  When I got to the theater, I felt like I was settling in with two old friends for an evening of affectionate laughs and wonderful whimsy.  And I was right!  Plus, there was tap!  :)

Several of their old routines were repeated and there were also several terrific new ones.  "The Businessman" is a brilliant spoof of the importance (and self-importance) of the iPhone/iPad generation, plus the whole piece is a technological marvel.  You have the purely physical genius of Irwin combined with the technological genius of the projections by Wendall Harrington.  It is a match made in heaven, with surprises at every turn.

I found myself giggling uncontrollably (I think my seat neighbor was a little appalled) at "The Magic Act," and I found "The Hobo" almost unbearably poignant.  The range that Shiner shows in these two vignettes, is remarkable, all without saying a word.  Though, in a brilliant move, the piece "New Hats" utilized sound into the clowning part of the evening.  It was hysterical, watching Irwin and Shiner try to one-up each other, first with a little crooning of the title song from Oklahoma, then with a solioquy from Hamlet, and THEN they went a little mad with their newfound vocal power and traded famous lines from famous movies.  It was dizzying and wonderful and such a grand addition to their repertoire.

Surrounding all that inspired clowning was the equally inspired, and completely wackadoo (in a good way), song stylings of Nellie McKay.  Her off-kilter musical interludes were sweet, yet with some killer lyrics.  She can really keep an audience member on her toes.  I thought she was goofy and enchanting - the perfect fit for this show.  Her four-man band was also terrific, each displaying their own bits of personality throughout.

Clearly I had a FANTASTIC time at Old Hats and I think everyone should get themselves over to Signature and check it out.  Irwin and Shiner have previously talked about the physical limitations of their sorts of clowning as they age, so I'm guessing we won't get this kind of show from them forever.  And once they're done, who is going to take up their mantle?  Anyone?  Exactly.  GO.  You may even get to catch a frisbee, like I did...

 



 

 

 

Reviews - Jesus in India and The Mystery of Edwin Drood

I see a lot of theater.  It's my passion and I indulge it every chance I get.  I'll never be able to retire and I guess it's a good thing I don't have kids, because I for sure don't have any savings.  Last week, I saw six shows over seven nights - I think I may be getting a little old to do that.  Inevitably, the shows I see at the end of the week are going to suffer because I'm just so tired, and maybe my brain isn't as open as it could be.  So it happened that the show seen on night five didn't make itself completely known to me, and the show seen on day seven didn't appeal to my date.

I go into every theater hoping to love and be transported by what I'm about to see.  The law of averages says I'm not going to love every single thing I ever see.  I know that.  But, as I tell people who attempt to argue with me about loving or not loving a show, theater is not math.  There is no one right answer.  There are as many answers as there are audience members.  And my right does not preclude your right.  There unfortunately are times where I will not 'get' a play, and it becomes a bit frustrating to be the only person seemingly not able to understand the hidden delights.  I just have to accept I didn't get it and go on to the next experience, I guess.

 

A handsome chum and I decided to check out Ma-Yi's production of Jesus in India last week.  The theater was happily quite full and the young, diverse audience was eager to have a good time, and they did.  Sadly, I just wasn't one of them.  Maybe I was just too tired, but I just couldn't see where the play was going.  At all.  The point of the evening eluded me.  WAS that the point?  I don't think so.  I appreciated the cast's energy and verve, I was aware that the author has a nice light touch and writes authentic-sounding dialogue, but the ultimate meaning was outside my grasp.  But the rest of the audience (and lots of smart people I know who've seen the show) really enjoyed it and were quite vocal in their enjoyment.  So does that make them right and me wrong?  No.  It just wasn't my cup of tea.  No shame in that, I guess, though I was disappointed not to have been in on the secret.  Oh well.  Next time.  It's always grand to spend time with my handsome chum, though, and we did have a tasty margarita pre-show. 

