For the Real Critics Blog
A Streetcar Named Desire: a multi-faceted, intricate piece of literature by Tennessee Williams, produced by Inland Stage Company, is worth the trip, and worth the truth.
The richness of the text yields itself worthy of being seen, especially with one particularly admirable performance; however, the production seemed to lack a certain essential dynamic between the characters -- a dynamic that was removed by choice, to the detriment of the show.
Streetcar is about the cultural collision between Stanley Kowalski, an urban working-class man of passion, violence and control, and Blanche Dubois a refined and fading Southern bell.
As the play unfolds we discover Blanche’s air of sophistication is a mask for her promiscuous lifestyle, perpetuated by the discovery of her first love’s homosexual relationship and resulting suicide.
This clash between their two passions should be manifested and felt throughout the play.
Unfortunately, it was stifled by the choice to focus instead on the uncomfortable awkwardness of having an unwelcomed house guest. Although this is an aspect of the text to be examined, it is not an emotionally deep choice and weakens the conflict of the play.
Additionally, there was the removal of the end of the climactic scene, where Stanley returns home drunk after celebrating the birth of his child only to discover a drunk and fanciful-minded Blanche, who he advances on and rapes.
This final event that sends the misguided and wounded woman over the edge was not seen in Inland Stage’s production -- leaving me, and audience members who might not know the story, perplexed as to why she is being committed to a mental institution in the final scene. Yes, she has obviously had a nervous break down, but why?
Despite the removal of such an important moment, the estimable performance of Rosalyn Leon as Blanche Dubois was engaging.
From an elevated emotional high, to confusion and worn nerves, to drunken tears -- Rosalyn lived Blanche with grace and clarity. Her in-the-moment focus pulled you into her world and the humanity of the drama. With such effort, and her behind-the-scenes hard work obviously in place, it was a shame that the complex relationship layers were stripped away.
On the other hand, John Wesley Leon, portraying Stanley Kowalski, had a put-on casualness in place of realism. He was too likeable. His depiction of Stanley was anything but animalistic, sensual, brutish -- “an ape.” He did not evoke any fear or strong physical presence; perhaps given to the directorial choice to diminish the overriding tension to the simple annoyance of a house guest.
Another shining light, Mary Vuong, captured the authenticity of Eunice’s raw aggression and feral womanliness. Kristofer James was commendable as Mitch; making a clear concentrative transition from the shy, wooing courtier to the deceived, condemning injured soul.
Overall, the true power and impact of the play was lost in the removal of the climactic scene, thus making Stanley just a reasonable, nice guy with a bit of a drinking problem. Nevertheless, this show is worth seeing for the quality of the text and some talented actors deserving of an audience.
"A Streetcar Named Desire" runs through Nov. 7 at the Esplanade Art Center in San Jacinto. Visit www.inlandstage.org for details.
What? Streetcar with no rape at the end? What would Death of a Salesman be without Loman's suicide? A Few Good Men without Jessep's confession? Anne Frank without the family's capture? Doesn't sound like "bold and innovative" to me. More like misguided revisionism.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the blogger's description of Stanley portrayed as "a nice guy with a drinking problem." What made Stanley real is that he's complex. It's only in the comics and not in real life where the bad guy is one dimensional. Yes, Stanley has an obvious lack of breeding but he also has deep feelings of right and wrong. With his street smarts, Stanley can spot a phony at 20 paces, and that's just what Blanche is: Phony as a three-dollar bill. She's also nuts. She didn't need to have a rape scene [which was there, by the way...it just wasn't graphic] to go over the edge. She was headed to the nuthouse from the time she arrived. It just took some time to get the nonsense layers peeled away to reveal Blanche as she really was: a crazed nymphomaniac. Boy, did Blanche ever put on a show and had Mitch fooled for the longest time. Poor Mitch. He looked like a deer in the headlights when he found out the truth.
ReplyDeleteThe point of this story is a culture clash among real, imperfect, complex people.
You have to remember that 2010 audiences are not the same as those in 1947. You have to take into consideration the times and the prevailing culture when you present a classic. Like the time Garry Marshall directed Offenbach's "The Grande Duchess of Gerolstein" for the Los Angeles Opera. With his vision, he made the opera as hilarious to contemporary audiences as it must have been in Offenbach's time. To have played it in the same way as when it premiered in Paris in 1867 would not have been half as funny to today's audience.
That's exactly the choice director Jim Marbury made with this piece: make it relevant to contemporary audiences.
