When I saw The Indian Wants the Bronx I was left with many unanswered questions. There were no other scenes leading up to the climactic encounter with the Indian and no reason given for the violent act. While it was frustrating not to know the reason, that was the whole point. The play was about a random act of cruelty without any explanation. It could be out of boredom, anger, racism, or any number of things. Israel Horovitz was showing us a cruel piece of reality.
The stage business at the end of the play, with the Indian facing the audience, repeating the few English words he knew and holding his hands out in a pleading manner, highlighted his innocence and helplessness. His desperation to be understood was depressing.
The scenery and lighting helped illustrate the point of the play because it was very simple. The stage felt like it could be any random street corner in New York, or another place you frequently pass. By setting the stage in such an indistinct way, Israel Horovitz allowed us to imagine that this was occurring on our own street corner, showing that violence could happen anywhere, even in our neighborhoods.
The costumes were also simple. The Indian’s wore neutral colors which allowed his foreign outfit to stand out and also made him seem unthreatening, making us wonder why he was the victim of such an attack.
Honestly, I thought the second play was pretty bad. Besides for not being able to hear anything (due to a combination of bad acoustics and the actors not projecting and delivering their lines well), the scenery, or lack of it, added to the confusion about what was going on. It was hard to figure out where this was taking place, adding to my confusion about why one man had a gun. After my friend explained it to me, I was confused as to why the play was even occurring. To me, it seemed like such a ridiculous situation that it exceeded credibility. Why would a guard stand there having a lengthy conversation with a man who begs to let him in so he can blow up a bus of children? And by the way his gun wavered you could tell that he was torn between loyalty to a friend and his duty. However, I cannot imagine that the guard considered, even for one minute, let alone thirty, to let the man in to set off the bomb.
The guard’s costume added to the performance because since I couldn’t hear what was going on or see where it was taking place, I was able to get some information from it.
I thought the best play was the last one, Beirut Rocks, because it was the most exciting and attention-holding. But I thought that the buildup of the play was greatly lacking. It all happened too fast- at first everyone was talking normally and a minute later they were all shouting. It’s also cliché that it’s always the Jew and the Muslim who fight. Especially after having just watched What Strong Fences Make, it would have been more interesting if the two Americans had fought.
Israel Horovitz’s plays were about controversial topics, and while some people found it offensive, I thought it was important to address these issues. One of the artists’ goals and the purpose of art is to elicit a response from the audience, whether positive or negative, and to create controversy. These plays sparked discussions and debates, which means that they were successful.
As a unit, I was initially confused as to why these three plays were shown together. The first play didn’t seem to relate to the last two. I later realized that they all had similar themes of violence, baseless hatred, racism and how people deal with other people who are different from themselves.
