Review - The River

Thanks to Santa, I was able to get a ticket to see Jez Butterworth's new play, The River, at Circle in the Square.  I adored Butterworth's last play on Broadway, Jerusalem, so I was eager to see his new work.  And, oh, ok, I wanted to see it because it stars Hugh Jackman.  Shoot me.  I love me some Hugh Jackman!  Of course, since he's the star, tickets have been scarce, but I was lucky to get a ticket for under $100 using some "fun money" my mom gave me at Christmas.  My parents are the best.  There are cheaper tickets to be had, but the seating locations are on benches, or via standing room.  I'm happy to have spent the extra money for a real seat.

First, a little trip down Circle in the Square Memory Lane:  whenever I go there, I think of when I went to see the revival of Sweeney Todd that played there in 1989 - it was one of the first productions I saw when I moved to New York.  I think the order of my first shows was the Mandy Patinkin one-man show, Sweeney Todd, then Les Miserables.  In one weekend.  Anyway, it was intermission of Sweeney Todd and I went to look in the lobby at all of the production photos.  I saw pictures of the actor Philip Casnoff, who had so impressed me in a tv miniseries from earlier that year.  I was the only one looking at his photo (most people were congregated near photos of Al Pacino and/or Kevin Kline), when I noticed someone standing next to me, very close.  I turned to look and it was...Philip Casnoff.  Gulp.  When I say that normally I have no problem speaking to people and telling them how much I enjoy their work, believe me.  For some unknown reason, I was made speechless by him.  I just kinda croaked noises, stood there with my mouth hanging open, and stared at him (he's devastatingly handsome in person, btw).  After a few seconds, he just smiled, said 'thank you' and walked away.  I think about that goofy little story every time I go to Circle in the Square; it makes me smile.

Anyway.  Moving on.  Somewhere, in the back of my mind, I thought that I would be seeing The River, so I decided not to read any of the reviews.  I had a vague notion that the show was a bit mysterious and I didn't want any spoilers before going.  I'm glad I did that because I think going in with no expectations is the way to watch the show.  You can't really project anything if you have no idea what is to come.  At least I don't think you can.  I guess maybe I projected that I loved Butterworth's use of language and myth and mythology in Jerusalem, so I hoped that would be a part of The River, too.  It was, but on a much smaller scale.

Nearly everything I say from here could be considered a spoiler.  I strongly advise you to stop reading if you plan to see The River.  Strongly.  OK.  Here come the spoilers.  You have been warned...



Photo credit: Richard Termine

The River takes place in a cabin in the woods, near a fishing stream.  We hear strains of a woman singing (I later discovered that the song lyrics are actually from a poem by Yeats; we hear it in the play at least three times.  I have read the poem several times since.  Perhaps it holds the key), then we see a woman in the cabin.  Hugh Jackman's character comes in, trying to find all of his fishing accessories.  She wants him to look at the sunset, he wants to find his fishing gear.  We're suddenly in a couple's small squabble - it seems as if this couple is in the early stages of their relationship.  They are referred to as The Man and The Woman, so immediately you start to wonder if they're supposed to be types or representatives of all relationships, or if the play is going to try to obtain that mythic status employed in Jerusalem.

After that first scene, when the couple goes out of the cabin, presumably to fish, the lights go down and the next scene has The Man rushing in to call the police because he can't find his girlfriend.  The lights are dim and you start to feel a gnawing feeling of menace and/or danger.  Then his ladyfriend shouts out she's coming back in.  The Man is so relieved.  But now we see a different actress, known as The Other Woman.  OK, wait, so now what's going on?  Did he get rid of the first woman?  Is this another weekend?  The same weekend?  What's real here?  Many many questions start to swirl through my mind.

As you may gather, The River is not a conventional piece at all.  It's rather a riddle and a mystery - you're never entirely sure what is taking place and when.  It was always compelling, with gorgeous dialogue and wonderful imagery, but it was also a little distancing and puzzling.  I admit to having a wandering mind a couple of fleeting moments.  There are gorgeous speeches that make you think, 'aha, that's wher the play is going!', but then you see the same scene done over again with a different actress and your certainty flies out the window.  I'm wondering if the confusion is deliberate on the author's part, always keeping the audience guessing and unsettled.  I'm not quite sure what happened in this play, or what was supposed to happen, or how I was supposed to feel by it, but I was also completely intrigued and totally engaged (nearly) the entire time.  I mean, I have my IDEA about what the play is about, but I could be wrong.

Photo credit: Sara Krulwich

Hugh Jackman was terrific.  He's so strong and secure as a performer, yet, as a character, he was also quite introspective and sad.  But there was always the thread of something else under what he was saying.  I was quite off kilter throughout, never actually knowing if he was just a misunderstood sad sack, or someone more sinister.  And I don't think I was supposed to know.  But he's always so real and connected.  I found the ladies to be a little more actor-y, but I guess in the conceit of the play, that approach works. 

The staging is very good, it's directed in a very smart, taut way.  The stage design is also very good, especially for having to work in such a confined space.  It added to the claustrophobic feel of the evening.  The lighting was dim throughout and the original score was quite eerie, but not scary, if that makes sense.  It all added up to a very moody, interesting piece.  Though, I will say, that I was frustrated by not seeing what Hugh Jackman's character was doing in the very last moments of the play - he was sitting at a desk, with his back to me, and I couldn't see what was going on.  I have an idea of what I imagined he was doing, but since none of the critics have mentioned it in their reviews, I think I may have been seeing things.  But may I just say that if he WAS doing what I imagined he was doing, my opinion of the play could be totally different...

The audience seemed quite engaged - there was a lot of humor mixed in with the drama, and we were all happy to laugh to release some tension.  But there was also a lot of coughing throughout, which can indicate that some people were getting restless.  At one point, it was like an outbreak of whooping cough swept across the audience.  That was annoying.  And, in the ladies room after the show, one woman shouted "Does anyone know what just happened in there?!  What was the play about?!"  So I'm guessing more people were just as confused as I was, but they might not have been so engrossed by it.  No problem with that. 

I definitely think The River is worth seeing - Hugh Jackman is giving a grand performance and I appreciate his taking on a role in a new play; it might not have found such a large audience otherwise, the success of Jerusalem aside.  I like the journeys Jez Butterworth takes me on and I look forward to the next one.  Maybe a little less puzzlement would be good next time, though.  Of course, I should talk.  I'm trying so hard not to give anything away that this review is probably as mysterious as the play.  Well, if you want more details, just let me know and I'll try to corral my ideas into something coherent.  "Try" being the operative word...