NYTimes Arts- Darryl ‘Joe Cool’ Daniel, Illustrator of Snoop Dogg’s First Album Cover, Dies at 56
- Why the Olympics’ Parade of Nations Is the World’s Costume Party
- Bob Booker, Whose J.F.K. Parody Was a Runaway Hit, Dies at 91
- ‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ Reviews Are In: Amusing or Exhausting?
- Helen Marden, Grieving in Bright Colors and on Her Own Terms
The Little Foxes Review
The Little Foxes, though simple in its costumes and sets, was an entertaining criticism of southern society in the early 1900’s. It illuminated the inferior status of women and blacks in the South during this time period. Although there was more yelling than necessary in this play, it clearly demonstrated intra-familial tensions that result from an obsession with money. Also, the tense relations resulted from the female’s desire to escape oppression, and the male’s desire to maintain their superior status.
Although the playwright intended for the play to be set in the early 1900’s, there were still modern aspects of the play. To be honest, at times I was confused about the director’s intended time period. The diction and the accents used showed that it was from the past. They used derogatory terms, and the director’s decision to maintain these words in the play shows that racial tensions still exist today. Additionally, Leo and Zan used horses to take Marshall to the train station to return to Chicago. Horses were the main mode of transportation used in the south in the early 1900’s. Moreover, Regina was unable to join her brothers in investing in the mill without the approval of her husband since she was a woman and therefore did not have access to her husband’s money. On the other hand, there was an L.E.D. screen hanging above the staircase and in the final scene, Zan steps onto the moving platform at an airport. Also, the image of the sacrificial lamb was a modern addition. The playwright criticizes the Southern Aristocratic tradition of hunting animals for fun. Cal comments to Oscar that there are people who would eat the animals that he kills simply for fun. I believe the use of the L.E.D. screen to show the sacrificial lamb helped to show the cruelty towards the animals. After watching the sacrifice of the lamb, I wanted to become a vegetarian. These images clearly illustrate that “A picture is worth a thousand words.”
I thought the actors performed their roles very well. In the beginning of the play, Zan was innocent, and as the play progressed, she developed into an independent woman who began to assert her authority. As the play went on, she became less and less like Birdie and more and more like her mother, Regina. The character of Birdie was a realistic portrayal of a woman from an aristocratic family. She had musical talents and the actress appropriately presented Birdie as a ditzy girl. On the contrary, I personally found it hard to admire Regina as an actress since I despised her character; however, she was definitely successful in dominating the scenes and she had a remarkable presence on the stage. Still, it was impossible for her to gain the sympathy of the audience when Horace decided to leave most of his money to Zan. Regina admits that she only married Horace for his money and she lied to him when she told him she was sick so he couldn’t go near her. Ultimately, she passively watches as he has a heart attack right in front of her, which displays once and for all her self-centered nature.
The play demonstrates both the racial tensions that existed at the time and the tension between the sexes. Horace plans to leave money for Addie, but Addie reminds him that she will never actually be able to receive the money left for her. Instead, Horace leaves cash for her. Also, in order to become rich from the mill, Ben and Oscar plan to use poor whites and poor blacks and exploit them for labor. They hope to create tensions between these two groups so they will be able to use both groups as poor labor. Regina is aggressive and knows what she wants; however, she is unable to achieve her goals since she is a woman. She is eternally angry that her father left all of his money to her brothers and not to Regina.
Overall, I thought Ivan Van Hove’s production of The Little Foxes was terrific. Lillian Hellman criticizes the Southern Aristocracy, comparing them to animals, and more specifically foxes. They are willing to do anything to achieve their goals and they only think about themselves. They are aggressive and are very quick to attack and exploit other people to consume all that they hope to consume. This modern interpretation of the play shows that many problems of the early 1900’s are still apparent today, and it also presents a performance that a modern day New York City audience will be able to relate to.
Little Foxes Review
Sunday was a very interesting day, getting soaked from the rain but with optimism I realize that I was able to enjoy the great performance of Little Foxes.
