IBJOpinion

LOU'S VIEWS: You talkin' to me?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Lou Harry

At the Phoenix Theatre, a young man named Asher Lev introduced himself to me—and to my fellow audience members.

“My name is Asher Lev,” he said, and proceeded to tell about the conflict his controversial artwork sparked with his parents and his Hasidic Jewish faith.

A few days later, in a production staged by Carmel Repertory Theatre, an even younger man, Evan Goldman, also introduced himself to me—and to my fellow audience members. “I’m Evan Goldman,” he said, then proceeded to tell about how his parents’ divorce and his subsequent move with his mother from New York to Indiana threw him into bar mitzvah chaos.

Throughout theater history, characters have made those of us out in the seats privy to private information. Hamlet wouldn’t be Hamlet, after all, if he didn’t let us in on his “To be or not to be” thoughts.

But some think addressing the audience directly—what should be a used-when-necessary device—has become a theatrical crutch.

In a recent New York Times theater blog, Christopher Isherwood, who sees many more premieres than

I do, opined: “At far too many new plays in recent seasons, the characters seem to spend more time chatting to the audience than they do talking to each other. Instead of interacting with their fellow characters, they keep turning away from the action to give us commentary on what just happened, or explain what we’ve missed.”

When you buy a ticket to a one-person show, of course, you should expect a monologue. And one could argue that any time a character in a musical spills his or her inner feelings out in song, a form of direct address is being practiced. But I agree with Isherwood (and I’m speaking not just as a critic but as a playwright who has used the device). What Isherwood notes is essential to such works as “Our Town” and “The Glass Menagerie” (and, I’d add, “Love! Valour! Compassion!,” “Equus” and many others) also can be an easy out for a stuck writer.

“If you can’t figure out how to naturally impart information,” said Isherwood, “well, just have somebody step forward and fill us in.”
 

"My Name is Asher" at the Phoenix The artistic impulses of Asher Lev (John Michael Goodson, left) cause conflict with his parents (Bill Simmons and Wendy Farber), but much of the dialogue is addressed directly to the audience. (Photo Courtesy Phoenix Theatre)

The essence of theater, after all, is conflict. Forces opposing each other. Obstacles in the way of goals. In Aaron Posner’s adaptation of Chaim Potok’s novel “My Name is Asher Lev” (at the Phoenix through Nov. 21), for instance, those conflicts come when a Hasidic Jewish painter finds his artistic impulses clashing with the expectations of his religion, as personified by his parents and his rabbi.

True to much of contemporary theater, the play is written for as few actors as possible. In this case, that’s three: one plays Asher, a second plays his mother (and all other female characters), and a third plays his father (and all other male characters). That compactness—and the limited performance space in the Phoenix basement—seem to push Asher to talk directly to the audience for what seems like half the play. And while I loved being read to as a child—and I like the rare occasion when that happens now—this material cries out for greater interaction. I wanted to know not just what Asher was thinking and remembering, but also what was going on between the rabbi and the father and Asher’s artistic mentor. I wanted to experience the conflicts, not just hear about them.

Meanwhile, Carmel Repertory Theatre wrapped up a two-week run of “13,” the local premiere of Jason Robert Brown’s musical that had a short run on Broadway two years ago. Putting aside the amateur cast and production, it’s clear why the show didn’t make it. While Brown’s songs are often terrific at capturing the challenging early teen years (“The Lamest Place in the World” and “If That’s What It Is” are particularly winning), the book by Dan Elish and Robert Horn is an embarrassing wreck, filled with impossible plot developments and dubious motivations.

The plot: Thirteen-year-old Evan has to move from New York to Indiana when his parents divorce. More important than his family strife, though, is his planned bar mitzvah. The play tries to make middle school comedy and drama out of his efforts to recruit his new schoolmates to come to his party. How does this lead to Evan’s setting up two guys on a movie date with the same girl? And if the town is little more than a Dairy Queen and a Wal-Mart, why wouldn’t the kids jump at the chance to go to a big party? And do we really need the misinterpreted friendly kiss sitcom cliché? Or the myopic outsider who thinks a girl “wants him”?

The fact that Evan introduces himself directly to the audience just makes it all the more embarrassing.

But if he can talk to me, maybe I can talk to him.

Evan, buddy, you seem like a nice kid. You—and Jason Robert Brown—deserve better than this.•

__________

This column appears weekly. Send information on upcoming arts and entertainment events to lharry@ibj.com. Twitter: IBJArts and follow Lou Harry’s A&E blog at www.ibj.com/arts.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT