Transcript Hansberry

A Raisin in the Sun (1959)
by
Lorraine Hansberry (1930-1965)
Part I and II of II
Langston Hughes’s “Dream Deferred”
Intertextuality
Talking Points
Dream Deferred
What happens to a dream
deferred?
Does it dry up
Like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore-And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over-like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
1)
Would you characterize Hughes poem as more
of a meditation than a stringent warning or vice
versa? Either way, is Hansberry’s project in-line
with that of Hughes’s poems?
2)
Why do you think Hansberry chose a title for her
play that would (almost automatically) make an
inter-textual reference to Hughes’s poem? In
other words, what purpose(s) are served by this
intertextuality?
3)
There are many deferred dreams in A Raisin in
the Sun? Name (at least) one deferred dream
for each of the play’s character and one dream
deferred that all the characters share and/or
realize? Which dry up? Which fester? Which
stink like rotten meat? Which sag like heavy
loads? Which ones explode and how would you
characterize the aftermath of the explosion?
How does pride, dignity, and self-worth play into
all of this?
The Genre and Theatrical Conventions of
A Raisin in the Sun
MARXIST SOCIAL REALISM
Maxim Gorky (1869-1936)--the originator
John Reed (1987-1920)--the American Marxist
Missionary
Social Realism developed as a reaction against the philosophical vogue of German
idealism and the literary vogue of French Romanticism.
As the harmful consequences of the Industrial Revolution became increasingly
apparent; urban centers grew, and slums proliferated on a new (never before
seen) scale contrasting with the display of wealth of the upper classes.
With a new sense of social consciousness, the Social Realists pledged to “fight the
beautiful art” with any style which appealed to the eye or emotions. They tended,
though, to focus on the ugly realities of contemporary life and sympathized with
working-class people, particularly the poor. They professed to record what they
saw (“as it existed”) in a dispassionate manner. Richard Wright’s NATIVE SON is
perhaps the most well known example of African American Marxist Social Realism,
but Hansberry’s play runs, arguably, a close second.
Domestic Drama and Socialist Realism
•
•
•
•
Nineteenth century drama took the complete step in
incorporating realism into drama, thus resulting in more
serious and philosophical drama. Characters and settings
gradually developed into the realistic truths of the current
society. Along with realism was naturalism or “selective
realism emphasizing the more sordid and pessimistic
aspects of life.”
The twentieth century introduced symbolism into the
makings of domestic dramas, ultimately causing
variations within domestic drama. Early twentieth
century shows incorporated minimal scenery, telegraphic
dialogue, talking machines, and characters portrayed as
types rather than individuals. Domestic drama suddenly
became a combination of naturalism, expressionism,
symbolism, and commonly treated psychological affairs.
Modern dramas usually revolve around psychological,
social, or political affairs, all of which seem to have their
roots in domestic drama. Using ita interpretive ideas,
such as “distinctive voice and vision,” stark settings,
austere language in spare dialog, meaningful silences, the
projection of a powerful streak of menace, and outbursts
of real or implied violence.
Domestic drama also carries the implications of current
affairs with society: such as civil rights, feminism and
current political and sociological disputes.
Talking Points
1)
How does A Raisin in the Sun (or the
film A Raisin in the Sun) conform to
the tenets of the domestic drama, and
in what significant ways does it depart
from them?
2)
Is A Raisin in the Sun a “pessimistic
play”? If so, why? If not, why?
3)
If domestic drama is typically invested
in “psychological affairs,” what
“psychological affairs” are Hansberry’s
focal points. Are they uniquely African
American? If so, how and why is that
the case?
4)
What social and political affairs are at
stake besides integration in A Raisin
in The Sun? (Think about black
nationalism, internationalism. Local
politics in Chicago, etc.)
Lorraine Hansberry: Playwright, Social Agitator, and the Radical You Never Knew
“All art is Ultimately Social: that which agitates and that which prepares the mind for
slumber”
1)
2)
Born in 1930 in Chicago
W.E.B. Du Bois, Paul Robeson, Langston Hughes, Duke Ellington, and others were
frequent visitors in her childhood home.
3)
In her early 20’s, Hansberry was a leader of the Communist Youth Movement.
