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.

The Israel Horowitz plays – three separate plays connected by a unifying theme – offered new insights into cultural differences and misunderstandings.  Although the acoustics in the Kaye Playhouse auditorium were less than desirable, the plays, nevertheless, conveyed to the audience the importance of understanding and accepting other cultures.

In the first play, The Indian Wants The Bronx, two juvenile delinquents encounter an Indian who doesn’t speak English. The placement of the characters on the stage helped to emphasize the estrangement the Indian felt in Manhattan, as well as the American boys’ perceptions of him. For the majority of the performance, the Indian stood on stage left, while the punks remained on stage right. The only exceptions to this staging were when the boys moved closer to the Indian to interact with him. These choices helped to illuminate the existing cultural differences between the characters. Additionally, the simple scenery and costumes allowed the audience to concentrate on the actors and the dialogue.

Initially, the plot reads as shallow and simple; however, when given more thoughtful consideration, a deeper meaning emerges. The play demonstrates the harmful effects of misunderstanding cultural differences. When the Indian does not understand the language spoken by the boys, the boys speak louder as if this will help the Indian to better understand what they are saying. This is a common misconception, which leads to frustration for all people involved in the conversation. The playwright clearly shows the effects of this frustration when Murph, one of the punks, takes out a knife and hurts the Indian. The boys prefer to torment the Indian rather than assist him in his quest to find his son in the Bronx.

The third play, Beirut Rocks, depicts a group of students studying in Beirut while Beirut is under attack. The mix of cultures and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict complicate the students’ relationships. This controversial play elicited strong reactions from the audience. It addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an emotionally provocative way. When Nassa said, “The world would be better if it were free of Jews,” many members of the audience responded, “oooooh.” My interpretation was that the audience was not adequately prepared for such an intolerant opinion.

All three of Israel Horowitz’s plays were commentaries on the inability of humans to accept people of other cultures. Conflicts occur amongst many different cultures in many different countries, and Horowitz’s plays illustrate the need for resolutions to these conflicts.

The Israel Horovitz plays were intense and emotionally powerful. The first play, “The Indian Wants the Bronx” tried to express the negative effects of boredom and peer pressure. When given the opportunity, many bored people turn to violence in an attempt to entertain themselves. The Indian in the play represents the small, seemingly inferior person, under the wrath of a larger, much more powerful bully. Although there is really no set storyline or direction to the play, it is clear that there is a definite social caste system in place. Horovitz enforces the idea of the Indian being weaker by making him unable to understand the torment he is being put through. In doing this, he gives Murph and Joey the knowledge that they are able to take advantage of the Indian much easier. Many viewers are left wondering, what was the point of this play? To be honest, there wasn’t much of one, other than to show the brute nature of humans and the simplicity of human minds when reduced to savagery. The final scene shows the deranged state of the Indian after bearing the torturous acts of the two young scandalous boys. The staging of the act was not very believable because there would most likely be more people waiting for a bus, and if there had been more people, the boys would probably not have tortured the Indian in such a way. Also, if the play was based on fact, the son of the Indian would have been worried about his father, wondering what was taking so long, but in the play, nothing was heard of the son’s worries. Some aspects of the play made a lot more sense than others

The second play, “What Strong Fences Make” was very confusing, because the actors were very monotonous about their roles in this particular play, and rather than projecting their voices to the audience, they were speaking while facing each other, therefore lowering the audibility of the performance. However, I took the liberty of reading the actual play online, and I felt captivated by the emotional struggle of both characters. The reader can feel Itzhak’s inner turmoil at the loss of his children and his desire to avenge their deaths. The communication between Itzhak and Uri is overwhelming because of the almost indifference Uri had towards Itzhak and the disgust and hatred Itzhak felt towards Uri. After reading, the plot was very intense and intriguing, and I feel that if the actors had performed better, the play would have been much more exciting. Personally, I would have enjoyed the play a lot if it had been acted out better. The absence of motion in the play was another negative aspect of the performance, because it made it boring and seemingly uneventful. There was no change in the lighting, and with the exception of a few loud “booms” there was no change in the atmosphere at all. The performance was very horrible because of this and could have been much better if there had been more movement and emotion in the play as well as a louder projection of voices and exaggeration of feelings.