I wondered what element first stood out at me the most and struck me the moment I left the stage. As I sat and viewed the performance, my mind kept going over how much the story reflected certain aspects of society today. Overall, the story Lillian Hellman conveyed in Little Foxes struck me because of how realistic the story was in using the derogatory term for Africans in the play. As I viewed the performance I was shocked when the word was first thrown out by the actors. My heart jumped and at first I was in doubt that it was said, but I realized that in a way the word was critical to the realism of the play. Indeed it is a degrading term but I believe it was critical so that the audience would grasp that Southern view of Africans did not change because they were free. Racism remained and I truly related to that concept because even in a millennium age, I feel and hear racism and realize that it has not left. Thus the racism in the story was critical making it original and appropriate to the time period.
As the story was established in my mind, I began to notice the director’s interpretation of a play centered around the 1907 South. What I enjoyed was how the director interpreted the play overall. He did not use corsets for females but in fact modern clothes for the Southern aristocracy. As I saw the modern clothes, I was surprised to hear that the play was centered in 1907. This made me wonder if Lillian Hellman had two criticisms she wanted to convey to her readers. Indeed, she was criticizing the society of the South, how they exploit the blacks and the poor because they are of lower status and how they easily throw out derogatory language to the blacks. The modern clothes made me think about whether Lillian Hellman was also socially criticizing the current society that she lived in. How many times is racism seen in history or even to this day? How many times in history have people less fortunate than others been exploited to satisfy the gain of the richer? The director allowing a modern twist to the play for me enhanced the clarity of the performance and the overall story that Hellman possibly wanted to convey as a social critic.
The director’s interpretation is coupled with how he staged the play. Personally, I was happy that the stage was not made to be elaborate because that distracts me from the message and deliverance of the actors. Having only a purple room throughout the entire set allowed me to engage in what the actors were saying. Purple indicating riches and royalty was a perfect color for the entire set showing what was the motive of several of these characters, wealth and greed. The darker purple in my opinion reflected tension throughout the play because as I looked around the room combined with the chandeliers made me feel a mood of tension and suspense. There were two other features that I found interesting which were the screen and the placement of the staircase. I found the screen distracting at times but I felt that it gave me an all knowing perspective, I knew what happened at all times between the characters. However, I mainly wondered why the staircase was placed specifically in the middle of the stage as it hindered the audience from seeing the whole stage. It left the room divided and the actors mainly stood either on one side or the other. Literally by the staircase the household was divided just as it was for the characters. Each character was divided because of different opinions, whether it was Regina’s desire to break free or Birdie to return to her former plantation it led to arguing and division as shown by the staircase.
Lastly, the final element that manipulated all aspects of the stage costumes, and the director’s purpose were the actors. The actors stood out to me the entire play as they were so attached to their character allowing the character who they were portraying to take over. For instance, the actor playing Regina, although I may despise the character herself was portrayed so well, from her frustration of not being able to break free to Chicago to the sadness and fear of being alone in her encounter with Alexandra. In the same way I enjoyed the actress’ portrayal of Birdie and how she was frustrated in not being able to achieve her personal dreams. The way these actors performed made me not want to leave my seat because I did feel that I was in the midst of these characters by their acting. Through the screaming and changing of vocals I felt at times as if I was the only one in the theater because I was so absorbed by the play. Even when they finished their performance, their was still tension on their faces and that made me realize how much they were in touch with their characters. Combined with the other elements and the manipulation of the scenery as the actors were beating the stage made the actors appear to be one with the stage and all elements of the play. For me all these aspects and elements certainly did not make Little Foxes any deadly theater.
Wow.
Yesterday was an eventful day.
After four others and I half- ran to the theater in the pouring rain, I arrived to my seat in the second row, dripping on my program and excited for the play.
And I can honestly say that I was not at all disappointed.
To be honest because of the name I thought I was going to see something childish, like Fantastic Mr. Fox. But this play really made me think. The name itself was symbolic of the scheming brothers and sister and their animalistic behavior. As they banged on the walls and rolled on the floor it was apparent that there was more to these people than just their wealth.