4)
As a child, her family moves to an all-white suburb in Chicago: a “hellishly hostile
white neighborhood.” Her father’s refusal to vacate the Washington Park
Subdivision of the South Side of Chicago led to a key victory in the Civil Rights
Movement when the Supreme Court found in his favor (Lee vs. Hansberry)
5)
1948- Attends University of Wisconsin at Madison and becomes active in various
incarnations of Communist youth groups
6)
At the New School, Hansberry takes a class from Du Bois on colonialism.
7)
1959 “A Raisin in the Sun” opens in Philadelphia
8)
The play runs 530 time on Broadway
9)
It is the most successful play written, to date, by an African American and the first
play written by an African American woman to appear on Broadway
10)
Joins the Daughters of Bilitis in 1957 (the nation’s first lesbian organization) and also
advocates for abortion rights and an independent Africa
11)
She dies, quite young, in 1965.
Other Works
1)
The Drinking Gourd (1960)
2)
The Movement: Documentary of a Struggle for Equality (1964)
3)
The Sign in Sidney Brustein’s Window (1965)
4)
To Be Young, Gifted, and Black: Lorraine Hansberry in Her Own Words (1969)
The Play‘s Key Themes and Symbols
Themes
1)
Black Masculinity and Black Femininity
2)
Capitalism, Labor, Acute Ghettoitis, Marxism, and the American Dream
3)
Pan-Africanism , Atavistic Primitvism, and Black Nationalism
4)
The Obligation for Self-Fulfillment and its balance with the Obligation to Support Family and Race
(Communal-Fulfillment): The Inter-generational tranfer of wealth and value
5)
Matriarchy and the role its plays in a unique and perhaps dangerous African American Christianity
6)
Assimilation, Radicalism, and their relationship to Heritage
7)
Independence and Pride v.s. Communal Indebtedness
8)
Self-Expression and Self-Realization v.s. Communal-Expression and Self-Realization
9)
Inter-generational transfer of wealth/value(s) and Continuity
10) Mental and physical migrations
11) The Black Family as both Patriarchal and Matriarchal
12) Self-Expression v.s. Communal-Expression
13) Chicago as National Microcosm
Realist symbols
1)
Rats. (The rat trap and the toothless rat) What other famous portrait of the racist machinery of Chicago
real-estate invoke?
2)
Lena’s plant: a little too obvious?
3)
Sunlight
4)
Clothing
5)
Hair
6)
Light
7)
Dreams
Masculinity, Emasculation, and Performing the Feminine
and
Reading “Playing” in Plays
Talking Points
1)
What are the multiple resonances,
with respect to the Black
Matriarchal family, of Walter Lee’s
assumption that Mama will listen
to Ruth about the store but not
him?
2)
Notice that Hansberry has inserted
the stage direction (Ignoring her)
before Walter Lee launches into
his “loudmouth” rant about
needing to be backed up by a
woman. What are the multiple
ironies at work here?
3)
Walter, in essence, plays Ruth in
this scene, assuming his
performance (were he Ruth) would
convince Mama to allow him to
invest? What does his
performance (given the fact that,
later, Ruth does ask and Mama
still says no) suggest about how
he feels about them and where
they should be positioned both in
society and within the family?
4)
Walter buys into a version of the
American dream that accepts
corruption as a given. Success, in
other words, is generally a product
of crime? What economic critique
is Hansberry leveling with this
detail?
5)
Eat you eggs! Emasculation,
Empowerment, reproduction,
abortion.
Talking Points
Capitalism, Labor, and Leisure
Reading Telling Contradictions
1)
Ruth tells Mama of Walter’s desire and
feelings about investment and
advancement with particular respect to
“colored people”? She also relates
that this necessitates, in Walter’s eyes,
a gamble. Consider the American
dream and the myth of Horatio Alger?
What commentary is Hansberry
making about labor on the one hand,
and “owners” (investors) on the other?
If the owners are gamblers are they
really living out the American dream?
If not, what are they doing?
2)
Mama makes a distinction here
between business people and plain
working folks. In the end, her
statement turns out to be true. What
might Hansberry be trying to suggest
(given the totality of events) about
labor and economics in this play?
