The End of Indecent

[Skip23]

Posted: 6/19/17 at 7:01pm

What happened at the end? 

SPOILER

The author refused to let his play be produced and then we saw the rain scene.

Is that it?  That's IT???

 

 

[AntV]

Posted: 6/19/17 at 9:26pm

I have another question. What does the preshow announcement say? I was walking in as it was being said and was confused. At the end something is said about checking in again later? I was trying to figure out what it meant.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/19/17 at 10:31pm

Well the whole thing is told out of order. Basically you see the rise and fall of this particular play and its Actors. And then you see the controversial scene how it was intended and how beautiful it was. 

[daredevil]

Posted: 6/20/17 at 12:03pm

I saw Indecent last Saturday matinee. I was really amazed by its brilliance. A totally integrated production--seamless from beginning to end. Totally authentic acting, great direction, brilliant scenery, costumes, lighting and original music---and yet not one of these aspects at any moment during the play called attention to itself, it all seemed one. I would urge anyone who loves theater to see it before it closes on Sunday.

[newintown]

Posted: 6/20/17 at 12:35pm

I enjoyed the production enormously - the play itself, however (the writing) felt a bit clumsy, and was sometimes obtuse or vague.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

For instance - a big deal is made of cutting the rain scene when the play moves to Broadway; some of the cast fight against it, but they seem to lose. One actress says that she wasn't ashamed to do the play until they cut the rain scene. However, they clearly state that the show is shut down after the rain scene happens. So - was the rain scene cut or not?

Also - another big deal is made about how the Torah gets thrown across the stage at the end of the play; but although they perform that scene about 20 times, the Torah is never thrown. Why?

 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/20/17 at 1:02pm

Newintown, I also found your first hidden item very confusing in the play.  So I'm so glad you brought that up.

I also would like to have learned a little more about the outcome of the court's decision, which was ultimately reversed by the NY Court of Appeals (I independently researched in vain to try to find out if the case was ever retried (or at least relitigated) upon remand from the Court of Appeals' decision, but found nothing on this).

To OP's point I didn't find the very end confusing at all.  I found it breathtakingly beautiful.

There's much in Indecent I find wonderful and much I find overwritten.  Vogel and Taichman take on so many political and artistic themes that it felt like overload.  Less would have been more.  I realize that many find the play almost impossibly moving.  At the performance I saw there were people loudly weeping.  But personally I didn't connect with much of the dramaturgy, and in particular found the Lodz ghetto scenes problematic and at one pivotal point, dramatically puzzling.  But by the very end of I understood why they were taking us on this journey and it all paid off.

On balance, there is a lot about this play I loved.  And the lighting and direction Tonys were most well deserved.

But part of me would have much preferred to simply see a Taichman-directed God of  Vengeance (I've been obsessed with that play for decades) while I was watching Indecent. 

 

Updated On: 6/20/17 at 01:02 PM

[Smaxie]

Posted: 6/20/17 at 1:08pm

Some answers.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

The rain scene was indeed cut for the Broadway production of God of Vengeance. Indecent shows the play being shut down not after the rain scene, but after the final moments of the play - the part where the father hurls down the Torah. The arresting officer takes the Torah from the actor playing Schildkraut. And cleverly, the arresting officer instantly transitions to become the Rabbi from Temple Emmanuel who lodged the complaint against the production, and his carrying the Torah becomes a part of temple service. (Lemml kisses the Torah, as one does in a Torah service).  

Also, regarding throwing the Torah - the action is implied, but if the Torah was actually thrown, the show would go through a lot of Torahs, no? I think it isn't thrown for practical purposes. I don't think it was thrown in the recent Yiddish Rep production of God of Vengeance either. 

 

Updated On: 6/20/17 at 01:08 PM

[Smaxie]

Posted: 6/20/17 at 1:32pm

And regarding the original poster's question. 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Older Asch leaves the US, rather than testify in front of the House of Unamerican Activities Committee. He also denounces God of Vengeance, echoing what was said against it in the Peretz salon, toward the beginning of the play. He sees it as the work of a younger man, and no longer appropriate in the current time and place (1952, in that scene in the play). As he leaves, he faces upstage and sees Lemml, or a vision of Lemml. And then, the rain begins, and the rain scene is performed one more time, in Yiddish. I think the scene happens for a number of reasons. As the character of Eugene O'Neill says earlier, the rain scene presents a pure vision of love and sensuality in an amoral world. It's a reminder of hope and joy, against so much pain and loss. The characters of Older Asch and Lemml are both as jubilant watching the scene as the two women are performing it. Also, the scene is performed in Yiddish, without subtitles. At that point, Vogel hopes we've heard it enough times in English that we can understand it in its original language, as if we were all native Yiddish speakers. It's a Kaddish for a once vibrant language and people. 

 

Updated On: 6/20/17 at 01:32 PM