JAW at Portland Center Stage
July 17, 2007
Stunning. Complex time- and character-bending narrative of 70 minutes before a Presidential acceptance speech. Activist, political theatre that asks, challenges, exposes. The HOW (form) as intriguing as the WHAT (content). We left with questions, lines, implications echoing. Truly inspiring. This important, original Portland voice feels ready for any national stage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
There was a lot here that caught my attention, though "form" intrigued me more than the "what." The strands of time wove together in a single, tightly woven dramatic action. The gay love story I found touching and heartbreaking, but the political dimension of the play felt stale. I'm not entirely sure what the theme is. If it is a varient of "power corrupts," it doesn't interest me so much. If it's more along the lines of, "living with the hatred of homophobia directed at you all the time will drive you crazy," I'm more intrigued. There's something powerful and true in exposing how bigotry will 'drive you crazy,' and I'm not sure it's addressed that often. It's a fresh theme, potentially.
The cast was terrific all around.
The cast was indeed amazing all around, especially Jan Powell as the Lady Macbeth with a heart of tarnished gold. Funny, I had the reverse reaction to David's. The gay love angle was okay, but the political dimension of the ends justifying the means felt trenchant and current to me.
Anyway, an exciting and unusual night at the theater.
I must have been in a different room than you people. Mind-numbing and self-serving dialogue, no action, completely over-played performance by Jan Powell, Gary Norman giving very little to work with. I want my hour and a half back.
Repetitive! and indulgent. Both the reading and the talkback made it clear that this writer thinks he is making a political statement, but exploiting trendy issues is not the same as creating political theatre.
That said, a couple of the actors were magnificent.
An incredible example of skillful writing at its best. I haven't enjoyed watching a new play this much in a good many years. And those actors. Wow!
Wow! ...And that's the beauty of live theater. Such diverse reactions. And reaction is certainly what one wants as a writer.
Self-serving, pompous and indulgent is what comes to mind. I agree completely- overplayed. "National Stage?" really? It would be exposed rather quickly for what it is...flimsy, self-important and preachy.
Correction: I made a typo in my previous posting saying "Gary Norman giving very little to work with". Should have said "GIVEN very little to work with." I meant no disparagement to Gary.
The difference in opinion floors me. This play is certainly one of the most sophisticated pieces of writing to emerge from anything at JAW in a long time. The content may not be everyone's cup of tea, but the talent displayed seems beyond debate. Shame it had to be shoved in the basement. Maybe the main stage plays will be good too this year. One can hope. And uh...how is this play "self serving?" It's a story. The writer told it. Unless you're psychic, how would you know WHAT serves this playwright?
It seems to me, Anonymous 7/20/2007 11:49:00 PM, that no one is debating the content whatsoever. What is being discussed is the quality of the writing and storytelling. I didn't care one bit about any of these characters because all of them (Kurt's excluded) annoyed the shit out of me with their self-righteousness. It was difficult to even get to the content when I felt neither empathy nor sympathy with these people. This is just assuming that Matt wants to stir debate about homophobia or hate crimes or political hypocracy (to be honest I couldn't tell you what the play is ultimately about), but the air of superiority that gushed from these characters was a big frikkin' turn-off. I don't want to be preached to from a pedestal and that's exactly what it felt like was happening to me.
Exactly right. The whole thing oozed a sense of superiority. All I can say about the "content" was that there was a lot less of it, and it was much less political, than the writer apparently believed. Even the written questionaire for comments said something like, "were you put off by the POLITICAL NATURE of this piece?" If only.
As for this: "the talent displayed seems beyond debate," uh, really? Beyond debate? I guess those of us who found the writing clunky and gimmicky should just shut up then?
Thank you. Exactly what I was saying-- The Book of John was a much more politically charged and deftly written piece. The politics of the piece were weaved seemlessly into the fabric of the relationships our "hero" John had with his fellow human beings. You didn't know that the writer was "saying something" until after you reflected upon the power of the relationships she had created. She didn't try to wow us with her HUGE BRAIN she told us a simple story about people and in the process maybe opened our eyes- if only a smidge. I look forward to the work on the mainstage today!
I wonder if the content makes the play most suitable for a particular audience. Maybe it doesn't have wide appeal due to the subject matter. As a gay man who has delved deeply into queer politics, I found this play to nail the issues. And I found the characters to be spot on. There's always great debate on how to progress gay rights, and these two characters could easily have been real people I've dealt with in various campaigns. Do they get self righteous? Yes. And that's accurate. More than the issues though, I found the heart of these characters captivating. I found their psychology thrilling. I was also engaged every second of the way, because of Zrebski's storytelling techniques. The play seems meant for the theatre and not television or film. I would like more clarity on the ending. I hope he will address that. One thing for sure, I've been an audience member around JAW all week, and this play is getting a lot of attention and discussion. That's pretty darn cool.
Post a Comment