DIVIDING THE ESTATE- 12/27/08

[scaryclowns223]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 5:20pm

Possible Spoilers, but nothing major or specific enough to ruin the play for you.

"Dividing the Estate," now playing (for a short time, thank heavens) at the Booth Theatre, has acquired a reputation around town for being an exciting "human comedy" in the vein of "August: Osage County." Certainly "Dividing the Estate" shares some subject matter with the play, but to compare it to such a fine, enthralling, entertaining piece of theatre would be to dishonor Tracy Letts, Deanna Dunagan, Amy Morton, Anna D. Shapiro and the rest of the cast and production team of "Osage."

In AOC, Letts crafted a tightly-structured and intricate web of family secrets that bordered on the ridiculous, yet was grounded by authentic characterization and shockingly real personalities. Pulitzer Prize-winner Horton Foote doesn't venture into such strange plot points (except for the superficial and uncharacteristic pedophilia of one family member- perhaps the most poorly-written character in the play) but draws his characters so poorly and fails to provide motivation for the majority of his actions that the audience has trouble accepting any of the actions of DIVIDING THE ESTATE's characters as genuine. This leads to a play that feels episodic, not linear- and fails to gain any momentum or provide an arc for any of its characters. Foote, perhaps aware of this, masks his inability to connect his characters to form a plot with a thin and contrived device- the tendency of his characters to "change the subject"- in a manner that feels neither satisfying nor entertaining at all.

Of course, this is not only Foote's fault. Director Michael Wilson has paced the play unbelievably slowly- a choice that made the family's hatred for each other seem random and unauthentic, and in the end made the play nearly unwatchable. He is aided by a cast that, save for the terrific Arthur French and the trying-to-deal-with-the-terrible-script-he's-given Gerald McRaney, acts at a level that might be expected from a high school theatre troupe (and not a very good one, at that.) Devon Abner's Son is monotone and expressionless- a trend from which he deviates at only the most inappropriate times. Penny Fuller's Lucille is certainly not terrible, but her character never establishes herself- we never quite understand who she is or how she feels about anything. Maggie Lacey is another exception to the rule, though she often seems quite immature in her characterization, something one might not expect of a high school English teacher. Jennie Dare Paulin and Nicole Lowrance aren't given much to do, but when they are, they reek of contrived emotions and confusion as to why they are actually in the play. James DeMarse's Bob is fine when called on to be smarmy and jovial, but sadness terribly exposes his weaknesses as an actor.

Then there are the two supposed "stars" of the play- Elizabeth Ashley and Hallie Foote. Ashley comes the closest of anyone to crafting a full character, but forgets one important aspect- entertainment. Her approach comes off as self-indulgent and forced, and one wonders what might occur if a more age-appropriate actress (Marian Seldes would do a wonderful job) were cast in her role. Some of the play's most dull moments occurred when Ashley was onstage and dominating the proceedings. She came off as a fading old woman, something that was perhaps accurate but in no way watchable. Hallie Foote, the playwright's daughter, spends the entire play shrieking and delivering what would normally be "comic relief." There are, however, two problems with this. The first is that her comic relief isn't at all funny- both her fault and her father's. The second is that her characterization is so shallow and unmotivated that we never quite understand why she shrieks in such a manner. Even when she plainly informs the audience of the cause of her misfortune, we still don't sympathize or hate her- we simply wish she would leave, then maybe the play could go somewhere. If Ms. Foote has any talent as an actress (and, given her history, I trust that she does) she did not display it here.

Perhaps it was the superb word-of-mouth that gave me such high expectations when walking into the play that eventually let me down. Perhaps it was a bad day for the cast, who may very well be on an extended Christmas hangover. Perhaps I simply have bad taste. Whatever the case, this play left me amazed at how such an incredibly dull and poorly-executed piece of theatre could ever not only make it to Broadway, but then subsequently acquired such accolades. Mr. Foote is certainly a wonderful playwright, and I applaud him for working so late into his life to improve an older play. Yet the outcome here was unfortunate, that Mr. Foote only showed signs of his age, and unfortunately could not replicate his earlier successes.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 7:43pm

You've obviously never been a situation such as the one in the play.