The acting of each character was spectacular, and the emotions they displayed and brought out in me were so intense. Birdie especially captivated me. She had a childlike innocence as she confessed her hope that they would acquire Lionette again. At first her character appeared to be a common aristocratic wife of the time: wealthy, ignorant and ignored. She has no strong voice in the play and is powerless until her outburst. At that point we see that she is not a silly wife to a rich man but a woman who married a man she thought she loved. In a way, I liked Birdie’s character best because I was able to relate to her the most: she is ignored.
In stark contrast is her sister-in-law Regina. She is a powerful woman who is determined to get her way by any means possible. Regina marries a man she detests just so she can elevate her status in society.
With the characters of Regina and her brothers Hellman makes a commentary on the greedy nature and selfishness of the Southern Aristocracy. Even though building the mill will bring money to the brothers, making the entire family rich, none of them want to share. In the end Regina blackmails her own brothers to give her most of the money. Regina’s struggle to gain power is finally rewarded at the end.
In addition to Hellman’s criticism of the aristocracy’s greed there is also a distinct criticism of their treatment towards African Americans. I was shocked when they first said the ‘n’ word, but this word emphasized how horribly they were treated at this time. When Horace tells Adie he wants to leave her money in his will, she knows that because of her low social status she will never receive the money.
During class many people have commented that the costumes were inappropriate. I think that although they are inaccurate for the time period, Van Hove made a good decision by keeping them simple. Anything fancier would have distracted me during the performance.
Speaking of distractions, I could not take my eyes off the LED screen until the lamb sacrifice. It was too big of a distraction and without a doubt the play would have been just as good without it. In the very first reading of the packet, Toward a New Stage, the author states that in order for a production to succeed it must be the antithesis of a motion picture. The screen was like a mini- movie itself, and in this case I did not think it was necessary.
Aside from this, I think the small amount of furniture allowed people to focus on the actors and their words. The big staircase in the center was important because that was where Regina let Horace die. I think this was in important scene because it showed just how much she was driven by greed. The scenery was not too much, but not too little either (aside from the screen). The sounds were perfect- they made dramatic moments more powerful, as well as the dim lights.
In order to not rant (and since I already wrote a bit too much) I’ll end this blog here. There are way too many things to comment on about this play, I tried to cover as much as possible without repeating too much from class. Yesterday was certainly an adventure. It was one of those days that makes you appreciate a hot shower and dry clothes more.
The Little Foxes Review
All my life I’ve heard about Broadway plays on television and the radio, I’ve seen ads for them, and I’ve even attended a few during the last few years. However, Off-Broadway plays always seemed really foreign to me. I thought that since they weren’t associated with shiny lights and flashy scenery, they must be boring. The actors and actresses in Off-Broadway shows are hardly even famous–so the play must be a complete waste of time, right? Wrong.
Last night, The Little Foxes, completely changed my mind about Off-Broadway theater. Even though I was coughing like crazy and the woman sitting next to me was getting upset (Boo to her), I made the best of the play. I sat throughout the entire play, never thinking about an intermission break of any sort. Sure, I had to use the ladies room and I was thirsty, but the actors and actresses kept me at the edge of my seat wanting more.
I’ve always been the drama queen in my group of friends so controversy, drama, backstabbing, and so on is interesting and engaging for me and the playwright along with the director did just that. I thought that the choices that Ivo van Hove made were the reason why many of the viewers seemed pleased at the end of the play. Although Lillian Hellman originally wrote this play to be set in the 1900s, Ivo van Hove excellently and correctly places it in our modern society without taking away from the social issues that he wanted to stand out.
