Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
#1Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 9:59am
I caught the final preview yesterday afternoon and was not surprised to read such rapturous reviews this morning. Like the last Bruce Norris work to play in New York--2006's The Pain and the Itch--this is a complex, nuanced, and expertly crafted drama that handily deconstructs a sensitive issue (race relations). Both acts (the first set in segregated 1959; the second in the supposedly post-racial present) show how the global/communal perception of racial identity can underscore personal tragedies and shortcomings. The entire cast is practically flawless, with the ever-reliable Frank Wood deserving special mention.
From what I'm told, the rest of the run is practically sold out. If an extension happens--and I can't imagine that it wouldn't, after those reviews--try to see it.
"You travel alone because other people are only there to remind you how much that hook hurts that we all bit down on. Wait for that one day we can bite free and get back out there in space where we belong, sail back over water, over skies, into space, the hook finally out of our mouths and we wander back out there in space spawning to other planets never to return hurrah to earth and we'll look back and can't even see these lives here anymore. Only the taste of blood to remind us we ever existed. The earth is small. We're gone. We're dead. We're safe."
-John Guare, Landscape of the Body
#2Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 10:34amI really hope I get to see this with the amazing reviews this morning...I have a student subscription to Playwrights Horizons, but I haven't made my reservation yet. Here's to hoping that it extends, if it is indeed sold out.
April Saul
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/17/06
#2Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 12:15pmYes, yes, yes! This one is just terrific and it can't be that sold out, it was on TDF as of this morning. Really wonderful acting and dialogue that has you leaving the theater (me, anyway) wishing I could write like this playwright.
#3Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 12:18pm
I saw this in previews as well, but I didn't have the same "rapturous reaction," unfortunately. The actors did a fine job with the material, but I found both acts to be labored and at times pretty boring.
The actions of the characters, especially in act 1 were completely unbelievable to me. Act 2 faired better, but I still left the theater unsatisfied.
I haven't read the reviews yet, but I'm truly puzzled as to why this got raves from the critics.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
dave1606
Broadway Star Joined: 12/8/07
#4Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 12:30pmI was at the same first preview, and while I liked it more than Whizzer I am a bit surprised as well. Perhaps if I went back for another look, but I thought it was just ok. I liked the idea much better than the execution.
#5Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 1:01pmI'm with Whizzer on this one. I thought the writing (especially in Act 1) was wretched and an inaccurate depiction of the time period. I also found Annie Parisse's deaf impression INCREDIBLY offensive.
#6Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 1:29pm
bjh2114- I totally agree with you about Annie Parisse. I LOVED her in Becky Shaw, and thought she was good in act 2, but I didn't know whether to laugh or be offended at her characterization in act 1.
Act 1 was just all wrong. Why would all of those people have kept lingering around in that living room for the entire conversation. The maid and her husband would SURELY have left long before they did, and I don't think the minister or the neighbor would have carried out that conversation to such lengths either.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
April Saul
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/17/06
#7Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 4:13pmWow! I guess to each his own, but every critic I read today liked it just as much as I did. I was there eight days ago, so it wasn't a particularly early preview, but man, it was good. And fun, too. I'm not saying you guys should make another visit, but I'd really be curious to hear what you have to say if you do decide to give it a second look.
#8Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 8:22pm
Sorry, I loved this show, and maybe I should be embarrassed to admit I didn't know who Annie Parisse was. But having grown up in the 50's myself and knowing several deaf people I found the characterization flawless. Maybe deaf people today don't talk aloud like that, but I actually wondered if this actress was indeed deaf. That's exactly how it would have been at that time. Deaf people were actually encouraged to speak and to try to over enunciate just like that as if they could speak normally. And yes, it nearly always came out very loud! And indeed others speaking to them would invariably talk loudly as well. It was VERY real.
Regarding the "believability" or naturalness of the acting, particularly in Act I, this comment by Ben Brantley kind of sums it up. I was aware of the stilted, slightly overdone style as well, but wasn't sure why it didn't bother me.
"The performances, especially those of Ms. Kirk, are mannered to the point of caricature. Yet that feels right too. Cartoonishness tends to set in with people who subscribe unthinkingly to the lingos and styles of their times. Everyone wants to fit in, right?"
Updated On: 2/22/10 at 08:22 PM
#9Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 8:34pm
But having grown up in the 50's myself and knowing several deaf people I found the characterization flawless. Maybe deaf people today don't talk aloud like that, but I actually wondered if this actress was indeed deaf. That's exactly how it would have been at that time. Deaf people were actually encouraged to speak and to try to over enunciate just like that as if they could speak normally. And yes, it nearly always came out very loud! And indeed others speaking to them would invariably talk loudly as well. It was VERY real.
You are joking, right? I mean...I don't think it's a time issue. I am pretty sure deaf people today are still encouraged to try to speak unless there is some "silence the deaf" phenomenon I am not aware of. And yes, deaf people often do over-enunciate to compensate for their lack of hearing, but neither that nor the volume were what bothered me. The facial expressions and characterization are what bothered me. I thought that the character came a across as a mentally challenged, not deaf.
#10Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 8:42pm
Then I suspect you are not familiar with the way deaf people were actually trained to try to communicate in the 50's. Indeed they often did appear as if they were mentally challenged.
You can "imagine" all you want that it is no different today, but trust me -- it IS -- dramatically different. It was indeed a "time" issue. I'm saying this because I AM familiar with deaf people in the 50's -- not just guessing that they are no different today than they were then. And no I am not joking -- now that suggestion IS offensive.
#11Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 11:07pmI can't believe you are too familiar if you say things like "Then I suspect you are not familiar with the way deaf people were actually trained to try to communicate in the 50's." They are not animals. Deaf people aren't and never have been TRAINED to do anything. They have been taught communication skills in different ways, but to say that they have been "trained" sounds inhumane. And let me tell you, as someone who has taught deaf students, any parents would be offended if their children were ever described that way.
RoslynReynolds
Understudy Joined: 12/14/09
#12Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/22/10 at 11:39pmAnnie Parisse's deaf character was played to total hilarious perfection. Get a life, people--it's a f**kin' play!
#13Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/23/10 at 12:12amYour insight has left me speechless...
#14Clybourne Park--as good as everyone says
Posted: 2/23/10 at 8:33pm
"They have been taught communication skills in different ways, but to say that they have been "trained" sounds inhumane. And let me tell you, as someone who has taught deaf students, any parents would be offended if their children were ever described that way."
Clearly you know nothing about the "training" of deaf people in the 1950's. It's nice that you have taught deaf students, but apparently you have no knowledge of the development of those teaching techniques since the 1950's. Do some googling and some studying and open your eyes. Inhumane you say? Absolutely -- which is why there was a total revolution in the way deaf students were taught starting in the late 1950.s This is a very timely issue brought up by the play. Just a tiny sub commentary which was done flawlessly -- but as important as costuming or set decor to set the period. Have you ever heard of the term "oralist"? -- many teachers of deaf students shunned the idea of signing saying that deaf children needed to be taught to SPEAK, not sign like animals. It was a huge thing. And when the "oralist" system was enforced -- it made deaf people speak exactly like that wonderful actress did in the play. They really did their homework. If there had been a deaf character in Act II, I have no doubt it would have been a totally different characterization.
Go find out the way it really was in deaf education in the 1950's first, and then come back and make intelligent comments instead of just assuming the teaching of deaf students (training really is a better word for how it was done then) had any relation to the way deaf students are taught today.