 

This afternoon, I was lucky enough to be the guest of a friend at the closing performance of The Mystery of Edwin Drood.  I believe I've mentioned that I enjoy this show - it's just a lot of silly fun and I like silly fun every now and then.  And I enjoy the music quite a bit.  I saw an early preview that went on without Chita Rivera, so I was thrilled to see that she was performing today.  Chita is just a STAR.  It's rather inspiring to be in the presence of someone who just glows theatrical joy.  I can relate to it, since I feel like I perk up when I enter a theater, too.  I don't have Chita's incandescence though.  Or her talent.  Or her legs.  :)

The crowd was full of Drood groupies who were eager to enjoy themselves, and I certainly had a smile on my face most of the time.  But my friend wasn't enjoying himself and decided not to stay for the rest of the show.  Again, does that make one of us wrong?  Nope.  I feel badly that he didn't enjoy the show as much as I do, but we're all wired differently and that's what makes the world an interesting place. 

 

Everyone in the cast was in good voice again today, though perhaps a few were a tad indulgent, milking things a little past where they should've, since it was the last performance, but I didn't mind it that much.  There was just a giddiness to all the proceedings that was quite infectious.  I even got to help with the voting at the end.  That was fun.  But there was also such a lovely, stunningly real moment when Chita sang "The Garden Path to Hell."  Suddenly, this star, this woman, just grabbed us all by the throat and made the song something it probably isn't in anyone else's hands.  I was sort of stunned. 

 

After the show was over, the director, choreographer and author came out and were quite touching in their appreciation of the cast and the audience.  Everyone involved seemed to enjoy themselves so much.  I'm sorry the show has closed and I'm a little annoyed at myself for not trying to see it more throughout its run.  A little fun can light those dark days so well.  Those days when something a chum said sticks in your brain and causes you to think think think about things you don't generally think about.  Then you start to wish for six show/seven day weeks!  Next week, only three shows in a row.  Here's hoping I'm on the same page with everyone, especially myself...

Thoughts on The Mound Builders

Last night, I went back to my home away from home, Signature Theatre, to see a revival of Lanford Wilson's The Mound Builders.  I won't bore you with my 'I love Lanford Wilson blah blah blah'  (I do, though.)  But just know that I have been looking forward to seeing this production forever!  It seems like years since the season was announced!  I read this play years ago but have never seen it staged.  I just knew I had to be there.  I'm ever so glad I went and I'm ever so glad one of my handsome besties could join me.

The production doesn't open for over a week, so, again, I'll just offer some thoughts, since I'm sure they're still working.  Not that the script will change, but some of the things I had problems with will (hopefully) work themselves out.
The Mound Builders moves back and forth in time, from the 'present' 1975 where an academic is dictating into a tape recorder, to a summer the year before, when a team of archaeologists is working at a dig.  The play is really beautifully constructed, using the literal 'dig' to show people digging further and further into their lives, their pasts, their prejudices and our histories.  Why are we here?  What do we leave behind?  Gorgeous stuff.  I'm not sure, though, that the director has differentiated enough between the time frames.  I don't think it's enough that the use of slides will indicate 1975, and the non-use of them indicate 1974.  Perhaps the actor playing the academic could also do a little more to find the differences.  Surely, this man has changed because of what happened that summer.

For a group of people who supposedly work together all the time, the cast had a surprising lack of chemistry, or even ease with each other.  They didn't seem to be talking to each other, but rather at each other.  And, although Lanford's dialogue is beautifully naturalistic, some of these actors seemed to have problems with it.  As if they had to MAKE.SURE.WE.KNOW.EACH.WORD.IS.IMPORTANT.  That didn't really work for me at all.  Again, this will probably be worked through during previews, but it seemed odd to me that actors couldn't put this lovely language across. 

