Sunday, March 23, 2008

Is It Better to Be Challenged than to Be Entertained?: Trip to Bountiful at the Goodman Theater versus Funny Games

A Trip To Bountiful Funny Games
Yesterday I performed a sort of Brechtian exercise, the cultural equivalent of traveling from the beaches of southern France to a concentration camp. After seeing The Trip to Bountiful at the Goodman, a pleasant if rather bland play, I went to see one of the more jarring American movies of the past 3 years, Michael Haneke's Funny Games. Those who know me shouldn't be too surprised that I found the latter experience more worthwhile.

The Trip to Bountiful can be seen as pretty much the polar opposite of the Goodman's King Lear of a couple of years ago, a production that incidentally had a lot in common with Funny Games. While that King Lear was a challenging, thoroughly draining experience that no doubt angered some of the Goodman's more conservative subscribers, The Trip to Bountiful, as part of the Goodman's year-long Horton Foote series, is a much safer, accessible work for the blue-haired, Tuesdays with Morrie-reading crowd, with just enough literary significance to satisfy the culture vultures. Foote is something of a southern answer to Neil Simon, a populist playwright who is delicate enough to gain minor dramatic significance with a much more significant dent at the box office. Foote's relationship to Simon can be seen as a sort of parallel to Tennessee Williams' relationship to Arthur Miller.

That makes him ideal for a season-long series at one of the more prominent theater companies in the Midwest, but it also results in a less challenging show than we've seen from the Goodman of late. It doesn't help that The Trip to Bountiful, even as one of Foote's more recognized plays, is rather dull and dated (I also made the mistake of seeing it in a Saturday matinee, complete with elderly who don't seem to realize that you have to be quiet when actors are speaking). It's a play about an old lady rediscovering her country roots while escaping from the hustle and bustle of city life, a theme that was perhaps less played out in 1953 than in 2008. With a few notable exceptions (Lois Smith as the lead Carrie Watts has truly made the role her own), the performances are rather lackluster as well. The only other standout element of the show, David Cosler's excellent set design, is marred by transitions that tended to be extremely awkward. It's not a particularly bad show, it's just rather insubstantial, and it unfortunately casts doubt onto whether Foote needed a season-long tribute.

The audience interested in Bountiful is the opposite of those who would be interested in Funny Games, a shot-for-shot remake of Michael Haneke's 1997 film by the director himself, this time with a fully Americanized production. I have not seen the original, but based on chronology alone, the critique of American film violence poised by Funny Games has only become more relevant with the rise of the Saw/Hostel-style torture porn. Few films intrigued me more going into early 2008, and the initial critical response, as expected, was strongly divided. Few disagreed on the film's intentions, an exercise in draining all the entertainment from film violence and putting the onus directly on the audience as to whether to make it through the whole film. What has been heavily debated is whether the film successfully executes its premise, or whether it engages in the kind of sadism it intends to criticize.

Based on some of the negative reviews I read, I expected a lot more gore and violence than was actually in the film. Most of the violence is off-screen, and while there's certainly blood, stabbings and gunshots, there's no moments where the violence itself actually makes you cringe. While the film is certainly sadistic, I find the lack of gore to be the main reason why the sadism works for its intended purposes. It doesn't let violence be a thrill on its own, and focuses mainly on the repercussions of violence. The film is about 60% of Tim Roth, Naomi Watts, and Devon Gearhart crying and desperately, pathetically trying to find a way out of the situation. And unlike in Saw and Hostel, the film makes no argument for such a thing being entertaining. In the end, we're not rooting for the family to live, as Michael Pitt's torturous Paul poses to the audience early on, but we're rooting for them to die, quickly and painlessly, so we can get out of the theater and get as far away from this film as possible.

A key addition to this version of the film is an extension of the critique to our casual love of cinematic sexuality. There's a particularly disturbing seen in which Naomi Watts has to strip in front of her torturers, and she spends a significant portion of the film in her panties. In terms of performances, no one acts trauma quite like Watts (Estelle Parsons' Oscar-winning turn in Bonnie and Clyde seems childish by comparison), and Tim Roth, while somewhat underutilized, still performs excellently as the sad-sack "pussy husband."

I'm not surprised at all that the film has been a box office failure so far, and I'd actually be quite concerned if it was a hit. But by making American film audiences address their love of violence in a form as distorted as Funny Games, Haneke has without a doubt created the most important film so far in 2008, a film that's essential viewing for anyone with a stance on modern film violence, pro or con.