3)
The “color line” asserts itself into a
conversation about labor in a very
intriguing way here. How do Mama’s
flu remarks speak to the theme of
assimilation at work in the play?
4)
Consider Ruth’s suggestion. For her,
wealth is leisure (potentially) here.
What commentary is Hannsberry
making about wealth (with respect to
labor and leisure) with this line?
5)
Think of two ways to play mama’s line
10,000 dollars. What dramatically
different suggestions could the actor
make?
Pan-African Solidarity, Atavistic Primitivism,
and the Possibility of Black Nationalism
Reading WTF? Moments
“OCOMOGOSIAY!” is a Yoruban chant
that “welcomes the hunters back to the
village."
"Owimoweh" is the title of a Yoruban
chant, referring to the waking of the
lion.
Talking Points
1)
How do Walter’s and Beneatha’s actions in
this scene speak to heritage, and how do
they manifest atavistic primitivism? What
is Hansberry trying to suggest with all of
this?
2)
Notice that the stage directions repeatedly
point to “things we cannot see” and lighting
that suggests Walters imagination, Also
notice that when this happens, the stage
directions tell us the “inner Walter is
speaking; the Southside chauffeur has
assumed an unexpected majesty” In what
way is Hansberry sly distancing herself
from iterations of atavistic primitivism and
to what ends? In other words, what is this
inner an atavistic construct?
3)
George brings matter to an abrupt halt
here. How does his rejection of Walter’s
brotherhood speak to Hansberry’s
messages about black nationalism and
and internationalism? (Keep in mind that
George is a rich shmuck.)
5)
Why a record? Why not just drumming?
What is Hansberry suggesting about the
possibilities pitfallls and successful modus
operandi of Du Boisian Pan-Africanism
with all of this?
Inter-generational Transfer of Value(s)
Talking Points
1)
Walter Lee has grown-up with his “face pressed
against the glass” (as we see in his monologue).
Mama, on the other hand, grew up in an
environment of racial terrorism (left the South)
and seems, at times, all too content with her lot.
How might proximity to wealth/leisure help to
account for the thing that’s “changed” which
Mama so laments?
2)
Consider the multiple ironies of the line “Once
upon a time freedom used to be life--now it’s
money.” How do these ironies (or do they)
support Walter’s notion that it was “always
money, Mama. We just didn’t know about it.”?
3)
Walter is certain Ruth would never consider an
abortion, and Mama is immediately suspicious
(in this sense Walter can be said to have
internalized his parents’ professed values more
fully than they have). Mama does not condemn
Lena, though, for what might happen. Instead,
she blames Walter for not doing more to stop
her, calling him a disgrace to his father’s
memory. Why does Walter remain silent? How
does his silence actually complicate Mama’s
statement? (Keep in mind Walter Lee’s father’s
motto about dreams and children) How does
this help us to recontextualize Walter’s silence?
4)
If Walter is a disgrace to a memory, what
memory is he disgracing? How might not
pursuing economic success also be a betrayal of
not only his father’s memories, but of his father’s
dreams?
Talking Points
“In my mother’s house…”
Close Reading More Inter-textuality
John 14:2
In my Father's house are
many mansions: if it
were not so, I would
have told you. I go to
prepare a place for you.
Mathew 5:38-42
Ye have heard that it
hath been said, An eye
for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth: But I say
unto you, That ye resist
not evil: but whosoever
shall smite thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him
the other also. And if any
man will sue thee at the
law, and take away thy
coat, let him have thy
cloak also. And
whosoever shall compel
thee to go a mile, go
with him twain. Give to
him that asketh thee,
and from him that would
borrow of thee turn not
thou away.
1)
In light of Matthew’s Gospel-clearly invoked and inverted
with the line “In my mother’s
house”--how in Beneatha
more “Christian” than her
mother in this scene?
2)
Keep in mind the following: A)
The Father’s house has many
mansions. B) The Younger
apartment is a rat-trap. C)
The new Younger home--the
mansion mama has prepared
for her children-- we know, will
be a type of hell. In light of all
this, how is Hansberry
positioning Beneatha’s Marxist
vision of religion? How does
this positioning (when
considered in light of Mama’s
rather non-Christian
“conversion”) make us think of
Mama (or more specifically
Mama’s religion) differently?
