But it’s still edgy, right?
(Quick disclaimer: I’m not a critic in the strict sense. The point of these postings is not to provide all the background about the lights, actors, etc. that a theatergoer will want to know in deciding whether to go to a show. It’s to comment on what’s happening in theater as a whole, and how a given production/play publishing reflects a trend, marks a breakthrough, or represents theatrical artistry at its best [or doesn’t!].)
Before and since starting work on a production of Uncle Vanya (outside of Handcart), I’ve been reading some critical material on Chekhov’s works. In Chekhov’s Plays, Richard Gilman makes the repeated point that an enduring strength of the plays is their freedom from the author’s own voice. Chekhov’s characters are full of platitudes, but the dramas they inhabit almost never indict or vindicate their points of view. The purpose of a Chekhov play is to show a season in the lives of its characters arriving and passing. What characters believe, whether they live boldly or cautiously, whether they are exciting and idealistic or tepid and pragmatic, is always secondary to the vision of shared humanity that is invoked. Anyone who has attended a top-notch production of Chekhov can attest to the wonderment and poignancy this suspended judgment met with genius can affect.
Not everyone needs to be Chekhov, but I find it impossible not to think of his work in contrast with my experience of Adam Rapp. I saw the latter’s Trueblinka near its close a few weeks ago, and found it numbingly coercive in the way it presents characters and circumstances. From the opening of the play, we are told exactly what to think about the Christian, middle American family that occupies it for a near three hours. In one scene, we see them crossing themselves at church; in the next, we see the matriarch mingling KKK-grade racial observations with shrill overseer tactics as she puts the younger children to work dusting off lily-white crucifixes. In one scene, we see the oldest, dim-bulbed son acting as Mama’s designated thug; we later learn that he was canned at the fire department for locking in the mixed-race residents of a burning house instead of saving them. In one scene, we see a distributor of Christian trinkets kindly buying up the family’s ceramic crucifixes; in the next, he’s trying to seduce their teenaged daughter.
Connecting these few dots, it doesn’t take long to get the point: Organized religion plus the Protestant work ethic plus simple-minded white trash equals dysfunction and violence. Besides being unoriginal and simplistic, this premise won’t sustain an entire play, especially one peopled by characters who serve only to enforce it. Hence the numerous bizarre and repulsive incidents that emerge every few scenes to keep an audience shocked and morbidly fascinated. Neither incest, nor scalping, nor graphic manifestations of puberty are given short shrift to inform us that, in case we’ve forgotten, this is one messed-up bunch of folks we’re looking in on.
Rapp aspires to poetry and manages a poetic veneer through certain intriguing images, such as the eldest son entering the house with a huge white cross on his shirtless back. But the effect of these images is always blatant and momentary. No metaphor of anything deeply rooted in the human experience is ever sustained.
I haven’t seen or read any of Rapp’s other plays. Trueblinka may not be representative of his best work. But it’s by no means atypical of this generation’s best playwrights to confuse sensation with boldness, victimhood with humanity, and social indignation with relevance. No wonder the straight play persists in having a negligible presence in this country’s cultural life.
Posted by Scott Reynolds at November 6, 2002 05:14 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)