The Arts in New York City

Compare two of the points of view about theater that you learned about in your readings (Mamet, Jones, or Brooks). How do you think these points of view differ, and what might they have in common in their quest to create the perfect theater?

Let me start off by saying, I love theatre as much as the next uncultured student (meaning as much as I love experiencing it, my opportunities are often limited).  But theatre isn’t what we believe it is, in the eyes of the devoted, what the average person believes is theatre (i.e. Broadway, Shakespeare, etc.) is actually only a shallow perception of what is widely commercialized.  Some say there is more to theatre than just Broadway and its showy spectacular (here meaning ostentatious) musicals, others say that the lack of audience and revenue has led to a lack of “off Broadway” (meaning there’s very little left in terms of off Broadway theatre).

Take for example David Mamot, who wrote, “There is only Broadway,” now, while that technically not true, he has a point.  Off Broadway theatres are less successful than Broadway theatre, which has led to a decline over the last few years.  Broadway, with its incredible sets, gorgeous costumes, famous actors, brilliant effects and all around well-commercialized popularity does an exceptional job of selling seats to a wonderful experience…but to who? Mamot believes that Broadway is now merely a tourist attraction, a showy experience that people attend so that they may brag about going to it to those who have not.  Mamot sounds like he’s resigned to the fact that what’s happening to theatre is inevitable, and while he’s accepted that, he’s still resentful.  The focus on attracting tourists has twisted theatre into a focus on the spectacular (effects, lights, etc.) rather than on the acting and the substance of the play itself.

Mamot’s opinion of theatre is hardly the sharpest of perspectives, an example of harsher critique would be that of Peter Brook.  The first chapter in his book (The Empty Space), “The Deadly Theatre” describes “bad theatre,” which contains an extensive view of how infected theatre is with this “deadly” problem.  No play is safe, no classic is immune, according to Brook, all theatre is susceptible to becoming “deadly.”  Wow…harsh, but well supported.  Brook from the start mentions the link between bad theatre and commercial theatre, so its clear, he really, really, really doesn’t like it.  Also, what brings about deadly theatre can be a number of things, the script, the actor, the director, the setting, the critics, the smallest aspect of a performance can cause deadliness to strike.  Change is probably what makes it so easy for theatre to become deadly.  To keep the audience entertained, to make the people come back, and to keep making money off of it, theatre tends to grow and redevelop itself through new styles, or new approaches, some of which take away from the significance of theatre.  While the purpose is to entertain, the means by which it is achieved aren’t true theatre anymore.

“The Little Foxes” is the first and most fantastic play that I have ever seen.  I had chills from the moment that the play began.  The play began with this eerie music blasting from the speakers.  Because I was sitting so close to the speakers, the music actually scared me for a second and made me feel like I was in an old-fashioned horror movie.  I think that this music was an excellent way to start off the play because the eeriness and evil quality of the music blended perfectly with how wickedly the characters behaved.  The music got my heart racing and elevated the ominous mood of the play for me, such as when Horace tried (unsuccessfully) to get to his bedroom for his medicine and all Regina did was watch.  The music was an especially important part of this scene because there was no dialogue in this scene.  Every time Regina’s heels stabbed the staircase as she followed Horace to his bedroom, the music got louder and emphasized Regina’s intentions to let her husband die.

My favorite actress was the actress who played Birdie.  Birdie was my favorite character as well because she was so good compared to her dirty husband and his siblings.  I think that the actress who played Birdie did an excellent job showing Birdie’s childlike and innocent attitude.  The actress jumped and danced around the stage and crawled eagerly on the floor, just like a child would.  I also think that the actress did an excellent job showing how emotionally scarred Birdie was inside.  The scene where Birdie broke down and confessed how unhappy she was made me feel such pity for her.  What really drove the point home for me was the way that the actress utilized the purple walls to show how trapped Birdie was.  The actress pounded her fists and her body against the wall like she was so broken down inside, but just could not escape.  Because I was so close to the stage, I could hear the thumping every time Birdie beat the wall.  That made the scene more real for me.  At the conclusion of the play, I felt the worst for Birdie because as far as I know, she was still stuck with her pig of a husband.