“Beirut Rocks,” I believe, was the most powerful of the three plays. It had many profound messages, and was very emotional for all ethnic groups. To the Jewish people in the audience, it was shocking to hear Nasa say that she wanted to kill Benjy’s family because she was angry with the Jews. Benjy retaliated against Nasa, claiming that she was probably harboring a bomb under her clothes. In violating her, the audience was thrown into shock, feeling the extremity of the action. The way the four teenagers were brought together was out of sheer coincidence, in a time of panic and fear. Because of this, they should have been brought closer together, but because of Benjy and Nasa’s different cultures and beliefs, they automatically clashed. Their ferociously opposing opinions caused much stress and anxiety to the already overly dangerous and frightening situation. The proximity of the actors to each other was a very important part in the play because if they had been farther apart, they would not have had to interact so much with each other. The onstage lighting was perfect for the setting, and the sound effects were also highly effective. In the end, this was probably the best of the three plays because of the emotion it caused to surface and the horrific truth of what happens during war times. The plot, the actors and the staging for this play were much better than those of the other two.

Currently in New York, many forms of art are use to sculpt the culture that many people live in and even influence our way of life as well.  These art forms include television, motion pictures and the live theater which are all involved and displayed in New York.  However, I wonder as more television shows are created and more movies are formed, I wonder will the area of theater still be established.  These art forms, which have been created for expression and enjoyment have not purposely established a competition  with each other in which many critics wonder if the theater will be able to survive and prosper.

Motion picture and television viewing are increasing its audience rapidly in the millions.  One reason most likely is for the convenience these two mediums of entertainment have.  One does not have to travel or pay nearly as much to still enjoy a filming and be held in suspense.  In fact, these two mediums allow a viewer to be more relaxed while enjoying a movie or television in the comforts of their own home.  There are other factors involved in why movies and televisions might continue to shape society’s culture.  Another is the time period that is currently being lived in as we live in a millennium where people love to view the special effects of the movie theater, to engage in these fictional characters coupled with action and adventure to create an enjoyable movie for many people to see. Additionally the same takes place for television as people enjoy it for the reality series of how life is around the world or for a certain celebrity as well. This is what people enjoy now  which is a result of the competition with the live theater medium.

I believe that the theater indeed is enjoyable.  The series one reading referred to the theater as a metaphor of a hunter and game. A hunter will continue to hunt and prosper as long as there is enough game to be hunted. In the same way a theater can only prosper as long as there will be a great audience (The Hunter and The Game).  The theater unfortunately in some shows did not have as big of an audience as it usually does and sadly this factor allows the theater to decline according to critics.  Critics also desire for the theater to focus on the stage itself and not so elaborate decorations around the whole setting.  This leads to a concentration and focus on the stage itself and therefore the actor if he or she acts with passion allowing the character they are portraying to take over, critics say that one will have a successful and memorable performance.

For most movies and television pictures, most viewers remember the viewing they saw for many months or even years to come which is why this is shaping our way of life.  Our culture is influenced by these pictures shaping the entertainment aspect of our way of life.  In my opinion I believe the live theater is still needed because it addresses historical issues and it also preserves a major aspect of New York culture.  The theater was always enjoyed and movies and television do not need to take this enjoyment away.  In addition,  the theater preserves many plays that have been written years ago and plays allow them to be accurately portrayed instead of having some confusion in the actual play. Viewers can see the characters come alive and see the stage directions put into work with clarity, which is why the theater is necessary, to see actors up close creates more suspense than on a screen.  The live theater needs to be preserved for it shapes American way of life  they way we live and entertain ourselves and indeed the theater can do this for years to come.

Israel Horowitz’s plays entertained a crowd of Macaulay students on a long Wednesday night. The three plays shown were The Indian Wants the Bronx, What Strong Fences Make, and Beirut Rocks. I felt that the plays complemented each other and brought up many problems that we, as students, should learn and think about. There is no doubt that my favorite part of the night was the question and answer session. I was delighted to hear the answers to many of the intellectual questions that were asked.

In contrast to many people in my Arts in NYC class, I felt that the actual script of The Indian Wants the Bronx was far better than the actual performance. It might be just because of my inexperience with plays, but I felt that the positions of the actors were off. Although it should not have bothered me as much as it did, I could not help but to think of the awkward movements Joey and Murph across the invisible sidewalk. I was also a bit bothered by the turban on the Indian; throughout the entire play, he had to constantly tug at it to get it in position. I must also admit that my eyes shut briefly in the middle of the play. Because we all had the opportunity to read the script prior to the performance, I felt that I already knew what was going to happen. I must also say that the majority of the play was focused on the dialogue as not many movements were made. Aside from those issues, I felt that Horowitz and the actors did a good job at portraying the obvious issue of racism and prejudice between different peoples. In addition, Horowitz also informs the audience that both Joey and Murph come from bad families and have conducted violent acts in the past. I feel that Horowitz brought up an important point about families and the “care” that is put into these types of people.

