Andy Warhol exhibit
Before viewing the exhibit of Andy Warhol’s work at the Brooklyn Museum, the only knowledge I had of Andy Warhol was of his friendship with Keith Haring. Keith Haring created the sculpture that resides outside of a hospital near my house, a statue that has always been visually appealing to me. When I received the assignment to visit the Brooklyn Museum in order to view a collection of Andy Warhol’s work created during his last decade, I was excited to have the opportunity to learn more about him.
Andy Warhol’s paintings contain vibrant colors embezzled with important themes and messages. He was both an active member of the community as well as a critic of it and this dual role in the community was essential to the success of his paintings and other artistic pieces. One room of the exhibit had walls that were covered with photographs of Andy Warhol and other famous figures including Edward Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. There were also pictures of him with other celebrities. These photographs show Warhol’s active role in the community. Additionally, Warhol founded Interview magazine whose articles were interviews with famous celebrities including Stevie Wonder and Don Johnson.
Andy Warhol also painted a series of black and white advertisements, the most famous of which is the Campbell’s soup can ad. He was an active member of society promoting items that the traditional family would purchase in the supermarket. The Campbell’s soup can ad also happens to be one of Warhol’s most famous pieces of art. When I told someone that I was going to the Brooklyn Museum to see an Andy Warhol exhibit, his response was “Oh yeah, wasn’t he the one with the Campbell’s soup can?” Andy Warhol had an unbelievable artistic talent that enabled him to create such a renowned painting based on a can of soup.
Religion also played an important role in Andy Warhol’s life and artwork. He created a painting that was a recreation of “The Last Supper.” Moreover, many of his paintings have an outline of Jesus hidden in the painting. Through his paintings, Andy Warhol persuades the public to become more religious. The ubiquitous Jesus figures found in his paintings remind the viewer that God is always watching Andy Warhol’s poster which reads “Repent And Sin No More” directly warns the viewers to be aware of their actions.
I definitely believe it is possible for an artist to be both an active member of the community and a social critic, and I believe Andy Warhol is an example of this. Although it is a bit hypocritical and the artist could be compared to an “undercover cop,” the artist must be involved in the community to fully understand the issues and problems in society. Additionally, if the artist is known to be active in the community, then other members of the community will have more respect for the artist’s paintings and will pay attention to the messages they reveal since the artists are more likely to be looking out for the best interest of the community.
Another reason why it’s important for an artist to be a social critic and an active member of the community is that it makes their artwork more interesting. When I walked into the room full of photographs, I was interested in looking around because of all of the familiar faces I recognized. Even though I wasn’t alive at the time, many of the photos were of important political figures and celebrities, who I had learned about over the years. These photographs gave me a better idea of the time period in which Andy Warhol created his art and yielded more insight into his character.
The artist could and should be an active member of the community and a social critic. Andy Warhol claimed both of these roles and his paintings were proof of this. The Andy Warhol exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum was an incredible collection of Andy Warhol’s work, and I am looking forward to viewing more of his pieces in the future.
Andy Warhol: The Last Decade
There is absolutely no reason why an artist shouldn’t be both a social critic and an active member of the community. At first glance it may seem like hypocrisy on the artist’s part because the artist is criticizing the very community he is an active member of, but if you take a second to actually think about it, you realize that there is no true hypocrisy and that the two facts don’t have to be contradicting.
If you say that a social critic cannot be an active member of society, then what is he supposed to do? Live in exile, cut off from all societal contact? No, of course not! No one actually expects that of an artist. Why can’t an artist try to improve society by actively helping out at soup kitchens and trying to end world hunger, while also raising awareness through social criticism? They could be seen as two different methods of getting the same result- two means to the same end.
Also, it’s highly unlikely that an artist would hate everything about his society (and if that were the case then he should probably move, like Gauguin)- it’s more likely that he approves of some aspects but not others, so in his criticism he will criticize the aspects he feels need improving, not the ones he is active in.
