Review: "In the Next Room or the Vibrator Play"

October 22, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A week after seeing the strong production of Sarah Ruhl’s “In the Next Room or The Vibrator Play,” I’m still trying to decide if the subtitle hurts or helps.

Yes, it's provocative. And, yes, the play does concern electronic stimulation and its effects. And, okay, their are simulated orgasms galore. But Sarah Ruhl's play--being given its local premiere at the Phoenix Theatre through this weekend--has much more going on then that. And it's actually a more innocent play than it may at first seem.

Set in a not-too-long-ago time when pleasure wasn't part of the sexual equation for many women, Ruhl takes details from medical history as the basis for a drawing-room-and-doctor's-office comedy about a wife curious about what her husband is up to. The women he treats in his medical office--using cutting-edge science--are certainly emerging happier then when they went in.

What makes this more than a bawdy "Saturday Night Live" sketch is that neither the doctor nor his patients see anything sexual in what he is doing. This is science, after all. It takes an outsider in the mix--an African-American woman brought into the home as a wet nurse--to even raise the possibility that sex could be pleasurable for a woman. And the reaction from the women she's speaking to is a hilarious silence, followed by laughter. Surely, they think, the woman can't be serious.

I won't give away much more. While I didn't buy some of the plot twists, there are others that are surprising and true. And the performances are consistently strong and gutsy--even if, in the end, Rule seems to abandon the characters she created in order to try to make more poety points.

As to that title, well, I'm sure "In the Next Room" on its own wouldn't have gotten the attention this show has. But there may still be some who have hesitated. Which is why I'm encouraging open-minded adults to check out this grown-up play before its final performance on Sunday. You can get more details here.

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Love Sarah Ruhl
    I agree that the title could have been simply In The Next Room. It leaves a bit more mystery. But this is a really excellent production with strong performances and cleaver writing. Go see it.
  • In The Other Room
    Best show I've seen at the Phoenix. A great example of the Craft and Art of theatre. So much beneath the surface of what is being said and going on. Highly recommend.
  • Excellent production
    This is the best thing I've seen at the Phoenix since "Urinetown," although my entire party agreed that the second act got a little draggy and almost nothing about the artist character was very convincing. But it's a funny, thoughtful play, very nicely mounted.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT