THE RIVER

[wonkit]

I just read Jez Butterworth's play, THE RIVER. I need to complain. Loudly.

It is fewer than 45 pages, and took exactly 30 minutes to read, including re-reading certain sections to make sure I understood what was going on. This has to be the shortest play ever produced, unless it is padded with musical interludes, or something. Or paired with another one act play, as they did in Victorian times.

The characters do not have names. THE MAN. THE WOMAN. THE OTHER WOMAN. Okay. Trying to keep it universal? It is set in rural England (or possibly, but not probably, rural America). Is Jez just too damn lazy to find a name? Or is he afraid that might endanger the consistently two-dimensional nature of his people?

Why is this part attractive to the likes of Hugh Jackman? Because he will have five hours off on two-show days? Because it was cheap? Because he figures if Mark Rylance can get a Tony doing Jez' work, maybe he can, too?

I don't get this play. It is like some final exam in an online writing seminar. Someone tell me that there is some "there" there. Even JERUSALEM (which I thought over-rated) at least felt like a solid piece of theater. This has the power of reading the classifieds.

Call me bewildered.

[somethingwicked]

FYI, the play ran 80 minutes when it was done at the Royal Court in London.

[AC126748]

What's with this seemingly recent trend of equating a work's worth with its length?

[CapnHook]

By all means, you are entitled to your opinions of the work on paper. But remember, even the worst pieces of playwrighting can be produced into masterful works of stagecraft.

Let's see what he does with it before judging his decision to do the play. (I, for one, am pleased that an A-list movie star is doing an ORIGINAL work, rather than a revival.)

[Smaxie]

You sound like the type of person who yells at an impressionist painting for being too diffuse.

[Borstalboy]

Suggestion to OP: Stay away from Albee, Beckett, and Pinter.

[mamaleh]

Hugh J. has gone on record as saying he liked the material. He has also expressed a preference in recent years for original works rather than revivals. Those criteria have been met.

[Vespertine1228]

There are a small handful of film stars who make consistent Broadway appearances, but Hugh Jackman is the only one I can think of who has gone out of his way to appear in new work. I think it's very admirable.

The Realistic Joneses is proof that producers are willing to take on risky material if major names are involved. I think we should be encouraging people like Denzel Washington and Scarlett Johansson to do new work instead of revivals of the same old shows over and over again.

[wonkit]

It is because I appreciate Beckett and Pinter that I am so disappointed. I don't mind short plays that actually go somewhere or give me something to think about (RED was quite short, for example.). How this one manages to be 80 minutes astounds me, although the atmosphere is really another "character" in many of the scenes.

And I love impressionist paintings, too. I don't require anything close to realism (I loved EXIT THE KING in production) but this feels like a bag (a small bag) of tricks, which Pinter and Beckett avoid by giving you the sense of a reason to watch.

Has anyone else read the play? It does not come off the page at all well.

I will go see it, of course - just as I did with JERUSALEM, but I love reading a play that feels like it could be read as well as produced. I enjoy both ways of "experiencing" a play, so maybe I am holding a lot of modern work to too high a standard.

[jo]

Brief review of the London staging written by Matt Wolf for The New York Times --

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/arts/31iht-lon31.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

>>>Mr. Butterworth’s first play since “Jerusalem” in 2009 seared its way into the collective English cultural conscience, winning leading man Mark Rylance a second Tony Award along the way, “The River” provides a contrast in almost every way. This one takes place in a single continuous act, not three, and traffics in silence rather than making a furious noise. What it shares with its predecessor is a belief in the numinous and in personalities that defy ready analysis. One exits the theater asking questions, and enriched.

It’s perhaps best to regard this as only an interim report on what is sure to be the first of many experiences of this play and of Ian Rickson’s characteristically empathic staging of it. The tiny playing space seats a scant 93, and so intense has been demand that the Court is selling tickets only on the day, either online or in-person at the box office. Let’s just say that any effort to get in is abundantly repaid.