Andy Warhol is the perfect example of an artist who was both a social critic and an active member in society because he was both an artist and a big celebrity. In his self-portrait wig series, his head floats against different backgrounds and the description card said that the image depicted Andy as a “ghostly spectator rather than the star who prances around the city”. He has two sides- the public celebrity persona who is an active member of society AND the private “spectator” side of a social critic.
If anything, I think that being an active member of society actually HELPED Andy Warhol become a more powerful social critic. As a celebrity, Andy Warhol was very much involved in his society and used symbols and objects the public could relate to in his art. And his celebrity status also drew large crowds to come see his work.
I think Andy Warhol had the same goal as our Photojournal assignment. Both try to find the beauty in our daily lives. Things that we take for granted, that we see every day, such as a stop sign or a Campbell’s soup can, can be beautiful. We just need to stop and find the beauty.
Andy Warhol used such common items such as soda bottles, food labels and other objects in his artwork to show the beauty within them. Our photojournal assignment attempts to do the same thing- the assignment is to take at least one picture every day of something that strikes us. I think the purpose of this is to make sure that we take time to look at the world around us and see the art in everything.
For example, Marianna’s picture of a teapot seemed like just a plain teapot not worth a second thought, but once I saw the close-up picture of it, I started to really notice how beautiful its bright, shiny red color was. That photo turned a common household item into something beautiful.
I believe that Andy Warhol did the same thing by using common items in his art. He encouraged people to find their own art in their own homes and beauty in their own lives.
The exhibit we saw at the Brooklyn Museum did not feature only his Pop Art; there were also many abstract pieces such as his Egg Series and Oxidation Series. Andy Warhol’s egg series used ordinary kitchen ingredients (eggs, duh) and by organizing them into a specific arrangement and making them different colors, he turned them into a work of art.
In his Oxidation Series he tried to transform urine and metallic paint, two unexciting, even unsanitary things into a beautiful work of art with different patterns and color splotches. If Andy Warhol could turn something as gross as urine into a work of art, then anything can be turned into art! And I believe that was the message Andy Warhol was trying to send.
Life itself is art. Life is precious and we need to appreciate everything in it. Don’t take anything for granted. If you just look you can find the art in the world around you.
“WHOAAAAA THERE’S PEE IN THAT PAINTING!!”
In that quiet museum, I think perhaps we were a bit too loud saying that.
But we could not help it, our surprise made us forget a bit of our manners. Andy Warhol made a painting with urine. And it looked pretty cool.
Walking into the Warhol exhibit last week was quite surprising. There were so many paintings, and they were all so different. There were the oxidation paintings, pop art, portraits, and the very sparkle-y diamond dust paintings. It was hard to believe that just one person did all of this.
What was even harder to believe was that Warhol was such an active member of his community. I have always thought that artists often isolate themselves. That they must be outcasts of society in order to truly observe what is around them. No one can really criticize something while they are taking part in it.
But I guess I was wrong because Andy Warhol was a celebrity himself. He painted portraits of celebrities and of classic icons in American culture, which he was still a part of.
This contradicts my view of the role of an artist. The artist has many roles in society, but I think the artist’s most important role is to open the eyes of a society. An artist is someone who views the world differently and it is his responsibility to contradict the social norms. Because an artist sees things differently, I find it only natural that they be set apart from their community.
When viewing Warhol’s work, I thought that some of it, like the black in white pieces, belonged in magazines. They seemed random and made me question if all of Warhol’s work is truly art, if it was truly social commentary. I think his art is mostly for the purpose of entertainment. However if you look closer, or maybe even think about the artwork more, you can see that there is some subtle social commentary.
For example the painting of Marilyn Monroe and of the Mona Lisa are duplicated to portray that they are no longer unique individuals. By having many images of them on canvas Warhol is trying to show that iconic figures are not as special as people think they are.
He also turned commercialist products such as a soup can into an iconic piece. The fact that people admire such a simple work of art that they can see in a supermarket criticizes a society’s values. People admire a soup can just because a famous artist painted it. There is clearly something wrong with a society that does that. The oxidation paintings can produce the same commentary in a way: people are marveling at a man’s urine.
