LOU'S VIEWS: IRT triple play shows gentle side of Vonnegut

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Lou Harry

Before he was a literary icon, before he had an Indianapolis library dedicated to his work, before he even had his first novel published, Kurt Vonnegut was a struggling writer trying to find his voice through the sale of short stories to popular magazines.

(Yes, mainstream magazines back in the day used to publish short fiction—ask your grandparents.)

After a few of his novels sold, many of these stories were pulled together into a collection called, “Welcome to the Monkey House.” 


“The contents of this book,” wrote Vonnegut, “are samples of work I sold in order to finance the writing of the novels. Here one finds the fruits of Free Enterprise.” He went so far as to self-deprecatingly call one of them a “sickeningly slick love story from The Ladies Home Journal.”

That “sickeningly slick” tale and two others have been skillfully fused together into “Who Am I This Time? (and Other Conundrums of Love),” a folksy, fun play being staged at the Indiana Repertory Theatre through Feb. 23. The result may be a bit twee for those who prefer a more cynical Vonnegut—including a trio behind me who bolted at intermission mumbling something about “treacle” and “Prairie Home Companion”—but I found it charming, smart and only occasionally erring on the side of cutesy.

ae-whoami-0731-1col.jpg Three short stories meld into one play in “Who Am I This Time?” Top, George (Ryan Artzberger) and Tom (Robert Neal) open up over drinks. Above, Harry (Matthew Brumlow) and Helene (Liz Kimball) connect over community theater. (Photos courtesy of Zach Rosing)

The stories incorporated are “Long Walk to Forever,” in which an AWOL soldier woos an about-to-be-bride; “Who am I This Time?,” concerning a small-town community theater’s leading actor, who takes on the personality of whomever he’s playing on stage; and “Go Back to Your Precious Wife and Son,” about a volatile actress and her second-thought-ridden fifth husband.

Playwright Aaron Posner seamlessly imposed connecting tissue into the otherwise unconnected work, making the soldier of the first grow into the amateur director of the second and the bathroom-fixture installer pulled into the domestic drama in the third, adding musical interludes and a clear coating of whimsy.

Robert Neal is at his most ordinary-guy charming as Tom; Constance Macy has less to do but does it well as his wife, Kate. And Matthew Brumlow makes the most of the showpiece part of the nebbish-turned-Brando in the “Who am I This Time?” segment. Despite a pacing lag during the play-within-a-play, the first-act-closing piece proved so strong on opening night that it took a while for Act II to build up the momentum again. A well-played drunk scene between Neal and Ryan Artzberger went a long way toward bringing the show back up to speed.

Director Janet Allen wisely set the casual tone early, with her company of actors playing songs and kibitzing with the crowd as they take their seats. The comfortable atmosphere paid off later, with actors wisely selecting moments to acknowledge the audience throughoutthe play. I’m not convinced that the primarily metal-framed glass scenic design by Russell Metheny (which seemed to draw its inspiration from the Act II bathroom setting) served the work, especially in the first act. And uprooting the location from Cape Cod to Indiana felt a tad condescending.

ae-vonnegut-boxBut those are minor complaints for a big-hearted, crowd-pleasing show and one that just might lead some audience members to dust off their Vonnegut paperbacks and dive in again. After all, there are many more tales in “Welcome to the Monkey House.”

And Vonnegut at his sickeningly slickest is still better than most writers on their best days.•


This column appears weekly. Send information on upcoming arts and entertainment events to lharry@ibj.com.


  • For More of the Gentle Side, See
    Kurt Vonnegut: Letters, Dan Wakefield's excellent selections out of more than a thousand letters, with superb introduction and comments.

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
thisissue1-092914.jpg 092914

Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Cramer agrees...says don't buy it and sell it if you own it! Their "pay to play" cost is this issue. As long as they charge customers, they never will attain the critical mass needed to be a successful on company...Jim Cramer quote.

  2. My responses to some of the comments would include the following: 1. Our offer which included the forgiveness of debt (this is an immediate forgiveness and is not "spread over many years")represents debt that due to a reduction of interest rates in the economy arguably represents consideration together with the cash component of our offer that exceeds the $2.1 million apparently offered by another party. 2. The previous $2.1 million cash offer that was turned down by the CRC would have netted the CRC substantially less than $2.1 million. As a result even in hindsight the CRC was wise in turning down that offer. 3. With regard to "concerned Carmelite's" discussion of the previous financing Pedcor gave up $16.5 million in City debt in addition to the conveyance of the garage (appraised at $13 million)in exchange for the $22.5 million cash and debt obligations. The local media never discussed the $16.5 million in debt that we gave up which would show that we gave $29.5 million in value for the $23.5 million. 4.Pedcor would have been much happier if Brian was still operating his Deli and only made this offer as we believe that we can redevelop the building into something that will be better for the City and City Center where both Pedcor the citizens of Carmel have a large investment. Bruce Cordingley, President, Pedcor

  3. I've been looking for news on Corner Bakery, too, but there doesn't seem to be any info out there. I prefer them over Panera and Paradise so can't wait to see where they'll be!

  4. WGN actually is two channels: 1. WGN Chicago, seen only in Chicago (and parts of Canada) - this station is one of the flagship CW affiliates. 2. WGN America - a nationwide cable channel that doesn't carry any CW programming, and doesn't have local affiliates. (In addition, as WGN is owned by Tribune, just like WTTV, WTTK, and WXIN, I can't imagine they would do anything to help WISH.) In Indianapolis, CW programming is already seen on WTTV 4 and WTTK 29, and when CBS takes over those stations' main channels, the CW will move to a sub channel, such as 4.2 or 4.3 and 29.2 or 29.3. TBS is only a cable channel these days and does not affiliate with local stations. WISH could move the MyNetwork affiliation from WNDY 23 to WISH 8, but I am beginning to think they may prefer to put together their own lineup of syndicated programming instead. While much of it would be "reruns" from broadcast or cable, that's pretty much what the MyNetwork does these days anyway. So since WISH has the choice, they may want to customize their lineup by choosing programs that they feel will garner better ratings in this market.

  5. The Pedcor debt is from the CRC paying ~$23M for the Pedcor's parking garage at City Center that is apprased at $13M. Why did we pay over the top money for a private businesses parking? What did we get out of it? Pedcor got free parking for their apartment and business tenants. Pedcor now gets another building for free that taxpayers have ~$3M tied up in. This is NOT a win win for taxpayers. It is just a win for Pedcor who contributes heavily to the Friends of Jim Brainard. The campaign reports are on the Hamilton County website. http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/publicdocs/Campaign%20Finance%20Images/defaultfiles.asp?ARG1=Campaign Finance Images&ARG2=/Brainard, Jim