The second play, What Strong Fences Make, intrigued me much more than the first. I was sitting in one of the middle rows on the left side of the auditorium and I was able to hear almost all the lines in the play, so that was not an issue for me. The props on the stage were very minimal but I don’t think that detracted from the performance. The only thing that was kind of weird was the sound effects of the gun and the explosion of the bomb. I felt that both actors did a superb job at presenting their characters. The person on the right looked just the part of a very distressed man. It was especially noticeable when his hand was rapidly shaking as he tried to express his feelings and the situation. The man on the left was able to show the conflict he had with the man across from him. His inner turmoil with the fact that his childhood classmate was about to do something incredibly wrong came through his voice and body language. Another thing that bothered me was the fact that I had no idea what the play was referring to in the real world. In a way, this is also a good thing because it has made me think about how little I know about what is going on in the world.

The majority of students agree that the third play, Beirut Rocks, was the best and inspired the most comments. If students somehow fell asleep in the audience, all of them must’ve woken up to watch this play. The setting and the props on stage helped frame the play and focus the audience on what was going on in the room. This play elicited both bouts of laughter and gasps of horror. I agree with various students in my class that said that the play seemed to blow up out of nowhere. Once the two females were thrown into the room, things seemed to go downhill. What was friendly conversation quickly morphed into heated arguments. Horowitz clearly structured the play so that the audience could see the contrasts between Benji and Nasa. It was almost obvious that conflict would occur between the two, just because of their backgrounds and differences. As a response to Caryl Churchill’s Seven Jewish Children, I feel that this play certainly does a good job. Although I have not watched the Seven Jewish Children, I have read from comments that it seems to point fingers. Horowitz evens out the blame in his play by making both Benji and Nasa dislikeable characters. The tension in this play was almost unbearable and it affected many members of the audience. In fact, many of the questions were related to this play.

Overall, I was very pleased with Theater Day (even though it ended late and we all had class the next morning). I am glad that we will all have more opportunities to view plays during this semester. Hopefully, I will have many more comments about future viewings.

It is Wednesday afternoon.I am sitting on the couch, half asleep, thinking to myself “It is such a dull day! I don’t think I want to go to Theater Day, I’m way too tired from the first two orientations.” After repeating this to myself to justify not going, I finally decided that I was too curious about the play to just stay at home, so I headed toward the theater.

Then, as “The Indian Wants the Bronx” began, I must admit I was disappointed. It did not seem real to me. The wonderful thing about theater is that it’s so up close that it feels real to the audience. However, this play did not leave me enraptured. I felt sympathy for the Indian, and even for the two delinquents who had such conflicting emotions that they did not know what they were doing. On the other hand I thought the boys’ actions were too extreme, making it not seem real. It did not affect me as much as reading the play did.

Did anyone else notice that the Indian’s turban kept falling? It really bothered me because I did not think that was supposed to happen. This simple flaw in the costume took away from the feeling of reality. Other than that, I thought the costumes added to the understanding of the story. Two boys dressed in ordinary clothes come across someone who is obviously different from them. His clothes stand out to the two boys, and so they decide to bother him.

In this play Horovitz addresses the issues of hatred for someone that is different, which, although this play was written long ago, still occurs today. People are always intimidated by what they do not understand. On top of that, the boys are a commentary on the American justice system. They killed a man and stole a car, yet they are still roaming the streets. They have a social worker that, although she knows their background, gives them knives for Christmas. I found this particularly interesting. Also, instead of the boys trying to reform themselves after committing a crime, they act like children and abandon the Indian. Overall, the play was effective in commenting on these social issues.

I do not have much to say about the second play, “What Strong Fences Make”, except that I was utterly disheartened when I could not hear a thing. I was in the middle of the theater, leaning forward in my seat, and still did not grasp what it was about. Once someone told me the plot, I realized that the play was really interesting and I would have liked it. In this play Horowitz was commenting on a man’s dedication to his family over his country, since he blows up the bus terminal in response to their death.

The costume of the man on the right really confused me, because he had a cloth on top of his head, so I did not think this play took place in America. He looked like a foreigner. The soldier always appeared hesitant and was making quick movements, to show the audience that he was conflicted between his sense of duty and his friendship with the other man. This was an important part of the play because at the end he does not harm his old friend. Instead his friend hurts him, which shows he is more devoted to his mission than the soldier is. I do wish that there were more scenery though; it would make the play appear more realistic.