One might expect to find the women wearing huge ballgown dresses that sweep the floor with extravagant hats, corsets, closed-toe shoes and the men with penguin jacket suits and top hats, but what we saw was the exact opposite. In those days, the wealthy would wear the aforementioned, but in modern society the wealthy dress with pearls, close fitting dresses, short skirts, high-heels and well-tailored suits. I actually really like that the director chose these costumes because it helped us really relate to the play. I’m sure that it would’ve been pretty darn difficult to tell if Birdie was being silly and spontaneous by running out in a big undergarment from the 1900s rather than a skimpy robe that made it all the more surprising. I liked that the costume director chose to give Birdie a completely different wardrobe than the rest of the characters. Birdie was adorned in all red, even up to her shoes and her extremely revealing robe. In comparison to the other characters who were all wearing very neutral and dark colors, Birdie’s outfits stood out in the pool of darkness. Like the people who surrounded her, mainly her husband and his siblings, she was different than the rest of them. She stood out because her motives weren’t to get rich (or die trying) but rather to just be happy with what she has. Birdie is a representation of what might have happened to Alexandra had she stayed with Regina for the rest of her life.
Aside from the costumes, I believe that the set really played an important part in adding to the greatness of the play. Since they were rich, one would expect to see fancy furniture, drapery, and ornaments, but we saw, once again, the exact opposite. Ivo van Hove only used the purple carpeting and gold trimmings to infer the richness of the family. Purple and gold are usually associated with royalty and so we didn’t need much more for us to see and understand this concept. I actually liked that the set was pretty empty besides a few small props here and there and a staircase. It allowed the actors to really get into character with as little distractions as possible. I think the director chose to put the staircase right in the middle to separate the different arguments that were happening and so that the audience on either side could see different things going on to show the chaos and craziness going on in the house.
Ivo van Hove further depicted the social issues that Lillian Hellman first introduced into her play–race and women. The black servants were not treated with much respect by really anyone in the house besides Alexandra. The rest of them referred to the servants and people of their kind as “Nigger.” I think it was important that Ivo van Hove kept this word in the play because it criticizes the way the family as well as the whites in general referred to the blacks. The women were also not treated very fairly–they were beaten (In Birdie’s case to the point where she had a black and blue on her leg and Regina with a cut on her shin). The women had no say in the business that was going on and Regina didn’t even have access to her husband’s money, which is a lot different than the present day relationships between a husband and his wife.
I thought the title for this play, The Little Foxes, definitely fit the play. The Hubbards were indeed foxes, but little foxes might just be an understatement. The way they were rolling around on the floor and scratching and hitting the carpets really made them seem like animals preying on the poor blacks and poor whites in their decision to build the cotton mill.
All in all, I’d have to say that this play really took the opposite of what we all expected and displayed that for the audience, relating, engaging, and most of all entertaining the entire house. I loved it! :]
Israel Horovitz Plays
Overall, I found the Barefoot players production of Israel Horowitz’s three plays effective. The few props were used well, and I understood every word that was said (although, that may have only been because I was sitting near the front). The costumes were effective, especially in “The Indian Wants the Bronx” and “Beirut Rocks.” The Indian’s traditional garb, and Nasa’s recognizably Muslim dress served to make it obvious that neither character fit in with those around them.
The short play style was new to me. I have seen plays separated into three or more acts, but it has always been one play. I felt that showing three short plays in a row was effective in keeping my attention and saying the same thing in different ways. Two young kids beating up an old Indian man is different than a man trying to convince his childhood friend not to commit an act of terrorism, and both are different than a group of college students being evacuated from a dangerous area. However, these plays worked as a group because they all attempted to put the audience in the mindset of a member of a commonly oppressed ethnicity.
The acting was convincing, and the actors succeeded in drawing an emotional response from me. I sincerely cared about the characters and the situation they were in. However, after hearing the post-play talk back, it seemed the playwright failed in creating the response he intended. This was particularly true with the last play. Mr. Horovitz spoke about the terrible situation Nasa was put in, and how racist Benjy was. He wanted the audience to be sympathetic towards Nasa. He also spoke about miscommunication, and balance. After viewing the play I did not see those themes at all. It seemed to me that both Nasa and Benjy clearly communicated their feelings. Benjy was offended by Nasa’s generalization that all Jews were attacking Lebanon and was upset by her desire to commit genocide against his race. Nasa felt hatred toward Jews due to her parent’s murder, and was upset that she could not be involved in the bombing.