The pleasures begin with a bearded Mr. West playing (brilliantly) a sensualist and aesthete who inhabits a remote cabin near which runs the river of the title, as heard at the start and during scene changes. But just as waterways rarely follow a straight path, neither does a play that gradually accrues in pain and deception, self-directed as much as not, though to say much more would spoil the skin-prickling finish, which prompts a reconsideration of all that has gone before. I can’t wait to see it again. <<<<


I have read the play three times and it was on the third time when what Matt Wolf has written clicked with me ( especially re "the skin-prickling finish, which prompts a reconsideration of all that has gone before"). There was also a twist that I did not actually comprehend until the third time around.

Also, the official site of the Broadway staging is listed at 90 minutes ( compared to the 80 minutes mentioned from the London reviews) - have there been some revisions on the play?

[mjohnson2]

I agree kind of. I think that Mr. Butterworth thinks he is a better writer than he actually is, and that creates some issues in his work. With THE RIVER he tries his hand at abstract theatre and the problem is not that it's bad, but that there are so many better examples of abstract theatre out there (Beckett, Pinter, Williams when he got older) that this play seems unnecessary.

[Matt Rogers]

"Also, the official site of the Broadway staging is listed at 90 minutes ( compared to the 80 minutes mentioned from the London reviews) - have there been some revisions on the play? "

I assume they will start 10 minutes late each night and call it 90 minutes.

[rjm516]

^ lololol

[skylight2]

So I assume you're also going to complain about "Constellations" which is a 70-minute play.

[wonkit]

If you actually read my original post, it questioned the length but also the fact that it seemed short AND empty. I have enjoyed short evenings in the theater (I cited RED), but only when something happens in the short interval of the play. I have my ticket to this, will read it again before November. And I have no knowledge of "Constellations."

I like mjohnson2's take - that Butterworth thinks he is a better writer than he is. He is staging something in his mind, but perhaps not quite getting it down on paper. I don't for a moment question that playwriting is far more difficult in so many ways than any other writing.

Isn't there a maple syrup called Butterworth's?

[Borstalboy]

This is the most basic bitch thread in some time.

[GreasedLightning]

HAHAHA.

[Bettyboy72]

No offense, but you have only read the script. Theatre, by its definition, is in the staging-how everything comes together to create the experience. It's way too early to be ranting.

[Mr Roxy]

I would say, if the script is deadly dull only a magician could make it work. Remember 3 days of Rain. The length does play a part in it. To pay astronomical prices simply because Jackman is in it does not seem to make sense. Mrs R wants to see it but she is resigned to the fact that it probably will not happen

Years ago, we saw Pacino in Hughie. It was not even an hour long and we did feel cheated. To each his own. If the short length does not bother you great. Our friend saw it in London and was bored out of his mind.

[chrisampm2]

Mr Roxy, I don't know which 3 Days of Rain production you saw. The Broadway version did seem dull to me. But the original MTC production is one of my most treasured theater experiences. John Slattery and Patricia Clarkson were charming and ultimately so moving. Loved it. And that proves the point that theater can make magical what might seem, to some, empty on the page.

[Sutton Ross]

The only good part about Three Days of Rain was Bradley Cooper. He proved to be a brilliant stage actor. The rest was crap and I think most people know it. They only paid the prices to be in the same room as Julia Roberts.

[mamaleh]

Yes, Cooper was good. But so was Paul Rudd. They both acted the proverbial rings around the stiff and uninteresting Roberts.

[jo]

I wasn't familiar with their work before THREE DAYS OF RAIN but I found Paul Rudd to be the more engaging actor, although I agree that Bradley Cooper's acting was better than the bland Julia. Julia did improve in the second act.

[jo]

It looks like he's getting ready for THE RIVER --


Hugh Jackman @RealHughJackman · 15h

Going .... http://instagram.com/p/sZYUu9ihGQ/



Hugh Jackman @RealHughJackman · 11h

Gone.... http://instagram.com/p/sZwbysChAQ/



Hugh was filming an origin story of Peter Pan called PAN and he plays the main villain Blackbeard, hence the bald head and the facial hair.