Even though Andy Warhol is a celebrity, his criticism of society is not hypocritical. He became famous because of his art yet he continues the duty of an artist as a social critic. This goes against my view of a ‘normal’ artist as an isolated person, but Warhol’s fame added to his art. He somehow became a work of art himself, as seen in his self-portraits (again, there are many duplicated images, perhaps to lessen individuality).
In short, seeing the Warhol exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum was an interesting experience. While staring at many paintings and wondering, “what can this mean??” after seeing more of his artwork I began to understand more and realize that being a celebrity was just part of his career as an artist. His art and fame are inseparable.
melding the pieces together
I remember watching Pinocchio when I was a child. He frightened me because he was wooden, but still acted like a human being. These days I laugh whenever I recall being frightened by him. But this time when I recalled that memory I realized that he’s helping me.
After watching Ivo Van Hove’s adaptation of “The Little Foxes” by Lillian Hellman, I remembered Pinocchio because he helped me realize an important aspect. So let’s say Lillian Hellman is the puppet maker who designs the marionettes and Ivo Van Hove is the puppeteer who manipulates the marionettes. He is the person, after seeing the marionettes, who decides how to present them in a performance. If he wants to change their designs, he can’t because he isn’t a puppet maker. What Ivo Van Hove can do is have the marionettes move according to his directions, but at the same time he has to work with them or else the strings may tangle. He has to interpret the play differently. In other words, the director is, first and foremost, a reader. He is a reader who peruses through the play and envisions it. What makes him different from any other readers, such as us? And what makes him a director? Well, I don’t exactly know, but I can attest to it.
This brings me back to the point of my first blog, “What makes a classic?” or rather, “What defines a classic?” In terms of theatre performance, I believe one characteristic to be the fact that the play can be manipulated from its original script and be reborn into a new generation. Ivo Van Hove did this. He took Lillian Hellman’s play that was set in the early 1900s and transformed it into a play that can relate to the current time period. Although he kept the actors’ lines the same (for the most part), there is a reason for it. We have to realize that language is powerful and packed. “Nigger” is one of those words that is jam-packed with history and emotions. The way that word is used in the play has a derogatory meaning. To put it in today’s standards would not be too difficult because depending on the context, tone, and situation the word could either be negative or positive, but it still has that lingering deprecating feel whenever it’s spoken.
Another thing that Ivo Van Hove does is “strip the play to its bare essentials,” as Professor Healey mentioned in class. He places the characters in a rectangular room lined with purple walls. There is no furniture set up, except for the staircase, an upright electrical piano to the left of the stage and a short, small table in the front of center stage. There was use for two chairs, a coffee set, and a few other items. That’s it. By keeping the set “clean,” the audience is exposed to all the details such as the actions and positions of the actors and actresses. We aren’t distracted by extravagant beauty as Peter Brook mentions in his book, The Empty Space. Did you notice how the actors and actresses circled the staircase at times? I did and I felt that they were vultures gliding through the air waiting for the moment to feast on another animal’s kill. The same happens in the play because Oscar, Ben, and Regina are focused on gaining money at the expense of the people. They will go out of their way just to exploit them. Horace does it in a different manner. He does it to try and ruin the sibling’s plan because he realizes that it’s cruel and unethical. In addition, Birdie’s dress and clothing were red. It clashed against the purple walls. The same goes with her personality because it was child-like and pastoral. Her views of living “the life” were more rural and less extravagant than those of the siblings.
One more important aspect was the interaction the actors and actresses had with the audience. It is the role of the director to help them grow and inspire us. That’s what Ivo Van Hove did. The tone of Horace’s voice was child-like at times. It felt that his eyes were opened after being up North for 5 months, but at the same time it had a serious aspect to it. Horace had a job to do: expose Alexandra to the truth. Also, Birdie’s interaction with the audience, to me, was the greatest. The way she acted with her laughter and sadness swayed me. I laughed when she laughed became hurt and sad when she did. Her presence wasn’t overwhelming at the same time. It worked with the others. No one person had full command of the audience, especially with the L.E.D. screen overhead.