Well, they didn't miss all the time.  There were some wonderful stretches, when the actors finally let themselves be these characters, and these characters connected to each other and these beautiful ideas.  It's just that the stretches were few and far between.  Seat neighbor-wise, there were a few walk-outs at intermission and the gal next to my handsome bestie slept through the first act, then proclaimed incredulously that she couldn't believe there was an hour left!  And the guy sitting next to me had trouble keeping his hands to himself...

 

The Mound Builders isn't revived very often, so I hope this production can work the kinks out and show what a fine play this is.  It's just been extended, so everyone should try to pick up a ticket and check it out.  I may try to see it again myself...

Review - Ann

I was again a lucky girl and had a friend ask if I'd accompany him to yesterday's matinee of Ann, which opens tonight at Lincoln Center Theater.  I was very interested to see the show - I generally enjoy one-person shows, especially when they're about people who intrigue me.  And Ann Richards, former governor of Texas, certainly was intriguing!  I'm also a really big fan of Holland Taylor.  I had a great time at the show, though I'm still not quite sure how successful it is as a play.  An affectionate and well-delivered tribute to an interesting lady, but as a piece of theater?  Well...

Written and performed by Holland Taylor, Ann has a framing device that has Taylor as Ann Richards directly addressing the audience.  The framing device segues in and out of flashback scenes that take place in Ann Richards' gubernatorial office.  Her dialogue in the office scenes mainly consists of phone conversations, though she does chat with her (unseen) office assistant (voiced by the ever hilarious Julie White).  I definitely felt the framing device scenes worked much better - I enjoyed the rapport Taylor immediately had with the audience.  I do recognize it would be hard to get a two act play out of that device, but the way the character was conveyed was much more interesting via direct address.  At least to me.  In the office, the phone conversations were much more awkward and the script seemed more cliched.

 

As portrayed by Taylor, Ann Richards was a no-nonsense, high-spirited gal with a passion for political inclusiveness.  I found much of what she said (and I don't know how much was taken directly from transcripts and how much was made up by Taylor) to be very warm and true.  There were a lot of laughs and I teared up quite a few times at the lovely honesty being portrayed, not to mention at the thought of how far women have, and haven't, come.  And, for some reason, I kept thinking of my grandmother.  I'd never considered my grandmother to be remotely like Ann Richards before, but there was just something about the plain-spoken quality and the aura of love and fun that surrounded her (as so lovingly depicted by Taylor) that made me long for another conversation with my grandmother.  And when Ann had a phone conversation with her granddaughter?  I was gone.  :)

 

Holland Taylor has charm out the wazoo, and whether it's her own personal charisma or a manifestation of Richards', who cares.  She's really ridiculously good and commands the stage like nobody's business.  Holland Taylor AND Ann Richards are wonderful ladies to spend a couple of hours with.  Taylor has us completely in the palm of her hand for over two hours.  Before the show started, I saw in the Playbill that there would be an intermission.  I rather thought that a 90-minute intermissionless piece seemed better for this kind of bio-play, and I do still feel as if one act would've been enough, but I wasn't bored in the company of these ladies for one instant.  The audience burst into applause several times throughout the afternoon, I think both for the terrific things said by this feisty character, and to acknowledge the huge commitment by Holland Taylor to get this production on stage.  Thumbs up from me - it's a terrifically entertaining experience.  Whether or not it's a complete play, well, I guess that's not really for me to say...

 

Thoughts on The Lying Lesson

I believe I have mentioned before how much I enjoy Craig Lucas's work.  I find his plays to be deeply true, risky, a little magical, and totally original.  (full disclosure: I also know Craig a bit and think he's a wonderful person)  When I saw that the Atlantic Theatre Company was presenting his new play, The Lying Lesson, I knew I had to be there. 

The show doesn't open until next week, and I think Craig is still tweaking, so I'll just offer a few thoughts.  The play is a two-hander, set in the early 80s, in a house in Maine.  An older woman has come to buy the house, because she has fond memories of the area, and she meets a younger gal who says she's the caretaker of the house.  It turns out the older woman is Bette Davis.  The rest, as they say, could be a spoiler.