[jo]

And Hugh shares some of his thoughts on THE RIVER, in a multi-topic interview with VULTURE --

http://www.vulture.com/2014/08/hugh-jackman-fly-fishes-his-way-to-the-river.html


>>>Well, people certainly go insane when you sing and dance. When you do something like Back on Broadway that gets such a huge reaction, does it make you want to do something in the opposite direction — like this play — next?

I don’t know if I think that way actually. Certainly, in general I miss theater and want to get back more to that, but weirdly I'm enjoying film more and I think acting in general more now. There is a high when a musical is working; when you’re onstage singing in front of a crowd, the applause is very visceral, it’s ultimately an emotional response. The drug of that kind of audience enthusiasm is one I’d be reluctant to let go of. But I think what’s driving me now more than anything is to do new material. I get really excited to go and see a play or musical I know nothing about — like I saw Fun Home recently, that thrilled me. I obviously like revivals, too, but it’s hard to get your mind or part of your mind away from comparisons. There’s a great joy in discovering new material...




What was your first meeting with Jez Butterworth like? He’s this strange combination of being a dark playwright who also writes blockbuster movies .

Jez is very kind of ... he has a demeanor of someone who’s like, “Oh, gee, thanks for inviting me to lunch.” I’m like, man! You wrote this incredible play! He’s very off the back foot. One of the first things I asked him was what motivated him to write this story — because I was really affected by the story emotionally, which doesn’t always happen. And he said he wanted to give goosebumps. It’s mysterious, you don’t know what’s happening next, you’re not 100 percent sure where the actors or the writer is going to go to the point where it gives you goosebumps. But I just loved that he has a child’s quality, of being very curious, very humble.




Did you see Jerusalem?

I thought that was extraordinary. And again, it was one of those rare experiences where you walk in not knowing what to expect and, wow, you’re completely transported and blown away. I got the sense there’s that possibility with this play as well. But I actually think they’re very different. I think he deliberately wanted to write something quite different; ours is much shorter, like 89 minutes. In Jerusalem, Rooster is a very bombastic, larger-than-life character. This is not like that, it’s in a way like a piece of chamber music; it’s more subtle, there’s a poetic edge to it, though I think Jerusalem had that too. There’s obviously a love of poetry in Jez’s blood. But that also hooks into his love of fishing! That is something I knew nothing about, and I'm learning a hell of a lot about fly fishing.



I was going to say, fishing is rather central to the play, are you an outdoorsman of any sort?

Well I’m a mad lover of the outdoors, but I didn’t grow up with fishing. My son is madly into it, so I’m happy now to go out with him. I’m in a bit of trouble because I took him to Montana in March and said, you know, let’s fly fish, it’ll be a father son trip, but come October he’s going to realize it was a research trip. I’ll make it a few months before I get slapped around a bit.





It seems like a very oddly Zen thing, fly fishing?

It’s an extraordinary kind of endeavor, very human — how to take something that’s really about survival and make it harder than it has to be. [Laughs.] There is a beauty to it; it’s really becoming one with the fish, understanding the fish, how to seduce them to the end of your line. How to catch something without any bait, there’s something really beautiful about it. Jez has used it both literally and metaphorically in the play. It is sensual, I should say. Everyone who does it talks about how their mind goes blank, it’s like a form of meditation. And the people who do it, it’s like a drug to them — you’re connected to something very elemental in nature, and I think that’s what the play explores.



The play does have a quietness about it — is keeping things at that kind of level a challenge for you?

Yeah. Maybe I’ve done too many action movies. But there are no explosions, I guarantee — no shirts come off, I’m pretty sure. [Laughs.] No, it is different in every way. It’s the kind of play I haven’t seen in a long period of time. Literally from the moment it opens, you’re brought into a world where the audience will feel almost uncomfortable to be there — it’s very private, very interior. It really asks, when you find someone in life, are we actually just trying to recapture something we’ve lost, or is it real. The play twists and turns a lot, but in a very subtle, quiet, mysterious way. I’m excited about being in a play with that kind of calm, and requires you to sort of calmly let go of your life and connect with the play. And the fact that we’re doing it in the round? It’s going to be very intimate.<<<<