All this work and detail shows Ivo Van Hove’s great insight towards the play in relation to today. He was able to help the cast move and affect the audience. This is what makes him standout as a reader and makes him a director. His interpretation was able to relate to present-day New Yorkers. He startled us. He made us think. He made us remember. And personally, he made me remember my memory of Pinocchio.
The Little Foxes
Truth to be told, I did not want to travel all the way to Manhattan to watch a play; Sunday nights are better spent in bed. Even though it was dark and rainy, I dragged myself to the subway station and arrived at the New York Theatre Workshop for a surprisingly entertaining night.
After the audience received a welcoming from a representative of NYTW, the lights flashed on and eerie music began to play. The first thing I noticed was the LED screen in the middle of the stage and immediately I recognized that it was hanging above a staircase. At the same time, I noticed a female walking to the front of the stage to stare at the screen. Since we weren’t supposed to look up anything about this play, I thought that it would be something set in the modern times. However, after the entrance of Cal and Addie, both servants to the Hubbard family, I realized that something was definitely weird. The way that Cal and Addie spoke and the way that they were treated reminded me of the way many Blacks were treated way back in time. The use of the “n” word was the clearest indicator that this play was not set in modern times. Although people still use that word today, it is definitely not used in the manner that was portrayed in the play. The use of this word may have offended many people, but I feel that the director was right to include this in the play since it is such a clear indication of the setting.
In addition to the screen and the staircase, I also noticed the purple carpet looking walls and floor. Actually, I don’t recall if the floor was purple but I do know that the walls were! I actually thought that the room looked really tacky but over time it grew on me. There was a small keyboard off to the left, a bottle of wine on a small tray in the center front of the stage, and small light fixtures hanging from the ceiling at multiple points. Besides those things, the stage was clear and furniture was very minimal. I actually thought that the set design worked for the play. The same room was used throughout the play and I thought that it was brilliant. It wasn’t necessary to change scenes because everything seemed to be centered on the events that happened inside the house. Actually, the more I think of it, the more I view the room as a cage that held all the conflict inside.
Now let us move on to the clothes. That was another thing that confused me. If the play is set in the 1900’s, why are the clothes so common looking to a girl from 2010? All the men were dressed in suits while the females were dressed in cocktail dresses. Way too modern for the times. Although it might’ve helped to see the characters wear the “correct” clothes, I’d like to admit that I’m glad they did not. I’m sure that the director chose wisely to not incorporate period clothes since I was able to understand the setting and the conflicts of the time all without watching the actors parade around in funny looking garments.
Last but not least, I’d like to comment on the actors. I didn’t really enjoy the acting in the first 10-15 minutes but then I realized that it wasn’t the actors/actresses that were fake, it was the characters. Overall, my favorite character was Alexandra. She was the least corrupt and the one that grew throughout the play. I thought that the actress fit the role of Alexandra almost perfectly. I give her props for falling off the staircase in one of the last scenes. It seemed to hurt. Her Aunt Birdie was my second favorite because she represented a repressed woman that wants so badly to escape the life that she was granted. I almost wanted her to have the life that she wished to have. The way that her husband, Oscar Hubbard, treated her was very crude but sadly the way that many women were treated back then. Oscar, Benjamin, and Leo as the men of the Hubbard family wanted to profit so badly from the people of their neighborhood. The way that they manipulated Regina and Horace (parents of Alexandra) almost made me shudder at how mean people could be. The scenes between Regina and her brothers were usually playful and also hostile. I thought that the tension in those scenes was very interesting and representative of sibling quarrels. The part with Regina and Horace, however, drove me crazy. I didn’t understand where all the love went. ): Whatever to that though.
If you were to ask me to watch the play again, I would say yes. I wasn’t at my most attentive and I’m sure that I missed a few points here and there. The plot was attractive to me and the acting wasn’t bad at all. I’d say bring on the weirdness again.