When I thought about the scenery further, I realized that the purple walls actually did a lot to show how trapped the characters were.  For example, when Regina revealed to her husband how much she despised him, she just put her head to the wall and scratched it over and over with her hands.  It was as if all Regina wanted to get past those walls and free herself, but she couldn’t because she was a female.  I think that Regina turning her face towards the wall instead of towards her husband also shows how much she hated him.  She couldn’t even look bring herself to look her husband in the face…although she seemed to have no problem watching him die.

The Little Foxes commented on two major issues: the inferior treatment of women and racial tensions.  This play commented on the inferior treatment of women because the women were beaten around a lot.  Leo grabbed Alexandra’s hair, Ben shoved Regina to the floor and hit her, and Oscar punched Birdie over and over until she fell down.   The men constantly asserted their control over the women through violence.

Racial tensions were also brought up in this play.  First, the Hubbard’s dropped derogatory words so frequently, I’m surprised their tongues didn’t fall off!  They even said these words right in front of their servants.  Racial tensions were also brought up in the play when it was revealed that the Hubbards would exploit the poor black and white people to make their millions from the cotton mill.  They would increase the tensions between the two groups of people and drive down wages to increase their profit.   It disgusted me that people could do such a thing.  However, I’m glad that Alexandra vowed to fight this type of wickedness.  Someone had to.

Raw. Real.  Passionate. Nuanced. These are all words I would use to describe the performances in Ivo van Hove’s production of “Little Foxes.” From the moment the starkly bright lights flicked on and the play began, I could feel the foreboding tension in the air.  That feeling never really left me throughout the entire play.  Van Hove does an excellent job at creating a certain atmosphere for the audience.  An example of this was the music in the back round and the erratic patterns it had. Whenever a fight was building up, (which was very often), I would hear the tickling of the background music getting louder and louder and louder. I would have to hold my heart in place at some points to prevent it from falling out.  It’s interesting because I can’t really remember the exact melody I am referring to; all I know is how it made me feel. There was also this song that was played at the end, twice I believe, that I am extremely curious about. It seemed really modern and actually had words. I wonder what the significance of it was. Hmm.

A character in the play I took a special interest was Birdie. When all the characters entered the main stage she was the one I couldn’t help but notice. Even before their personalities came out, the red dress she wore completely popped. I soon realized that Birdie’s dress was singled out, just like her character. At first, Birdie just flutters along, all happy and delightful (hence the name BIRDie). I felt this extremely romantic vibe coming from her. Youthful almost.  I didn’t feel this from any other character. When Regina and Birdie are laughing aimlessly on the plush floor, the scene felt reminiscent of The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald.  The sense of being rich and rolling around speaking about dreams and wishes, really made me think of Daisy Buchanan. The actress, who plays Birdie, Tina Benko, was able to shape Birdie and take her into a different realm then Daisy. As the play develops, Birdie’s character darkens as wounds are opened. Ms. Benko captivated me with her performance because of her ability to delicately unearth a sadness and desperation in Birdie.

Something I felt reinforced the strong performances was the environment of play.  Most of the scenes took place in this vast purple plush room. This is not just a room; it is a playground for the characters. In every scene, I was able to find someone on the floor or up against the walls. Whether they were gentle or harsh, pounding or caressing, there was something to be said for these actions. They were the little foxes themselves.  I think this single location is a microcosm for these people’s primitive and egocentric views. They are boxed with in their home, and the selfish life they know, and are unable to open their eyes. When they pound against the surfaces, they are subconsciously trying to escape their own boundaries.

A line that I found profound was the one that said something along the lines of, ‘There are those that eat the earth and there are those who simply sit and watch.’ This idea divides the characters in this production. There are the Hubbard siblings and then there is Alexandra and Horace. Throughout the play, Alexandra and Horace just sit and watch as their family consumes everything around them, from their business ventures to the people in their own lives. Alexandra and Horace’s development in the end is comforting. They each escape the confines of the plush, purple walls. Horace dies and Alexandra defiantly leaves. At least at the end, they are no longer sitting and watching their family of Little Foxes.

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.

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.

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! :]