How does Mama’s decision to
hand-over the head of the
household (and to leave the
house) impact your
interpretation of all this?
3)
Does Mama really have a
counter-argument here
besides violence? What does
that imply?
4)
Notice the tension and
echoing between the lines “I
don’t accept” and “we ain’t
gonna have.” How does it
speak to the play’s vexed
positioning of a mandate for
self-fulfillment and familial
indebtedness?
Talking Points
Resistance, Heritage, Assimilation
Reading Miscommunication and Contradiction
1)
Consider the ironic metatheatricality of George’s line (they
are in a play) as well as the
plethora of contradictions issuing
forth from him (e.g. “That’s what
being eccentric means--being
natural.” How does George’s
confused thinking bear witness to
Beneatha’s assertion that he is an
assimilationist Negro?
2)
Is there a similarity between the
fictional uncle “Uncle Tom” and
George the “fictional”
assimilationist? Are they not,
here, both fictions? Explore the
resonance of this question.
3)
Beneatha offers a “dictionary
definition” of assimilation straight
from the black-radical edition of
Websters. She then sets herself
apart from George by saying that
she, unlike him, embraces her
heritage? To what extent is
Beneatha full of “it”? Is she also
trying to assimilate? If so, how
so?
4)
Consider where Beneatha’a
knowledge of Africa comes from.
Is this the normal means by one
which establishes heritage? If
not, what is Hansberry trying to
suggest about the complex notion
of African-American heritage
here? (Don’t forget that
Beneatha, insofar as her family is
concerned, is rather close to
rejecting a heritage)
Talking Points
Home: Independence and Submission
Hansberry’s Micro and Macrocosmic
1)
Consider the first monologue on this page. How does
Asagai position death? Do you take his vision to be
“African” or something more? To what other kind of
thinking does Asagai’s monologue point and how might
he seen as a mouthpiece for Du Bois (who had, by this
time, become a Pan-Africanist socialist). How does his
demand for action from Beneatha figure into all of this?
2)
How does his request that Beneatha leave with him for
home complicate the notion of Asagai as “authentically
African” or Pan-Africanist?
3)
Asagai positions “home,” for Beneatha, as ancestral
origin. How does Mama’s earlier attempt to give
Asagai a “second home” (in combination with the fact
that Nigeria is NOT Beneatha’s home) frustrate the
discourse of lineage here? (Notice he even uses the
word “pretend”). How is Hansberry forcing the
audience to confront the idea that “going back home” is
not as easy as it seems and why is she doing it? How
does Asagai’s notion of a home in contant flux or
forward movement play a role in all of this (notice the
contradiction that arises in Asagai’s characterization of
Nigeria as a home of contant flux once he starts luring
Beneatha with mentions of “old songs”?
4)
Asagai has an “our people” and Beneatha, perhaps,
has two. How or are their two “our people” different?
5)
Asagai distances himself from Beneatha, arguably
belittling her as a young creature of the New World? Is
Asagai a creation of the New World? Why not?
6)
Asagai is rather aggressive and repressive in this
scene. He seems to almost want to capture Beneath.
What do you make of this? To what kind of PanAfricanism (that Du Bois’ rejected) point?
7)
Beneatha (a perhaps faux-”stand-in” for Hansberry
herself) seems to take all Asagai has to say as gospel.
Given all we’ve just discussed, what do you make of
her angry echoing of Asagai at Walter? Is she using
the term in the same way, in a different way, or both?
Explain.
Talking Points
Acting “Black” and
“Playing Black” in the Black Play
1)
Walter plays “darkie” in front his
family to Beneatha’s great shame.
Of course, here, Walter plays the
role to a hilt, but to what extent is
he simply dramatizing his every
day life (or what we know of it from
the play)?
2)
Is Walter playing at assimilation or
something else. If something else,
what?
3)
Once Walter acts-out a loss of race
pride, Beneatha delivers a heavily
charged line, “He’s no brother of
mine.” Explore the line’s multiple
resonances (noticing her later use
of the word “individual”) and those
of the phrase “a toothless ra”t?
4)
Why does Hansberry repeatedly
call attention to playing Black in a
Black play? What purposes are
served?
5)
How has death now come into the
house? How does this explain
why it didn’t when Walter’s father
died?