Not only did their desires seem clear, but there was no balance. I could not equate Benjy’s violent reaction to Nasa with Nasa’s desire to kill all Jews. Though Benjy showed ignorance when he asked why Nasa was studying Arabic, being “Arabic” herself, there was nothing menacing or offensive in his statement. I would see it as a compliment if someone thought every member of my ethnicity had the intelligence and education to be multi-lingual. He only becomes violent after Nasa expresses her desire to exterminate the Jewish people. Benjy expresses anger towards an individual who directly threatened his family. This is by no means the same as Nasa’s intent to take part in a centuries old war with the ultimate goal of ethnic cleansing.
Impressions on Israel Horowitz Plays
Theater day was an exciting and unique experience that Ill never forget. Ive watched a few Broadway plays before like Phantom of the Opera and Shrek the musical, but Ive never gotten so close and personal to the plays themselves. Reading “The Indian Wants the Bronx” beforehand, I had pretty high expectations about what would be illustrated through the actors and scenery. However, I was quite disappointed because I felt the storyline itself wasn’t realistic along with the acting. At first, this confused Indian walks onto stage and I couldnt even see his face clearly because of the bad lighting. Then, as the play went on, I didnt enjoy seeing Murph and Joey go at it again and again. I felt like the audience got that they were unstable and “mean people” and it didnt have to be emphasized so much. I felt kind of special that I understood what the Indian was saying during the play but also felt weird and curious about how people around me were understanding what was going on. However in the end I felt like my understanding of the language didn’t really affect my viewing as I was still not satisfied with the play. I did understand Joey and Murph’s issues and mental instability which contributed to the way they behaved with the Indian and felt some sympathy but didnt think the situation was realistic at all. I felt like asking, “Why didn’t the Indians son pick him up or know his whereabouts?!”Overall, I think the writing of the plot was on the weaker side and could’ve been more believable.
I completely was not in tune with “What Strong Fences Make” throughout the whole play. I didn’t hear a word of what was said and I don’t think the audience members should have to try so hard to try to pay attention and listen to the actors. I think the costumes were unrealistic and staging was horrible. I didnt get much out of it except that there were two guys that were friends from before and then “Boom!”, there was an explosion. I didnt enjoy it like many people and felt like if we had heard it better, it could have been a better experience.
I definitely think that third play, “Beirut Rocks” was my favorite because I related to it the most, but also because it was better than the other two. Having done a scene from it during the theater workshop i knew it would be controversial and a touchy subject. However, I looked forward to how Horowitz would portray the characters and approach the subject. I think the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets people very emotional and felt like the play did an “okay” job of its portrayal. I liked that Horowitz tried to make it unbiased but I still think many people took offense and didn’t think that going that deep into the topic was appropriate for the audience. Maybe if everyone had some educational background on what was going on, it would’ve been more fitting but I think many people weren’t in that place. Even though Benji and Nasa seemed like total opposites, I feel like they had a lot more in common than they realized. I also felt a connection to Nasa because coming from a Muslim background, I know how it feels like to be looked at differently and to be misunderstood about your views on the world. I was in shock when they revealed Nasa from under her burka and I felt offended for her. I think that this made it realistic for me and the fact that I felt an emotional connection to her made the experience so much better. Overall, this topic is ongoing and is bound to show up in our lives so I think its good it was addressed but maybe this sort of representation was a little inappropriate. However, the plays’ realistic characters, costumes, and sound effects enhanced the experience for me and I loved it in the end!
Israel Horovitz Blog
I love analyzing art. Whether it is literature, a painting or a piece of music, I enjoy taking something apart and infusing my ideas into its fragments. So when I was watching “The Indian Wants the Bronx”, those were my innate intentions. The first thing I noticed was that the lights in auditorium were dimmed. This is usually a sign that a performance is about to start. For “The Indian Wants the Bronx” though, the lights stayed dim the entire show. The only other light was a bold spotlight over the main stage prop, the phone booth. It immediately caught my eyes. I think that in any art form, something to initially grab a viewers’ attention is extremely important. Something I thought was interesting about the prop was that it helped convey a message Israel Hurvitz was trying to get across. The idea of the phone booth is communication. The boys and the Indian are really unable to communicate properly. When reading the play I really did not fully grasp this fact because the Indian’s part is written in English. While watching it though, I was able to witness the struggle to communicate. Watching the Indian speak with out really being heard was quite heartbreaking. Something I took from the play, that I think the actors were able to convey with the urgency of their performances, was that regardless of one’s religion or one’s culture, a unifying form of communication that everyone craves, is to love and to be loved.
