THE ROYALE (previews)

[Relevance81491]

Posted: 2/11/16 at 2:08pm

Previews start TONIGHT!!!  As a big fan of Rachel Chavkin, I am verry curious to hear early reports 

 

THE ROYALE is a most unusual play about a boxer. First of all, it is not really about life in the ring. Second, not a single punch will be thrown, at least not with fists. The play is about the life of the outsider in American culture. Set in 1905, deep in the midst of Jim Crow, it explores one man’s struggle while reflecting a much broader one. It is also a play about a brother and sister who protect each other but don’t agree on what that means.

Charismatic African-American boxer Jay “The Sport” Jackson (Khris Davis), has a burning desire to become the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. Jackson’s fight begins long before the match, though; it takes careful negotiations to convince the white reigning titleholder to even recognize him as a worthy opponent and enter the ring. Tony-nominated Montego Glover(Memphis) plays Jackson’s sister Nina: the boxer’s greatest adversary and strongest motivation.
 

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 2/11/16 at 4:38pm

Caught the first preview last night and while the show itself is in good shape I can't say I enjoyed it. Honestly the subject matter has no interest to me but I'm a big Rachel Chavkin fan so I thought I'd give it a chance. This wasn't the worst play I've seen about boxing but it's hardly the best.

 

First of all the story itself is very muddled. The first half of the play is repetitive about how this black boxer wants to fight a white heavyweight opponent. Things don't get even remotely interesting until the introduction of Montego Glover as the sister. By that time I was so bored that I couldn't totally keep up with what she was saying. Several people in the audience were snoozing 30 mins into the show. I started to drift and focus more on the audience and their reactions which isn't the sign of an engaging story. 

 

Going back to Glover, I just don't get the appeal. She's not a good actress so her casting feels off to me as she is supposed to be the emotional anchor of the piece. She has about zero stage presence which is a feat in such a small space as the Newhouse. No one in the cast really blew me away. They were all fine but never made me feel like I cared about their story. 

 

Moving on to the thing that got me to the theatre in the first place, the direction. I think Chavkin has done a decent job here adding some nice flourishes in an attempt to keep the audience engaged. My biggest problem is with how the fights are staged. I wasn't expecting to see fully staged boxing matches because the description itself states "not a single punch will be thrown, at least not with fists." I enjoyed how the boxing was done but it opens with a pretty lengthy match and ends with another. You kind of get over the gimmick of it by the end and just want it to stop. There was a nice scene that used shadows to great effect. The set and lighting were decent and used practical ways of transforming it. My only issue is that they both were very reminiscent to IPHIGENIA IN AULIS at CSC. 

 

Originally it said the show was 75 mins without intermission but the LCT website has been updated as last night it ran 90 mins. You could definitely feel the length and I certainly think 15 mins can be trimmed from the start to make the ending much stronger.

Updated On: 2/12/16 at 04:38 PM

[mpd4165]

Posted: 2/12/16 at 3:55pm

I've worked on a regional production of this show and it boggles my mind how it can possibly get to almost 90 minutes long. I think our top time was maybe 70 minutes. What makes the play successful (IMO) is making sure the ensemble is able to be in a rhythm so in sync that THAT is where the drive comes from. If you can't pace this play, it's gonna fail.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/12/16 at 9:01pm

Clyde's review makes me not want to see this, but I'm curious about the ensemble needing to be in synch? 

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 2/13/16 at 7:09pm

RippedMan said: "Clyde's review makes me not want to see this, but I'm curious about the ensemble needing to be in synch?"

 

There are times in the play where all the cast members clap in sync so that's to what the above poster is referring. There is a definite movement to the piece that is kind of lost for me in this staging. Not that I have anything else to compare it to.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 2/18/16 at 8:05am

I saw the preview performance last night and like Clyde I found my focus drifting in the middle section, although I did perk back up again when Montego entered.  The Royale is like the anti-Rocky. Boxing matches presented with a Peter and the Starcatcher minimalism rather than the hoopla and spectacle that surrounded Rocky's big fight. I respect the what they were doing here, but I have to say I enjoyed the latter more. 

 

I found the acting to be strong throughout, but the text just wasn't all that engaging. There were several people dozing and a loud snorer emerged at a very inopportune quiet moment. I assumed this would be a bio-play about Jack Johnson, but it seems to be more like historical fiction with a main character somewhat similar to Johnson. 

 

I admire the ambition, but I wasn't ultimately won over. 

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 2/18/16 at 8:57am

I saw it yesterday afternoon and enjoyed it very much. The house was small but seemed appreciative. I thought the acting was quite wonderful across the board, including Glover. 

I was intrigued by the style of performance and writing - not one punch thrown, but all described with an effective blow. Chavkin's staging is interesting, but it needs to be tightened. I do agree the pace is a bit slow, but I think they'll pick that up nicely. 

I wouldn't rule seeing this out yet. I may just wait a week or two before going. 

[JoseLee_]

Posted: 3/4/16 at 7:20pm

I saw it in 2013 here in LA at the Kirk Douglas Theatre (world premiere). I thought it was boring.

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 9:55am

I liked it more than I expected to, boxing is of no interest to me. But the cast was very good and well-drilled (although the clapping got on my nerves), and as it progressed it became more interesting. At around 45 minutes in, I thought "where is Montego Glover?" And shortly after she appears, and she was very good. The play is couched at times but worth a view, especially with the high level of acting.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 3/24/16 at 11:03pm

I thought it was a good play with very good performances. It feels tight, there's not a lot of fat or excess. I think it's definitely a worthwhile theatrical experience if not exactly a revolutionary statement. It's not anything new, but I think it says what it wants to say pretty well. The lead actor is very charismatic without giving a kind of flashy, star performance. There's ego but not as much arrogance as you might think (which makes sense for the character later). I thought all the actors did well with what they were given. They could have given more, sure, but I don't think that's what they were directed to do and I found all the performances effective. It's not a play that shocks you into feeling something, not that those forceful performances are bad either. It's just a different thing. The emotion builds over the course of the running time.

The approach to the boxing worked for me for the most part. In the first scene it really worked and then maybe went on a little long without escalating. The scene with the punching bag was actually the weakest for me. It felt kind of unnecessary. The big final fight worked because it became more about the metaphor/the conflict the character was going through so the mechanics of representing the fight were less important. I also really liked the use of levels towards the end and at least from my side of the audience, the shadows cast against the back walls.

I don't think Montego Glover stole the show and I don't think she was meant to. The character isn't meant to dominate. She's meant to shake his focus and confront him with the reality that's been missing (well, missing until he learns about the four men who were escorted out). I think if the writing hadn't been as good and the performances hadn't been as good I would have been more bothered by the way she came in at the end to provide an emotional punch. Everything doesn't need to be foreshadowed but we got no real hint of this backstory being his driving motivator until the end. But it was well-executed so it didn't feel false. Though maybe it should have. Whatever, I'm easy. I teared up.