6)
Contrast Mama’s desires to “begin
again” with Asagai’s, Ruth’s,
Beneatha’s, and Lena’s desire to
move forward.
7)
Notice that Walter’s plan would
probably fulfill Beneatha’s dream
of becoming a doctor, but for her
the cost is to high? What is the
cost (or value lost)?
Pride, Manhood, Possession, ConclusionHope, Explosion, or Pessimism?
The Deceptively Simplicity of Socialist Realism
Talking Points
1)
Things come to a rapid climax
(thematic wise) on this page.
Once Walter is said to have found
his “manhood” and asserts his
pride, the family departs “my
mother’s house”? What are the
multiply implications of this
departure (which is, notably, a
prideful ascent and fall)?
2)
What do you make of the notion
that once Walter finds his pride,
Beneatha’s wish to marry and go
to Africa appears little more than
childish to the rest of her family?
3)
Decode the symbol of Mama’s
plant. Why is it of such
importance that she take it with
her? (Remember that her other
“harvest” constitutes her children)
How does (if it does) the Lord’s
mercy figure into all of this?
4)
We have already noted that this is
far from a “happy ending.” In light
of their ambiguous fates, recall
both the social realist dictate to
“record what they saw as it” and
the resonances and suggestive
powers of Hughes’s poem. Is a
similar effect produced here? If
so, what is it? In other words,
how is this play a cry of revolt, and
why is that cry never quite heard
(remember the constraints of form
here)?
Writing Reviews Lesson 2 AND 3
Writing a Theater Review:
Broad Aims
The Function Of Reviews And Reviewers
Published reviews vary a great deal. The best daily newspapers see the reviewer’s job as to report on a more or less important public activity, the
importance which – and the space given to that reporting – is often determined by such considerations as the volume of money spent
upon the productions reported upon or the perceived status of the production company. Most dailies, however, offer a simpler service (in
the form of a brief ‘taste test’) to the theatre goer who wants to know if the show is worth seeing. In more serious publications, a theatre
critic will have a wide-ranging knowledge of drama and the theatre, definite views about what is undesirable or desirable, and a sense of
the context in which the reviewed performance is taking place; he or she can take up more inclusive topics, going beyond the performance
on the night to a discussion of individual artists and their development, a particular style of production, company policies, theatre finance,
theatre in the community – and so on. Sample the reviewers and journals listed below.
The Broad Aims Of Reviewing
Two points need to be made at the beginning:
Firstly, there is no one review style or structure that suits all purposes (contrary to what many of you will have had drummed into you with the
VCE Drama ‘CATs’). Different kinds of plays and different kinds of productions naturally lead one to review them in different kinds of ways. It
is important to respond to the particular kind of experience provoked by a performance in a particular kind of way.
Secondly, reviews are often the raw material of theatre history; long after the play is out of print or its producing company has ceased to exist –
and long after a particular kind of fashion has passed – the printed reviews often remain as the only record of a performance. It is therefore
also important to report, as accurately as possible, the basic circumstances of the play, the production and the performance. In broad
terms, your reviews should:
1)Evoke (or give an accurate impression of) the performance for someone who has not been there;
2) Convey a considered personal judgment of the quality of the experience;
3) Where there is a text which you can be reasonably expected to read, or of which you can form a sufficient impression, consider how the text
wasinterpreted.
Writing a Theater Review
Specific Aims and Presentation
4. Specific Aims
Here are some questions which you will normally need to consider:
• What kind of play is it, and what is it about? It is usually necessary to provide a (very brief) summary of the main action – which does not
mean telling the whole story through all its windings.
• What is the style of performance? (Eg. Elaborate? Simple? Rough? Naturalistic? A mixture of styles?) As the play progresses your ability to
describe style more exactly will grow.
• What is the nature of the theatre experience? (Your own responses are crucial, but since theatre is a public event, you should notice how
others responded, the atmosphere of the evening, the social context and allied matters. Again, these vary widely.) Remember that the
purposes of the theatre are varied and so too are the expectations of audiences.
• How good is it? (Be careful to try to distinguish here between the text and the performance. This is sometimes very difficult, and only a rash
reviewer condemns a new play (for example) if there is a reason to suspect that the performance has done it less than justice. Cases vary:
you sometimes also see brilliant performances of unworthy material.)