A reference that came to mind was the movie Crash. Which may seem a bit random, but like this play it deals with the idea of different cultures meshing. In the opening scene of the movie, a character narrates, “… I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something.” The idea of the absence of love or human connection resonates in “The Indian Wants the Bronx” as well. Murph and Joey are these stupid, delinquent boys just messing around. When you get to their core though, someone from social services is taking care of them. They are really alone, and so they bully the Indian just to feel something in their lonely, young lives. This is expressed quite eloquently in the staging of the play. At the very beginning, the stage is empty. The audience though hears these two boys singing a song in the back round. These lyrics, “I walk the lonely streets at night… but, baby, you don’t care,” echo through out the auditorium. The actors make it seem like a casual song, but then you listen closely and realize what they are saying. This is the echo of their loneliness.
I found the theme of this play to be a strong one. The value of communication is something that can really be stretched in many different directions of thought. Besides for this idea and the nuances in the props and stage directions, I did not thoroughly enjoy any other part of this play. If you love to analyze things you can always find something interesting but honestly, the play just dragged on.
Israel Horovitz Plays
At first, the idea of sitting down and watching three plays in a row seemed a tad bit boring in my eyes. Usually I’m unable to sit through one play at the most, however, the short style of Horovitz’s plays made it much easier to sit through the plays and the majority of the plays caught my attention from start to finish. In high school, I’ve went to see many plays that were sometimes two to three hours long with just one intermission. These plays were always really hard to connect to or to understand, which is why we’ve had to read all of them before seeing them in action. This took away the surprise factor that there usually is when seeing a play.
After reading “The Indian Wants the Bronx,” I was almost sure that I could picture exactly what would happen and to sit there and watch it would be pretty boring since it was an uneventful play, but I was wrong. The characters weren’t exactly what I was expecting which made it a lot more interesting and engaging. Many of my fellow students thought that the play had no plot but I think that was the exact intention of Israel Horovitz. He wanted to show the way immigrants are treated in everyday situations not just a made up storyline. I loved the way the lights were on the young kids and not on the Indian because it showed how unimportant the other characters made the Indian seem. Also, the phone booth and garbage cans made it a little easier to picture the scene where this event might have occurred. One thing I did not like was that it was difficult to notice that the scene was in fact at a bus stop. Maybe a bus stop sign or a bench of some sort would’ve made that easier to understand. This play evoked many emotions in the audience because we saw a man get killed just for being an Indian, an immigrant, and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though there are some questions that make the play seem unbelievable like, how come no one saw this happening and why would the Indian’s son leave him alone is such a big city, events and situations such as these happen on a regular, especially in other parts of the world. Last week, when I attended church, there was a guest pastor from Pakistan who spoke about people who were killed on their way to church just because they’re Christians in a predominantly Muslim society. Israel Horovitz brought this aggression amongst cultures to life.
The second play, “What Strong Fences Make,” was completely foreign to me. For one, I did not hear a word of what the actors said and so, I stopped paying attention. I believe that it’s the job of the actors to engage their audience as well as the setting of the stage. I couldn’t even tell that the two men were at a border because there was no set. There were no props other than a gun and some costumes, which, in my opinion, weren’t that great. I can understand that it might be difficult to create an entire stage set for such a short play but something small would have been enough just so that we can understand the setting.
