The three Israel Horovitz plays presented a unique experience for me.  It was my first time going to see a play with a more modern setting, and I can honestly say I enjoyed the experience.   Of the three, my favorite was Beirut Rocks, not just for the content, but also because of the ease of understanding and the actors’ well portrayal of all the characters.  It was, for me, the most exciting; it contained the most emotion, because the actions taken and the words spoken by Benji and Nasa cause a sharp reaction in the audience.  At first, it is easy to show sympathy to Nasa, who is being singled out as the terrorist, and is then threatened and violated; but when she makes the remark about Jews and wanting them all to die, the sympathy shifts, and neither of the two seem deserving.

Because the first two plays used few props and even less scenery, it made understanding the plays a little difficult, particularly since it was the first time I’d encountered What Strong Fences Make.   This play was the hardest to understand because of many factors.  One of the most important factors was that the actors directed their voices upstage rather than downstage, which, added to the lack of a visible setting, made it nearly impossible to understand about three fourths of the play.  Unless you were sitting in the first two rows, or had exceptional hearing (and i mean like the level of hearing a dog has) there was no way you’d know that this took place at a checkpoint, and that the two characters, (whose names I don’t know because I don’t remember hearing it or because it wasn’t mentioned) were childhood friends.  It was only when one of the two men onstage (the only prop during the entire play being a rifle in the checkpoint guard’s hands) mentioned his children who had died, did the play begin to make sense.  However my epiphany came slightly late, since just after I pieced together the few sentences I managed to hear (with much difficulty) one of the men ran forward, and the guard shot him, resulting in a large explosion offstage and the sudden end of the play.

The Indian Takes the Bronx was easy to understand, however, there was no plot.  The storyline can be summarized as two grown men terrorize an East Indian at a bus stop when they get bored waiting for a bus that never came, and at the end, one of them, Murphy, takes a knife out and cuts the Indian’s hand.  And while we do learn some of the two men’s background through occasional comments they make, it does little to help explain the cruelty they demonstrate towards the Indian, other than to claim that they were very unstable.

The three Israel Horovitz plays may have seemed to be very different from one another, but they all did seem to have a common theme in the end. They all tried to bring up the issue of stereotyping and showed the differences within different cultures and how that’s subject to discrimination and hatred.

The first play we saw was the Indian Wants the Bronx. My general impression of the play was that I thought that it was a lot better than the actual text. It helped a lot to visually see the play. I actually liked this first play. I thought that it was pretty well performed. I liked how the Indian was actually speaking his own language, because that definitely helped add to the whole affect of being and outsider and not knowing what was going on. Because I couldn’t understand what the Indian was saying while he was speaking, it made me think that that’s exactly how the Indian felt when the two guys were speaking to him. I feel as though the social issues were well addressed in the play, and they were made clear. You were really able to feel and see the violence and hatred that foreigners have to deal with. I felt that this was well portrayed through the acting, and the emotions that the actors used. The staging and lighting I felt added to the overall performance in a positive way. The acting I felt was very believable. The staging I felt was very thought out and carefully planned, as well as the lighting. I especially thought that this was effective for the ending when it was just the Indian on stage.

The second play was What Strong Fences Make. My general impression of the play was that it wasn’t very good, in fact it was my least favorite of all three plays. I didn’t feel as if the play was well performed at all.  I felt as though there definitely was a purpose to the play, in that he was trying to bring up social issues, but I felt as though the performance didn’t live up to what Israel Horovitz wanted to achieve with the play when he wrote it. I felt that I might have actually enjoyed the play had it been performed in a better manner. I really wasn’t able to understand the play for reasons other than just the acting. It was also very difficult to understand the play due to the fact that I could barely hear what they were saying the whole time. The acoustics within the theatre weren’t that good, and the actors facing one another instead of the audience while talking didn’t help that problem out at all. Another reason why this play was my least favorite of the three was because there was very little going on on the stage. The two actors just stood there the whole time, one pointing a gun at one person, and the other just standing there. Because of the lack of props, movements, and lighting on the stage, it made it a lot harder for me to engage in the performance.