• In thinking about any of these four questions you will need to describe aspects of the performance in detail.
In other words, back up your judgment with evidence from the play and the performance. Some topics you might treat are: acting,
direction, design, use of music and dance, special effects; imagery (in word and spectacle), grouping, pace and timing, atmosphere or
mood. Remember that these are only examples and not in all cases appropriate. In discussing any of these you should be as precise and
evocative as possible.
5. Presentation• Your reviews must be headed by the following information: title, author (and translator if appropriate), director, designer(s),
company, and venue.
• Length: about 1,000 words.
6. Reviewers and Journals You may like to read some examples of what professional reviewers do. Among the famous practitioners (in English)
were George Bernard Shaw, Max Beerbohm, Kenneth Tynan, Mary McCarthy and Walter Kerr. Reviews of varying quality can be read in the
local and national press; the Arts pages in The Australian give about as good a national summary of Australian theatre as we get at the
moment, while reviews in Real Time are more diverse.
7. Assessment
In assessing reviews, account is taken of your argument and critical response, your theatrical awareness and your presentation and expression.
Two points to note: reviews of plays and performances are typically written in the present tense and actors, directors etc are not referred
to by their first names.
The New York Times Typical Template for Theatre Reviews:
The 5 Components of 1000 words
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
The review begins by locating the event in such a manner as to lure the reader into a feeling that she/he is
experiencing the geist of the event (recording history while distorting it) while simultaneously letting the
reader “in on” the reviewer’s feelings about the play.
The reviewer then offer more concrete details via, usually, focusing on the director, composer, writer and
producer to relate the “who what where and when” while simultaneously performing two additional
functions: positioning these figures in terms of their own past production and good artistic production in
general, and hinting at whether or not they have lived up to their rep (whether good or bad). Here, her/his
strong opinion usually surfaces.
The review then typically, in the U.S., moves to an evaluation of the principal players that seems, at first, like
a telling of the tale (nothing is given away of course). How the tale is told (its use of irony, it’s tone), in turn,
further conveys the reviewers impression of the play. If the review is a “pan” the reviewer sometimes and
sometimes does not “trash” the performers for their performances, but more often the reviewer will be a
bit reserved in this respect, preferring instead to praise one actor (or element of the show) in her/his
concluding sentiments in order to implicitly “pan” the work of others.
The review will evaluate one or two production elements (usually the set designer lighting designer, except
with a musical (where the composer is almost always the member of the “team” singled out).
The review will forcefully, then, drive its evaluative point home.
In a condensed-telegraphic-small-font paragraph, most of the people involved in the production of the
show are mentioned but are not reviewed.
What’s the trick? Skillfully accomplishing parts of several steps in each step taken. In other words, the best
reviewers use, but manage to hide the template. No one is better at this then Ben Brantley.
As Good as It Gets?:
Ben Brantley Pans Addams Family
according to (while skillfully manipulating the template)
Buh-Da-Da-Dum (Snap Snap)
By Ben Brantley
Published: April 9, 2010
Buh-Da-Da-Dum (Snap Snap) 1, 369 “words”- PART I
Imagine, if you dare, the agonies of the talented people trapped inside the collapsing
tomb called “The Addams Family.” Being in this genuinely ghastly musical —
which opened Thursday night at the Lunt-Fontanne Theater and stars a
shamefully squandered Nathan Lane and Bebe Neuwirth— must feel like going
to a Halloween party in a strait-jacket or a suit of armor. Sure, you make a flashy
(if obvious) first impression. But then you’re stuck in the darn thing for the rest
of the night, and it’s really, really uncomfortable. Why, you can barely move,
and a strangled voice inside you keeps gasping, “He-e-e-lp! Get me out of here!
That silent scream rises like a baleful ectoplasm from a production that generally
offers little to shiver about, at least not in any pleasurable way. The satisfying
shiver, of course, was what was consistently elicited by the gleefully macabre
cartoons by Charles Addams that inspired this musical, as well as a 1960s
television series and two movies in the early 1990s. It’s a rare American who
isn’t familiar with the sinister little clan (which first appeared in The New
Yorker magazine in 1938) for whom shrouds are the last word in fashion, and a
guillotine is the perfect children’s toy.