The third play, “Beirut Rocks,” was by far, my favorite of the three plays. As I sat there that night watching, I remembered that we had acted out a part of this play during our theater workshops and I was eager to see that scene played out. The racial slurs that were being thrown back and forth between the “Jew” and Nasa showed the ignorance that some people have when it comes to other races and other cultures. At the end of the play when they check Nasa to see if she was hiding a bomb, it made the entire audience gasp in shock. Israel Horovitz made a good decision in deciding to include this because it showed how far these people went just to prove something that they weren’t even sure of. One thing I did not like was that everyone focused on what had happened to Nasa, but many forgot that she had also called the Jewish young man, a “Jew” and told him that the world won’t be good until all of the Jews are out of it. Sometimes a person’s background and culture can influence their views of other cultures. For example, some of the people who were affected by the incident of 9-11 now show hate against Muslims and their children will probably follow the same.
Israel Horovitz correctly displayed the social issues between races and the unfortunate events that occur because of this. Overall, I really enjoyed watching the plays, and I might have even enjoyed the second one if I had heard it!
Israel Horowitz(Horovitz??) Blog.
The 3 plays we watched on Theatre Day by Israel Horowitz were all very moving and successfully portrayed their message to the audience. They helped show the world that hating each other will really get us no where. We need to redefine the word love because obviously people do not know the meaning of it anymore. We shouldn’t restrict ourselves to only loving one culture like it is the only one around. We have to learn to respect everyone around us. We don’t have to understand them, be like them, or practice their beliefs, we only have to respect them and let things be.
The first play, “The Indian Wants The Bronx”, was very compelling and I have to admit, it had me on roller coaster ride the whole time. It made me laugh when the Indian was mimicking Joey and it also made me tear up when Joey was crying on the Indian’s shoulder. At first I really did not like the characters of the 2 boys because they had all the qualities you could hate in a person and I did not understand how they could treat another human being like they did, but from the moment I saw Joey break down and cry I finally understood the characters. All these boys needed was a little love and they never received it from their parents or even their social worker. So who is really to blame? The kids or the environment they grew up in? Of course this doesn’t excuse their actions but it does help clear up why they did what they did. They never learned to love because they never received it.
On another note the actors did a good enough job here but it wasn’t as great as it could have been. The guy who played as Murph was nervous and it showed because I could tell when he messed up, and as an actor that is a big no-no. You can mess up but you have to be able to make it seem as if everything is fine. He let his nervousness show and it affected his character. If he was truly in character he wouldn’t have been nervous because his character Murph wasn’t supposed to be. I do have to say though that I really liked the lighting and the set. I totally believed that they were on a street corner waiting for the bus unlike the staging for “What Strong Fences Make” where I had no idea where they were until the last couple of seconds of the play.
Just like everyone else in that theatre (except for the first row), I felt that this play would have been so much more enjoyable if I could have heard it. Throughout the whole beginning I was paying attention but it was so frustrating not being able to clearly understand them. I kind of felt like the Indian from “The Indian Wants The Bronx!” Also I kept trying to figure out what in the world he had on his head which really distracted me. They barely used any set pieces which I guess was because they wanted the audience to fill in the set with their imagination. Unfortunately that was really hard for us poor audience members who were lost.
I found the final play, “Beirut Rocks,” really enjoyable, as did everyone else, but I think that, that was because we could all relate to it more than the last two plays. The actors really did a wonderful job evoking so many different emotions in the audience. That, I think is the true test of an actor: how well they can get a reaction from the audience. There was especially one moment where Nasa made a comment about how the world would be better with no Jews and at that moment everyone just took a deep breath in, and it felt like we were all unified against one cause. It was like we all became insulted whether we were Jewish or not. I also loved that they actually balanced the racism(that sounds a little weird but play along with me for a little.) What I mean is that they didn’t just target one race, like in “The Indian Wants The Bronx,” instead they actually insulted almost all of their races which just strengthened their theme of racism and animosity even more. This play really helped emphasize the meaning of love. Especially for us young people, who are more likely to interact with different cultures everyday than our parents and grandparents, we have to learn to respect each other and learn from one another.
The set was simple and yet intricate at the same time, which I liked. I loved how I didn’t have to imagine a whole set design in my mind like “What Strong Fences Make.” The lighting was very warm and it made me feel very comfortable in the beginning, like I was in my own home.
