Little Foxes

As soon as I found out the Lillian Hellman was a devout communist with extreme left wing views, I immediately started looking for any signs of radical motifs within the play. They manifested themselves almost immediately. This play is extremely anti- business. If one didn’t know better, one would think that all whites in the late 19th century/early 20th century were former slave owners and/or such dishonest people. In reality though, only 3% of whites were plantation owners and the rest were poor peasants. I think this interpretation of the play’s purpose was not only to portray the dysfunctionality of a family but to also persuade us into believing that every single businessmen is crooked and that he/she had to cheat people to make his/her fortune.

The acting, I must say, was beyond believable though. The parts that seemed most realistic were the fights between Horace/Regina and Leo/Oscar. I admired these “plots within plots” that made Little Foxes just hard enough to follow yet still stay in line with the main storyline. Both were interesting because they showed the corrupting nature of the pursuit of vast fortunes when left to dishonest people. Leo was picked on by his Uncles Ben/Oscar and came off as a submissive and sly punk still at the mercy of his elders. Regina and Horace’s relationship was the focal point of controversy. Their inter marital problems were not helped by Regina’s selfishness and greed. Horace on the other hand, seemed noble because he seemed to have some morality and love within himself. His ongoing journey to self realization made him the most admirable character.

I was not surprised that the minimalist setting worked even though the play could have been presenting with sumptuous furniture and period style clothes. The purple walls by themselves presented a regalness that was sensitive on the eyes yet served an ironic purpose as well. The actors were literally acting foolish in a room symbolizing royalty. Though wealth is a vehicle through which great things can be done, in the case of the play it was the cause of tremendous strife. I also liked the absent of opulent looking props, because it showed how though the Hubbards were wealthy they were in fact empty hearted.

I though the physicalities  of the characters perfectly matched their demeanor’s. Birdie, a free spirited romantic woman, was portrayed to a tee with her red clothing and peppy nature. Ben, with his stature and stern look, represented the alpha male who sacrificed little to become wealthy. Oscar, was the short stout younger brother who was submissive to his brother’s demands. Alexandra, was a cute girl conservatively dressed that personified the struggle for women’s rights in the 20th century. Regina had that washed up look of a woman well past her peak still bitter about not achieving her goals of life. Leo had a boyish yet mischievous look complimented by his haircut. Finally, Horace, was perfectly shown as beaten down by life. This motley of character personifications added to the dynamic relationships between the characters.

Unsurprisingly, a good on the part of the director, was the choice to let Cal and Addie, the oppressed blacks of their era, be also the most insightful. Sarcastic but still subservient because of the time period, it seemed as though they could see what the main characters could not, but from an objective perspective.

Overall, the acting and set choice was a good one; but a play I would see once and only once. I was left with inquisitive thoughts about inter marital relations regarding economics, race relations and capitalism itself, but other than that, not extremely memorable.