The third and final play we saw was Beirut Rocks. My general impression of the play was that it was really good. I thought that it was a really well performed play, the only thing that I didn’t like too much was that so much occurred within such a short period of time that it at times seemed to be a bit overdramatic, especially with all the screaming that was taking place on stage. Now reflecting on this, I realize that there was a purpose to all of that commotion. The screaming and so much taking place at once was suppose to add to the feeling and message of the play as a whole. I liked how there were people of such different backgrounds present within the same room. I felt as though this play did a really good job of addressing both political and social issues. In fact I feel as though it even went far at times and touched upon really controversial issues, that at one point the audiences reaction to something that had been said in the play could be taken offensively. The acting, staging and lighting also added to why I enjoyed this play the most. I felt that the props and set up for the play was appropriate and really made it believable that they were all college students stuck in a room together. The sound effects were really loud, and really helped to make you feel as though you too were in the same room as them.

The three plays overall had a common goal. They were written to raise awareness of cultural differences within a society and how the treatment of these different cultures has become a problem. He also wanted to point out that racism and stereotyping was a problem, but still is and that’s why people need to become aware of this and action must be taken.

My high school English teacher asked, “What makes a book a classic?” Each student in the class had his and her own opinion of what defines a “classic.” They compared it to movies, plays, music, and other media. The teacher, in the end, replied, “The concepts and themes of the book are what make it a classic. Those themes have to be able to pertain to society even in a different time period.” The teacher’s words made me think, “Are those the only requirements that make a classic?” Currently, I do not know, but it still intrigues me whenever people say such and such is a “classic.” So when I watched, “The Indian Wants the Bronx,” “What Strong Fences Make,” and “Beirut Rocks,” by Israel Horovits I asked myself, “Are these classics?”

The first short play, “The Indian Wants the Bronx,” made me think that it might be a classic. The clear-cut ideas were racial profiling and fear of the unknown. But I also believed that Horovitz was also making subtle statements: whom are we to blame for the way young children live? The government? The parents? The friends? The social worker? Or the “other”? Personally, I don’t know the answer, but it seems to me that the people in authority are shirking their duties. In the play, Joey says, “Murph’s on a rap for slicing a kid,” so we would think that Murph wouldn’t have a knife on his body, but Pussyface gave them knives as a Christmas present. In addition to that, Murph’s mother “don’t even make a living” which shows that even his own mother doesn’t take responsibility for taking care of her child. Does this pertain to us? Maybe not personally, but there are a lot of kids out there dealing with these problems. It doesn’t affect the whole society, really, but it’s still something striking – a thought that sparks the tinder.

The second short play, “What Strong Fences Make,” was less active. The actors were standing on stage talking. From reading the script, I felt that there should have been great tension between Uri and Itzhak. I thought that they were much too close to each other onstage to be hostile; they seemed too “friendly” with the distance. What I did like was the lighting of the stage because the rays were focused on Uri while Itzhak lingered in the shadows. It felt like a foreboding incident was going to happen and it did. In the end, I don’t think that the production of the play was done well because most of the people in the audience couldn’t hear Uri. It’s important for the audience to be able to understand the play in order to obtain the message.  As for the message, I feel that it could be a “classic” because all cultures may continue to fight against one another and new ones may form.

The third short play, “Beirut Rocks,” was, most probably, the favorite for the majority of the students. Personally, it was shocking, to say the least. The topics and emotions that were expressed shook me. Nassa and Benjy surprised me. The way they became their characters astonished me because the previous two plays the characters, I felt, did not really become their characters. I felt that the actors playing Joey and Murph were trying too hard to become their characters while the actor playing Gupta felt…”choppy” in scenes where he interacts with the boys. And I felt neutral when I saw the actors playing Uri and Itzhak. I just thought that Uri was holding his gun awkwardly, but I think it was in order to show how inexperience he was in combat. In addition to the characters, the scenery was simple, yet it showed chaos. The scene took place on one set: an area with bags strewed over the bed and floor with two chairs. But in terms of being a “classic,” I believe this play could be one. The fiery argument and conflicts and misunderstandings within this play takes elements from the previous two and amplifies them such as misunderstandings, lack of knowledge about other cultures, conflicts between cultures.

Even though I’ve thought about these plays and analyzed them in my terms I wouldn’t know if they would become the “classic” my teacher defined that day in class. I could only guess what the plays would become. Hopefully, because of their strength as a collection, they would leave impressions on the audiences and live on.

Horovits, Israel. The Indian Wants the Bronx. New York. Dramatists Play Service, Inc, 1996. Print.

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.