All in all, I had a great time watching these three plays(well maybe not so much with the second one 0_0.) I feel their message was very clear and that they executed it very well. So go ahead and spread the love yo.
Blog #1 Israel Horovitz
The Israel Horovitz plays were both thought provoking and extremely controversial. The first play “The Indian Wants the Bronx” seemed as if it was another portrayal of violence and racism in the city. The plot of the play itself was very “ugly.” An Indian named Gupta encounters two delinquents, Joey and Murph, as he frantically searches for his son. These two distinct characters continually pester the Indian, becoming enraged at the language barrier between them. Language is a one of several many unifying traits that people can share. The anger and acts of cruelty imposed on the Indian exemplify how cultural differences can play a tremendous role in our society. I thought this play showed a side of New York that almost all immigrants have experienced at one point. It actually made me think back to a time when I knew very little English, a time where day after day I was the source of everyone’s laughter and entertainment. Yet despite all of the violence that seemed to be written into the script, I found the acting very enjoyable. Both actors were extremely audible in the large auditorium and had managed to keep my attention amidst all the noise and cell phones going off. When I found out that Hunter College was not a familiar workspace for the actors, I was very impressed with how the Barefoot Company made use of their limited resources and props. Even the spotlights and introductory sounds seemed on par with the acting. Overall I thought the bold characters and skilled acting was an excellent way to start off the night.
The second play “What Strong Fences Make” was my least favorite production. It was not the script or plot I had a problem with but more so with the performance and quality of the acting. I understood that some of the actors were being recycled into subsequent plays, such as the actor who played the Indian in “The Indian Wants the Bronx,” but it was shocking to see such a drop in the quality of work being put out. I am certain that I am not the only one who feels this way. I could not hear a large majority of the dialogue that went on between the actors. It was unfortunate that this play consisted mostly of dialogue. As part of the audience I felt like I was being excluded from the action, the juicy stuff. It was like biting into a steak cooked to rubbery perfection. From what I was able to make out from the ominous background music, the small portions of recognizable dialogue, and the bombastic explosion at the end, I think the play was about the idea that rage trumps friendship and gets the better of man. The uncontrollable nature of people and reluctance to listen to others continually breeds destruction. A failure to compromise is one of the primary reasons why nations wage wars. I would like to reiterate that most of this is from what I observed and may not necessarily hold true. I was very disappointed in the acting, but the props and costumes were very aesthetically pleasing. I certainly did not expect the Indian to be carrying such a big gun.
The last play of the night “Beirut Rocks” did more than make up for the previous performance. To me this production reeked of a history built on heavy tension and cultural differences. From my peers I understood that this play stirred up a whirlpool of controversy, the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Beirut Rocks” happened to be the script that we explored in theatre workshop, so I did try to keep the historical context in mind as I watched. Unfortunately I found myself more attached to each individual character because I was given the opportunity to act out the script beforehand. I was more intrigued with the idea of self-realization and awareness of the people around you that I had almost forgotten Benji’s and Nasa’s ingrained hatred for each other. I was stunned by the performance. The actors had managed to capture each character as I had imagined them, especially Benji’s cool demeanor and Nasa’s subtle inborn hatred. My eyes bulged when Benji whipped out the golf club and began banging on bed. I could not help but wonder if Nasa really did have a bomb underneath her dress. The acting was that good. The props, costumes, and lighting were perfect and only intensified the dispute between the characters. As I watched the curtain close I found myself thinking, “It’s pretty shocking how much people really hate each other deep down.”
The talkback session with the cast, directors, and playwright Israel Horovitz was not how I had envisioned it. Somewhere along the lines of trying to understand what theme Horovitz focused on, I had my doubts on whether there was really a theme at all. I was confused when Horovitz had stated that there was no theme, and that the three plays were a collection of his favorite written works. I was even more baffled when he went off on a tangent discussing inappropriately dressed “wood nymphs” or pixies or something like that. Whether or not there was an intended theme to be followed as we watched the performance, I can honestly say that I thoroughly enjoyed theatre day. I am happy that there is more to come.