The things the play delves into - the lies we tell ourselves, the need to connect, memory, illusion - are all very lovely.  The way the truth-telling and the lying all sort of spin in on themselves is very intriguing.  Of course, using some Bette Davis-type quips are also very funny and Craig, as always, has a gorgeous way with dialogue.  But I'll admit I didn't get as much out of the evening as I would've liked...

Carol Kane plays Bette Davis and I think she's still trying to get a handle on things.  Admittedly, it's a big ask.  It's sort of astounding how much she looks like Bette Davis, and at times, she is simply spectacular - there are moments that resonate beautifully.  But she also seemed to struggle at times, and was perhaps working her way in through the stereotypical Bette Davis 'character.'  When she simply relaxed and interacted, it was great.  Other moments, especially at the top of the show, were much rougher and it made it hard to engage in the play itself.

Mickey Sumner played the other gal - hey, she's Sting's daughter!   I had no idea!  I was doing a little Googling and found that out this morning.  Not that it means anything.  But I was wracking my brain last night, trying to figure out who she reminded me of.  Mystery solved.  Anyway, she was quite good, and very appealing, though I think it was hard for her while Carol was in her own bubble.  I think I'll need to go back later in the run and see how their chemistry has grown, because there definitely was some brewing here and there.  I think seeing the hints of something great just frustrated me.  But I was never bored and I would love to see everything come together.

I will say that many of my seat neighbors did not share my optimism.  Several people around me left, though, of course, not the gent next to me who perhaps should've edited his cologne usage before he left the house.  And the young 'uns in front of me kept their phones on entirely too long in the second act.  But, hey, it's their loss if they couldn't see the good in the play.  Though, I admit it - I'm a Pollyanna when it comes to Craig Lucas.  So take everything I say with a grain of salt.  As usual.  ;)

Thoughts on Hands on a Hardbody

I was very grateful to receive a comp to last night's preview performance of Hands on a Hardbody.  Since it's so early in previews, I'm sure there are a lot of changes being made, so I'll only mention a few thoughts.  I definitely want to go back, once the show has opened, to see how the production has changed (if it does), so I think that's a good sign.  :)
I knew the musical was based on a documentary, but I've never seen the documentary and I didn't know how it played out.  I also knew the music was composed by Trey Anastasio of Phish, but I don't really know Phish music, so I went into the show pretty blind.  Though I'm already a big fan of bookwriter Doug Wright and lyricist Amanda Green.

Having said all that, I enjoyed myself at Hands on a Hardbody.  I do think the musical is inherently a tough nut to crack, since the action is basically static.  The fact that the show works at all is kind of a miracle.  The characters are all trying to win a truck by keeping their hands on it.  Whoever can keep their hand on the truck the longest is the winner, so we're basically just watching people standing around a truck.  Happily, interesting staging, especially when moving the truck around, helps keep things moving.  Plus, I became very engaged in these characters, so that kept me interested as well.  I felt like I knew these people and I really became invested in who would win the truck.

I'll admit, though, it was a little strange listening to everyone sing their "I Want" song, since we already know what they want - the truck.  So the songs become "Why I Want" songs, which are fine (and some were quite moving), but also became a tad repetitive.  Though the music and lyrics throughout are really good, a lot of the songs were internally too long, in my opinion.  I got the point of several of the character songs well before they finished.

The actors are all terrific, with a special shout out to Hunter Foster, Keith Carradine and Keala Settle.  The bluesy-country-folky-rock music was great (I'll definitely be buying the cast album), and it was nice seeing a show about all different classes of people, and each character was written with respect.  There were a couple of plot points which felt rushed to me, but I can understand why they're in there.  All in all, I guess the show feels a little too long to me at the moment, but I'm sure things will tighten up as previews continue.  But there's a strong core and excellent work happening already.  I look forward to going back...