This latest reincarnation of “The Addams Family” is clearly relying, above all, on its
title characters’ high recognition factor. That such faith is not misplaced is
confirmed by the audience’s clapping and snapping along with the first strains of
the overture, which appropriates the catchy television theme song. When the
curtain parts to reveal a Madame Tussauds-like tableau of the assembled
Addamses, there is loud, salutatory applause.
There they are, lined up like tombstones (appropriately, since the setting is a
cemetery) and looking as if they had just stepped out of Charles Addams’s
inkwell. Shrink these impeccably assembled creatures to a height of 10 inches,
and you could give them away with McDonald’s Happy Meals (or, given the
context, Unhappy Meals).
Free for all
What steps are being accomplished
here?
What overlapping of steps is going
on? And how is this overlapping both
elegantly incorporated and, yet,
disruptive (to an extent) to the
template?
Do you feel as though an informed
and distinct voice is speaking here?
Why?
Do you feel like the critic is an
authority? How did he make you feel
that way?
Buh-Da-Da-Dum (Snap Snap) 1, 369 “words”- PART 2
This is not an inappropriate thought, since this show treats its characters as imaginative but
easily distracted children might treat their dolls, arbitrarily making them act out little
stories and situations. The creators of “The Addams Family” — which has a book by
Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice and songs by Andrew Lippa — have said they
wanted to return to the spirit of the original New Yorker cartoons.
It’s true that the show has moments that quote directly from Addams’s original captions.
But those captions were for a limited number of single-panel cartoons. So what to do
for the rest of the evening? The answer, to borrow from Irving Berlin, is “Everything
the traffic will allow.”
A tepid goulash of vaudeville song-and-dance routines, Borscht Belt jokes, stingless sitcom
zingers and homey romantic plotlines that were mossy in the age of Father Knows
Best, “The Addams Family” is most distinctive for its wholesale inability to hold on to
a consistent tone or an internal logic. The show, which was previously staged in
Chicago, has a troubled past. The original directors, Phelim McDermott and Julian
Crouch (also the production’s designers), still retain director credit, but Jerry Zaks,
identified in the program as a creative consultant, is known to have reworked the
show. (The look is Charles Addams run through a Xerox enlarger, though it makes
witty use of the classic red velvet curtain.)
Mr. McDermott and Mr. Crouch were responsible for the blissfully ghoulish little show
“Shockheaded Peter,” and their darkly precious aesthetic is the opposite of that of Mr.
Zaks, a veteran purveyor of Broadway razzmatazz. So a collision of sensibilities was
to be anticipated.
What’s more surprising (given Mr. Brickman and Mr. Elice’s solid collaboration on “Jersey
Boys”) is the ragbag nature of the script, which seems to be shaped by an assortment
of mismatched approaches. The show begins with the expected milking of classic
Addams perversity, in which morbidity is automatically substituted for cheerfulness.
But somewhere along the way the plot becomes a costume-party rehash of the properboy-meets-girl-from-crazy-family story line that dates back to “You Can’t Take It
With You.”
Free For All
Do you get a sense of
the play and what it
would be like to be
there/watch it? Why?
As you acquire this
sense, what additional
steps is Brantley
accomplishing?
Notice how Brantley is
always doing two things
at once. Now point to a
few instances and
tease-out how
accomplishes this and
what end it suits.
Gomez (Mr. Lane) and Morticia (Ms. Neuwirth), the heads of the family, discover to their alarm that Wednesday
(Krysta Rodriguez), their 18-year-old daughter, has fallen in love with Lucas Beineke (Wesley Taylor), a
young man from a middle-class all-American home. What’s more, Wednesday has invited Lucas and his
parents — Mal (Terrence Mann) and Alice (Carolee Carmello) — for dinner, and insists that the family try to
act “NORMAL” for the night.
That directive includes Uncle Fester (Kevin Chamberlin), Grandma (Jackie Hoffmnan), little Pugsley (Adam
Riegler) and Lurch (Zachary James), the towering, taciturn butler. It is clear things will not go well when, as
soon as the Beinekes arrive, Mal asks, “What is this, some kinda theme park?”