Relevant Links:
-For an excellent article on Naomi Watt's take on Funny Games, here's an interview with the London Times
-Pat Graham at the Reader's movie blog makes an excellent, and dead-on comparison between Funny Games and No Country For Old Men, arguing that Funny Games has the same idea as No Country taken to its natural extreme.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 26, 2008

My Maroon Review of Shining City at the Goodman

Published here. Chicago finally has a taste of the Irish drama that New York and London have loved for years now.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

A Review of the Goodman's Production of August Wilson's "Radio Golf"

"Wilson's last play shoots straight into the bunker"
Published in the Chicago Maroon on January 26, 2007

Too much of the praise of August Wilson is based on the fact that he wrote a play about the black experience for each decade of the 20th century. Not enough of the praise discusses the uncanny ear for the spoken word, fully realized characters, and flawless ability to weave the real with the spiritual that made Wilson one of the most accomplished American playwrights, black or white, of the past half century. Composed before his death at age 60, Wilson’s final play, Radio Golf, premiered Tuesday at the Goodman Theatre, the only American company to have produced all 10 of his plays. With its season pitched as “Celebrating August Wilson,” the environment was so commemorative that it would make any critic feel uncomfortable about fairly addressing the production at hand. Maybe that was intentional because there’s no way of hiding the fact that Radio Golf is an absolute train wreck.

There were signs that this was coming. In The New Yorker’s review of the play’s New Haven premiere in May 2005, John Lahr commented, “By the time Radio Golf makes it through one or two more productions, if he’s true to form, Wilson will have discovered his play; it will be more focused, more poetic, leaner, and more fun.” Three months later, Wilson announced he had liver cancer; two months after that, he was dead. As a result, the perfectionist Wilson was unable to fine-tune the play, and consequently, Radio Golf accomplishes none of the goals Lahr hoped it would.

Radio Golf , the 1990s chapter of the Wilson saga, features characters unfamiliar to past Wilson plays. Instead of hard-working, embittered have-nots, we get a couple of haves. The play centers around Harmond Wilks, a black entrepreneur born into wealth who, with mayoral aspirations, has plans to revitalize Pittsburgh’s decrepit Hill district with the help of Starbucks, Whole Foods, and Barnes & Noble. He and his business partner, Roosevelt Hicks, play golf, and Harmond’s wife, Mame, is up for a position in the governor’s office.

The only thing holding back the operation is a crazed old man named Elder Joseph Barlow, who claims ownership of the run-down 1839 Wylie Avenue that is about to be demolished for the new apartment complex. As Barlow’s claim increasingly gains legitimacy, Harmond is faced with a political and ethical decision he does not initially see coming.

Wilson’s greatest strength was his impeccably precise dialogue. Although some clumsy phrases appear in the first act, Wilson’s intermittently brutal and hilarious dialogue throughout the first act enhances a building plot, and by intermission, the play leaves a lot of hope for a gripping conclusion.

Unfortunately, the play collapses so disastrously in the second act that it’s almost painful to watch. The main problem stems from Harmond’s maniacal decision to attempt to save the house and ruin his career. Although such a decision may be in line with the spiritualism of Wilson’s past works, it feels entirely out of place in a play set in the ’90s.

In the past, Wilson possessed a remarkable ability to understand the strengths and weaknesses of his characters. It’s depressing, then, to see him misjudge his characters to such a degree. It’s not only Harmond, as Roosevelt inexplicably turns from an ambitious right-hand man to a racist robber baron, and Mame decides to leave Harmond, then to stay with him, then to leave him again without reason over the course of one monologue. Add that factor to that the fact that the play languishes about 45 minutes too long, and we’ve got a bona fide flop on our hands.

It may seem fair to give Radio Golf the same treatment as Eyes Wide Shut and attribute the work’s faults to the creator’s death before the its completion. However, as much as it pains me to say it, I’m not sure if even Wilson could have saved Radio Golf. Wilson’s ability to find a spiritual realm in American life seems out of date, as there’s not much mysticism in the corporate America of 1997. Aunt Esther, the lynchpin of Wilson’s vision for the cultural folklore of African Americans, died in the 1980s (see King Hedley II). The Goodman’s bulletin says that one of the aims of the play was to show how Harmond and Roosevelt struggle with the lack of a sense of African tradition. Yet, by the end of Radio Golf, the play seems less like the work of a lost heritage and more like the work of a playwright who has run out of ideas.

Regardless of the quality of the play, however, it would be irresponsible for a theater company like the Goodman to forgo the completion of Wilson’s cycle if given the opportunity. Thus, director Kenny Leon was put in the impossible position of celebrating the career of a fantastic playwright with the playwright’s weakest work.

Not surprisingly, the brightest spot in the cast is Anthony Chisholm as Barlow, the character most in tune with Wilson’s strengths. Hassan El-Amin tries his hardest to make his character believable, but as with the rest of those working on the production, his best effort is not good enough to salvage the play. In terms of effort, the one exception has to be Michole Briana White as Mame; White’s robotic motion and confused delivery was so amateurish, you had to wonder what that type of performance was doing at the Goodman.

While I’m sure it’s not what Wilson had in mind when writing Radio Golf, the story of a highly successful man with everything going for him who inexplicably gives everything away seems, in retrospect, a bit autobiographical. It’s a shame that such a remarkable career–one of the best American drama has ever seen–should leave such a bitter taste in our mouths.

Labels: , , ,