[CyCoSpAz2]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 7:51pm

"You've obviously never been a situation such as the one in the play."

What are you justifying with this statement?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 8:03pm

The fact that if you haven't experienced a group of good-for-nothings vying for "their" parts of an estate, it could be a hard play to relate to.

[scaryclowns223]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 11:01pm

Yankee, while I have never been in such a situation, that wasn't quite the problem.

The problem for me was the way in which the members of the family professed their desires and their wishes with respect to the estate- it all seemed to fill the space, as if Foote was writing and thought "Ooh, I have to fit Mary Jo in here, how about she says 'I hope we strike oil.'"

Personally, the play just didn't seem to be crafted well, and that made it hard for the actors to make anything of it.

The people behind me seemed to think so as well.

And above all, it just wasn't that interesting to watch.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 11:15pm

The play does have a meandering quality, but I didn't think that took anything away from it. My biggest problem was the introduction of Uncle's teenage girlfriend five minutes before the show ended. There was ample opportunity to bring the curtain down at a number of points during the last 10 minutes.

[scaryclowns223]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 11:19pm

There we agree-

I was really starting to like Uncle- I really wanted to like him.
Unfortunately, that introduction was unnecessary and, to a certain point, ridiculous. I thought there were a number of great ways to end the play, but that wasn't one of 'em. I would have preferred the ending to highlight Mary Jo's sadness- her life was really in shambles, and I felt for her. That would have been a nice way to end the play- with her just miring in her self-pity- that would have left me on a good note.

[theatreguy]

Posted: 12/27/08 at 11:26pm

I agree completely with your review. I saw the show during previews and knew very little going in aside from the basic story and that it had played succesfully Off-Broadway last year. I was not terribly impressed with the play or the production, and was surprised by how bad some of the performances were (Mary Jo's two daughters particularly stand out in my mind).

[iamdangoodman]

Posted: 12/28/08 at 8:22am

Long time reader, first time posting... Your post pulled me out of the shadows. Finally, a fellow traveler on Dividing the Estate. Didn't want to leave you hanging...

I just do not get the interest in this show. I read it years ago and it was boring then. But such raves when it opened last year and now with the transfer. So I went. And it was even more boring to watch!

Your review is exactly my experience. Now, I'm someone who was riveted by August: Osage County and guffawed at the goings on there the whole wild way, marveled at the acting and staging. Perhaps for those of us who find greatness in Tracy Lett's play there is just no toehold in Foote's (no pun intended, but there it is...) The writing feels toothless, the staging seems dutiful, the actors seem bored, and the audience when I saw it was squarely divided between people on some sort of mini-bliss that seems like the glow they'd get from re-runs of Golden Girls and those either asleep or leaving loudly at intermission complaining that "this is no August."

I'm not from the South. So perhaps there's something culturally specific about the writing that escapes me. I just don't see rivers of subtext and layers of veneer here-- I see pretty flat characters, and too many by half, taking an arbitrary length of stage time to basically say one thing-- much longer than I needed to get the whole story and family dynamic. And while I got a little lift from Hallie Foote's energy on stage, she didn't seem to be in the same play as anyone else, what with all the histrionics.

I'm not generally one to jump in on the negative, and you won't find me trashing here regularly. But I really don't understand this one. I've not been so out of synch with the opinions on a show since this one was written!

[mikem]

Posted: 12/29/08 at 1:44am

I wonder if the cast is very inconsistent from performance to performance. I happened to attend the same performance as Ben Brantley, and I agree with his assessment that Hallie Foote and Mark Rylance are giving the 2 funniest performances currently on Broadway. There were a lot of laughs from the audience on her lines. If her performance at your visit made you wonder whether anyone thinks she's funny (it doesn't sound like you heard a lot of audience laughter around you) or even whether she has any acting talent at all, it sounds like her performance may be somewhat variable.

I also thought that the 2 actresses playing her daughters were fine, but they've also gotten a lot of criticism from others.

Updated On: 12/29/08 at 01:44 AM