Litttle Foxes Review: Blog #2
It was such an amazing experience watching “Little Foxes” in the NYTW! Walking into the theater I really didnt know what to expect. It was a small little place that didnt look like it was that fancy and the space in the theater was pretty limited too. However, as Mr.Goodman introduced himself and the play, I felt like there was something to look forward to, and indeed there was.
To start off, I think that the set was stunning. It looked very extravagant and the purple color of the room gave it a mysterious feel to it. Furthermore, it kept my attention throughout the whole play and made me feel engaged and active in what was going on. As the play started, all I saw was a guy laying down in the LED tv screen. To be quiet honest, I was afraid something would pop out of nowhere as the music in the background gave the set an anxious mood. Although that did not happen, we get introduced to some characters that were in a high place in society around the early 1900’s. When the characters started rolling on the floor, I thought to myself, “How ironic?”. These people may have been considered supreme and powerful to the people around them but in the inside they were cheaters, liars, and scam artists. This was evident as they were crawling around like some animals looking to hunt.
My favorite character throughout the whole play was Alexandra. Her sympathy for her father vs Regina’s cold feelings for Horace made her character very honorable in my eyes. Additionally, throughout the whole play she was constantly looking out for Horace and showing genuine care which contrasted the behavior of the Hubbards. I eventually started to despise this family pretty quickly and didn’t appreciate their greed and selfishness. I also hated the fact that Oscar kept putting Birdie down because I felt like she had great potential and some helpful suggestions that were not even considered. I also felt bad for Birdie because I think living in that family made her become a little crazy as was evident in some parts of the play (all the banging and screaming) but I believe she was still a caring, and generous person. The way she tried to warn Zan was very brave of her and showed her priorities in the family. Addie was another character I liked because of her comedic remarks and confident nature. I felt like she knew exactly what was going on and her presence gave me a sigh of relief.
The idea of using modern clothes and applying this play to current times, I think, was a brilliant one. Living in New York City, one may not relate to the times that was originally set and described so the directors use of different attire may have been hinting to something that is present in our society today. I feel like he was definitely trying to address racial issues but also the economic problems we face today. In one part of the play Regina says something along the lines of, “Either be a N-word or of the upper class, no point being in the middle.” I feel like Hove is trying to portray people in our society today that are on “top” by saying many of them used corruption to get where they are. During the time of the play, Im sure no one suspected the Hubbards of such behaivor but it was there and even today we might not suspect an individual or group of individuals that does not mean that corrupted people do not exist in our everyday lives.
Overall I enjoyed the message of the play and the play itself. I think that it was not only entertaining but also of important value in our lives. I liked the modern twist to the play as it helped the audience relate to it and see the play from another perspective. Even though the lamb scene was pretty disturbing, I thought the ” Little Foxes” was awesome and hope to see more plays like it soon!
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.
Little Foxez
“This play better be good.” That was the thought I had in my head and the thought I posted on Facebook as I was getting ready to leave. As we were headed towards the city, by train and subway from Long Island, I hoped more and more that this play would keep me entertained. Thank the Lord, it did that and much more.
I have to admit when the play first began it took me a little while to get warmed up to it. I thought the acting was a bit overdone and fake but afterwards as I realized the true intentions of the characters it made sense that they were overdoing it because their characters were putting on a facade. Overall I was really impressed with the actors, especially the woman who played Alexandra and the woman who played Addie. They really did a splendid job. Which also goes to show that there really are no small parts because Addie was one of my favorite characters with her sassy attitude.
When the play first opens up all you notice is purple and big empty stage? What in the world?? Well I have to say I believe the director really made a great choice with the set design. As I surfed youtube on other productions of “Little Foxes” I hated it when they used a very intricate setting. It looked as if someone threw up antiques all over the stage just to fill it up. I preferred the big emptiness much more. I came to the conclusion that the reason they did this was because, as you looked at the stage you could tell that they were wealthy and that they lived in a big house through simple objects, like the chandeliers, and through the way the characters presented themselves. But to make the stage empty just went to show how even though they had so much more than the average joe they felt as though it was not enough and they needed more. I also think it symbolizes the fact that due to their constant search for more material objects, each character ends up “empty” and alone in the end.