The last play, “Beirut Rocks” was my favorite of the three. It was intense and filled with emotion. There was more scenery than the first two plays, and this added to the story, because the characters were all stuck together in a cramped hotel room, and as the war rages on outside, the characters create tension and start a small war inside the hotel room. The sounds of the bombs scared me, and I felt as nervous as the four students in the small room. Nasa’s clothes, like the clothes of the Indian of the first play, separate her from the others, and once Benji sees this he accuses her of wearing a wire. This action is again a social commentary on people attacking those that are different. Benji displays racism, but after Nasa is violated she says the extreme remark of “the world would be better without Jews.” I was shocked when she said this; it made me lose all sympathy for her. I liked how this play surprised me until the very end, and although there was too much screaming I find it better than having to strain to hear anything.

Each play showed forms of hatred towards other races and people, which was for me shocking, emotional and intense. Ultimately, I was glad I came.

The simple stage design, including trashcans and a telephone booth, was perfect for The Indian Wants The Bronx. The vague location added to the play by demonstrating that random acts of violence, like the one occurring in the play, are possible anywhere. The costumes where well chosen and the actors successfully delivered the lines and made the story come to life on stage.

While I personally didn’t enjoy the play because of the lack of plot and subject matter, I do see some value in the story.  If you focus solely on the part of the innocent Indian, it is easy to sympathize with the character.  A story about a   minority being attacked by uneducated white guys isn’t exactly a new concept and it doesn’t take much to see what is wrong with that scenario. Obviously, Horowitz is trying to send the message that racism and violence are bad. The question is, are there any other themes hidden beneath the obvious? I think there are.

While the behavior of Joey and Murph cannot be justified, it can be explained. In their conversation about Pussyface (their social worker) and their promiscuous mothers, you can identify the source of Joey and Murph’s frustration. I think that the assault on the Indian and other criminal activities mentioned in the play were acts of misplaced anger. With no fathers or male role models mentioned and two mothers who would sleep with their sons best friends, it is easy to identify that their terrible home lives are the reason why Joey and Murph feel the need to violently lash out. I think that maybe Horowitz included these details not only to help the audience see Joey and Murph as something more than just stupid thugs and criminals, but also to put a spotlight on how a child’s environment impacts their adult life and comment on the general causes of troubled American youth.

Considering the setting of the What Strong Fences Make is a military checkpoint and “fences” is the third word in the title, I felt that it would have been nice if the set design might have actually included a fence. The combination of the terrible acoustics in the auditorium, the prop-less stage, and my unfamiliarity with the political situation the play was based upon, made What Strong Fences Make extremely difficult for me to follow.  I constantly had to ask my friends in the audience what was going on, which ruined the experience.  The army fatigue worn by the soldier was the only indication of the plays location and I didn’t understand that the second character was a suicide bomber until the end when he actually blew up.

Beirut Rocks was my favorite play out of the three.  The set didn’t really add to or take a way from the story, the costumes where realistic, and the sound effects and lighting were ok. For me, it was the acting that made the play. The tension between Benji and Nasa was perfect and the play’s impact on the audience was great! Art is meant to say something. It’s supposed to send a message and if someone finds it offensive then that’s what makes it good! I guarantee Beirut Rocks made everyone in the audience stop and think. While Benji’s character is easy to hate, he’s not the only one to blame. The other guy (who’s name I forgot) and Sandy let Benji violate Nasa in the most cruel and hurtful way.  All three of them, not just Benji, strip Nasa of her pride and force her to break one of the most sacred rules of her religion. All three of them push her to say the things she says out of anger. When Nasa told her story about her entire family being killed and how she is reinventing herself and assimilating into Palestinian culture to feel closer to her family I almost started crying! Needless to say, I thought the actress who portrayed Nasa was incredible.  Maybe it was because she was a woman, but it was almost easier for me to side with her than with Benji.

I think Horowitz’s intention for Beirut Rocks was to confuse the audience. He wanted us not to be able to decide which side we wanted to take. There was no obvious good or evil character.  Both the Jewish character and the Muslim character had undesirable characteristics.  I think he was commenting on how war brings out the worst, most carnal instincts in human beings.  Nasa’s last lines in the play are that she is going become a suicide bomber and murder Benji’s family. I think Horovitz was taking an anti-war position by showing us that killing doesn’t solve anything. Killing innocent people (Nasa’s family), just turns innocent people (like Nasa) into murderers.

As a collection of pieces I thought that The Indian Wants The Bronx didn’t really fit in with the other two.  While they all share the common themes of racism and racial profiling, I thought that it would have been better if the collection focused only on Israeli-Palestinian relations.