Of course it is, Mal. This is a 21st-century Broadway musical. Did I mention, by the way, that the Addams
homestead in this version is in Central Park? In what appears to be a tourist-courting stratagem, the seeming
strangeness of the Addamses is equated with the strangeness of New Yorkers as perceived by middle
Americans. (Cue the old New York City jokes.)
But it turns out that all of us are strange in our own ways (even Beinekes), that love conquers all, and that Morticia
and Gomez are really just a pair of old softies, who worry about the same things that all moms and dads do,
like getting older and seeing their children leave the nest.
Buh-Da-Da-Dum (Snap
Snap) 1, 369 “words”PART 3
Free for all
How is Brantley offering
standard reviewing fare
here? (conforming to the
template).
Does it annoy you? Why
or why not?
Brantley has to go “here,”
These worries have been set to blandly generic music by Mr. Lippa. (Sergio Trujillo did the perfunctory
but did his early creative
choreography, which includes a chorus line of ancestral ghosts.) And though the show makes fun of the
intertwining make the
greeting-card perkiness of Alice, who writes poems, listen to what Gomez sings to his daughter: “Life is full of
playing out of the template
contradictions/Every inch a mile./At the moment, we start weeping/That’s when we should smile.”
seem acceptable?
Though encumbered with a Spanish accent that slides into Transylvania, Mr. Lane is in fine voice and brings a star
trouper’s energy and polish to one wan number after another. Ms. Neuwirth, whose priceless deadpan manner
is one of Broadway’s great assets, here uses it as a means of distancing herself from an icky show and a
Describe the various
formless part. Everyone else tries not to look embarrassed, though it’s not easy in a show that relies on a giant
tones and registers at
squid to solve its plot problems, makes Uncle Fester a cloyingly whimsical sentimentalist (he’s in love with
work throughout the
the moon) and transforms Grandma into an old acid head out of Woodstock.
review. They each
That squid is the work of the wonderful puppeteer Basil Twist, who also whipped up a giant iguana, a regular-sized accomplish specific tasks.
Venus fly trap and a charming animated curtain tassel. Fans of the “Addams” television show will be pleased What are some of these
to learn that Thing (the bodiless hand) and Cousin Itt make cameo appearances. They receive thunderous
tones and tasks here?
entrance applause and then retire for most of the night. They are no doubt much envied by the rest of the cast.
THE ADDAMS FAMILYBook by Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice; music and lyrics by Andrew Lippa; based on characters created by Charles Addams; directed and
designed by Phelim McDermott and Julian Crouch; choreography by Sergio Trujillo; creative consultant, Jerry Zaks; lighting by Natasha Katz; sound by Acme Sound
Partners; puppetry by Basil Twist; hair by Tom Watson; makeup by Angelina Avallone; special effects by Gregory Meeh; orchestrations by Larry Hochman; musical
director, Mary-Mitchell Campbell; dance arrangements by August Eriksmoen; vocal arrangements and incidental music by Mr. Lippa; music coordinator, Michael
Keller. Presented by Stuart Oken, Roy Furman, Michael Leavitt, Five Cent Productions, Stephen Schuler, Decca Theatricals, Scott M. Delman, Stuart Ditsky, Terry
Allen Kramer, Stephanie P. McClelland, James L. Nederlander, Eva Price, Jam Theatricals/Mary Lu Roffe, Pittsburgh CLO/Gutterman-Swinsky, Vivek Tiwary/Gary
Kaplan, the Weinstein Company/Clarence LLC and Adam Zotovich/Tribe Theatricals by special arrangement with Elephant Eye Theatrical. At the Lunt-Fontanne
Theater, 205 West 46th Street, Manhattan; (877) 250-2929. Running time: 2 hours 30 minutes.WITH: Nathan Lane Gomez Addams), Bebe Neuwirth (Morticia
Addams), Terrence Mann (Mal Beineke), Carolee Carmello (Alice Beineke), Kevin Chamberlin (Uncle Fester), Jackie Hoffman (Grandma), Zachary James (Lurch),
Adam Riegler (Pugsley Addams), Wesley Taylor (Lucas Beineke) and Krysta Rodriguez (Wednesday Addams).