Colors really played a big role in this play. Notice how my blog is purple?(kind of…Haha) So I became really curious about the color usage and I decided to go online and research colors. I found some very interesting things. Purple stands for royalty(as if you didn’t know already) and another interesting thing is that it also stands for being artificial because it is rare in nature. Just like Regina who was wealthy but fake at the same time. Her whole life was fake. She never really showed her true self to anyone until the very end when she made all her needs known. All Regina wants is power, and lots of it. She and her brothers are all very ambitious. When Regina first comes out she is wearing all black which denotes strength and authority. She came off all powerful from the very beginning. On the contrary, Birdie is wearing red which is the color of fire and blood. It stands for passion, desire and love as well as war, danger, power and determination which is why Oscar and Ben were wearing them as well. Oscar and Ben though were wearing a darker red which actually stands for malice, wrath and leadership. Going back to Birdie I believe that her character was actually very strong. She might have started out as weak but as time went on she became stronger. You could especially tell this when Oscar is beating her up and she keeps getting up and walking towards him confidently. I felt that this was sending the strong message that you can keep hitting me but you will never bring me down.
As the play went on Regina changed her color scheme toward more beige and brown colors which represent stability and denote masculine qualities. Throughout the play we see that Regina does not like how men in this society are regarded higher than women when she herself could be just like them if not better.
The girl who played Alexandra was simply amazing. She was really into character throughout the whole show and for someone so young I think she showed a lot of potential. After talking with my classmates I seem to have been the only one who actually teared up when she was asking her uncle to stop her mom and dad from fighting (I’m such a baby…I know :p). Another moment that was almost a tear jerker for me was when Birdie was talking about the past with Oscar and she started pounding the wall like a mad woman. I could feel all the pain she went through just by that powerful moment. It was crazy. I also want to comment on Addie because I fell in love with her character. Her attitude was hilarious especially when she was talking about Alexandra getting married and she was like “Over my dead body.” If I were to play any character in that play I think I’d choose Addie.
One last thing…I promise. We discussed in class how many people were shocked that they used the N word. Unfortunately I have to say that I really wasn’t shocked. I guess I kind of expected it because I knew what time period the play took place. I also feel that I’ve been exposed to that word so many times listening to my friends that it doesn’t really shock me anymore. It shocks me if they use it in a bad connotation but I’ve only really been exposed to it in a playful manner.
Lastly here is a funny video i found online on a parody of “Little Foxes.” I’m only going to post part one but if you really like it you can find part 2 on youtube. :p Peace out.
Little Foxes was definitely worth seeing. It was worth the time in the theater, the time spent traveling, and having to sit in a cool theater with a soaked shirt. It is among the best plays I’ve ever seen. That may not mean much, considering my extremely limited experience, but it is still true. It is a great story and was well presented by the actors, director, designers, and everyone else involved.
I was impressed from the beginning because I loved the stage design. I don’t feel that a large number of props and fancy furniture is necessary. The purple walls and lack of furniture left me with no idea what to expect. I had to really pay attention to what was going on. I thought having the servants bring in the chairs and other props was a good way to slightly change the setting without having to actually stop the scene. The only exception to the simplicity was the infamous screen. I found it very interesting. Though there were very few times that it made a difference, I liked having it there. It was helpful to see Horace and Regina fighting, and I thought the slaughter of the lamb, though disturbing, was an effective symbol for the way the family exploited the poor townspeople.
The script was well written. It was compelling and interesting, without a boring moment. From the beginning of the play I was curious. Curious to find out what kind of man Horace was, to find out why there was so much tension, and to find out if the plan to buy the mill would work out. I wondered if Horace would be like the siblings or if, being from a different family, he would be kinder and less greedy. Horace’s gentler nature, combined with his illness made him much easier to sympathize with. I wanted him to win, and my attention was held as his plan to punish his wife unfolded. His death and failure to execute his plan was crushing. Though Horace’s failure was upsetting, I enjoyed Regina’s turn around from being powerless due to her gender to being in total control at the end. The family dynamic was well done. The playwright did a great job of making it obvious that there had been tension among the family without providing much background information. All we knew was that the family had money, and it was all given to the sons. However, the numerous cases of violence and deceit gave us a clear idea of what the relationships between the siblings were like.
The actors did a great job throughout the play, especially in the scenes of explosive anger and violence. The screaming and hitting did not feel staged, they felt real. They showed impressive commitment to the play with their willingness to be hit and thrown around. Their skill was not limited to fight scenes, however. The actor’s playing the siblings and Leo were convincingly frantic at times when trying to ensure the purchase of the mill would happen. In the opening scene, the brothers concern that Mr. Marshal would not make a deal with them was clear, and later Leo’s reaction to Cal’s message from Horace felt authentic. Even the few calm scenes, such as the one featuring just Horace, Bertie, and Alexandra, were convincing. I could feel the characters’ happiness and relief that they could have time without the rest of the family.
Though the modern clothing made it difficult to determine the time period of the play (all i could figure out was sometime between 1870 and 1965), I felt it helped the play as a whole. Putting the characters in modern clothing made it easy to use costume to separate the siblings from the rest of the characters. The siblings dark, business like dress gave them a serious, money-concerned appearance. The contrast with Bertie’s red clothing, Horace’s disheveled appearance, and Alexandra’s simple clothing made it obvious that the characters were divided.
Israel Horowitz Plays
I was extremely anxious and excited to see how Israel Horowitz would interpret his three plays, but regrettably by the end of the night I was extremely disappointed by how predictable “Beirut Rocks” and “The Indian Wants the Bronx” were. “What Strong Fences Make” confused me entirely.
In the first play, I couldn’t help but think of how weak the play would be had the two white antagonists been of different ethnicity such as Asian, Black or Hispanic. Obviously the over riding theme was racism and hatred that is regrettably still prevalent in 2010. What I can’t get over was the undertone of oppressor and oppressed. “Racist” is the epithet of minorities, and of course the audience would be sympathetic towards the poor immigrant Indian’s circumstances. As mayor Ed Koch once said in so many words, “sometimes criminals are just rotten and bad people. They do not commit the things they do because a need for wealth, or any other external factors.” While watching the first play, I just saw two hoodlums or troublemakers causing trouble; I see things like this going on everyday as I walk the streets of New York. These types of kids don’t hold grudges, they just haven’t been brought up with the right morals. The one thing I could commend the two white actors on was their diction and high quality acting skills, their accents reminding me of punks from the Jets in West Side Story.
The acting in “What Strong Fences Make” was uninspiring and lackluster. The characters had almost no physical interaction; after there initial entrances they moved but a few feet from side to side for the whole performance. It also seemed as though this situation would be totally unrealistic in real life in the Middle East. If a suspicious looking character approached a military checkpoint in real life, there would be no time for dialogue. The American soldier defending the area would be much more impassioned and much more ready with his or her trigger finger. Instead, we have two characters reminiscing about times past. Their voices were muffled due to poor acoustics of a theater that wasn’t the most well designed compared to ones I’ve been in, and overall the play did not help dig deeper into American/insurgent relations.
The lighting, sound and set choice was the best in “Beirut Rocks” and was finally up to par. The bed and props were dusty and dingy, and the loud sound effects of bombs flying over head finally transported me to the Middle East. I was disappointed by how I could not favor any character, the Jew or The Palestinian. Both had traits that were ignoble and distasteful. Even though I was sympathetic towards the girl when she was forced to lift up her dress, I didn’t think it was totally crazy. In stressful times the adrenaline goes up and everyone returns to their primal survivalist instincts. It was unfortunate, but not 100% out of line.
Israel Horowitz is well intentioned in attempting to act as a social critic about race relations, but he seemed to be inferring many things. The stories seem to have little personal significance and historical context and I would not use him as a knowledgeable expert on social political relations. He has probably not been in any of the aforementioned situations, and therefore can not explain to my satisfaction these circumstances within the plays as well as someone such as an American soldier, a Middle Eastern Woman, or A Jewish Man.