Laura Brodian Freas
Arts Reporter, KUSC-FM
Arts Correspondent, Patch.com/Chatsworth
I would like to right something that the reviewer stated. When Stanley comes home to find Blanche, he has not returned from celebrating and drinking because of the birth of his child; when he returns home, he has come from the hospital because the doctor sent him, telling him that his baby won’t come until the morning. I would hope that someone choosing to review a play so in depth should actually know the play, in depth. That said, having methodically studied this particular play in college, and after having seen many productions of A Streetcar Named Desire, I am always geared up to pick it apart. I had the pleasure of viewing this production, and surprised at how good it was. A great cast of actors, and surprisingly a great production you don’t generally always find in the small town like Hemet. I have to agree with Laura. This production worked for an audience of this time period, and worked well. Of course, those who study drama, or belong to the theater scene, can pick anything apart and make themselves sound intellectual, and rabble on using their big words to sound like professional critics, but I believe the choices made for this particular production were fresh, and gave just enough modernity to this timeless classic. I mean, we can all agree that after 60 some odd years of this play being produced, just simply seeing it done with different artistic choices is a plus, and possibly helps keep it alive. It worked for an audience ready to relax and watch a drama unfold before their eyes. I, along with everyone I was with, was impressed. The rape scene is still obviously there, and it is evident that Blanche is, in fact, raped by Stanley. It is just simply more implied, a choice that I felt relieved by. I don’t necessarily think showing the actual rape on stage, choreographed between the two actors, is that smart a choice. Showing the actual physical rape is obtrusive, and in many productions, detrimental to the intellect of the audience itself. It is like revealing the monster in the first scene of a horror movie; it removes the suspense. I don’t know what else Stanley would mean when he tells Blanche they have had this date from the beginning. But I digress. A thumbs up from me and my family who thoroughly enjoyed this production, and we can’t wait for the next.
ReplyDeleteI, too, was one of the few dozen people to see this production. I was underwhelmed, to say the least. (At the risk of sounding like one o' dem folks usin' dem big words) I must retort: describing this show as "great" is effusive and inaccurate. For community theater, it was tolerable at best. The reviewer was much more generous than I would have been.
ReplyDeleteAll these supposedly original choices only served to weaken the story. The mostly mediocre acting and inane staging (actors giving brooding stares over the audience rather than actually looking at each other) notwithstanding, let's address something as simple as the curtain, a simple yet crucial element of the set, nowhere to be found in this production's design. Instead the actors were left to awkwardly mime its presence, one of the many glaringly poor directorial choices. And if one so aptly fails in such a minor detail, can he really be expected to succeed in the major?
Regarding the "rape" scene, according to the Pulitzer-prize winning text, Stanley simply slings Blanche over his shoulder, walks her over and drops her in the bed before the black out - a subtle, symbolic gesture the value of I shouldn't have to explain to such avid theatre students/patrons as are the previous commentators. Like me, I'm sure this non-gratuitous ending was all the reviewer expected to see. Instead we were treated to a ill-timed mid-fight black out and a garbled, unintelligible sound recording of the one line that best illuminates the nemeses' relationship. Indeed, another inspired choice.
I could ramble on (or is it "rabble"?), but I've already given enough of my life to this show. Granted, I'm not a reporter for a tiny non-profit radio station, nor have the kind of college education that would consider a four-syllable word "big," but I offer this, just another point of view. Take it or not.
I understand there have been quite a few standing ovations. I wonder how the mediocre acting and inane choices could have inspired such a strong audience reaction?
ReplyDeleteObviously, the reviewer and Theatregoer #2 must be either inane or mediocre, but I offer this, just another point of view. Take it or not.
For Theatre Goer #2, a little clarification about stage directions since that seems to be a sticking point for that person: Stage directions in the Pulitzer-Prize winning text are not Tennesee Williams. They are recorded from the first production performed. So the directions you retyped for us here are a nice guideline for any staged piece but not the playwright's dictation.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think the choice was excellent. Where I wanted more was Stella's struggle at the end - if the director didn't spoon feed us the rape, she needed to embody our own confusion as we sort out what happened with her line "I couldn't believe her story and go on living with Stanley" which was completely lost in the business of the final scene. But that final scene lacked the tension and too much was going on to focus.
So theatre goer #2 - I choose not to take your point of view.
It seems that "theatre goer #2" has a beef against someone in the production. Mediocre???? My wife and I support community theatre and we have been attending plays locally for the past 12 years. Our daughter studied theatre throughout highschool and college and is now teaching theatre in Wisconsin. We have seen alot of plays over the years and this has got to be by far one of the very best community plays that we have seen in a very long time. We were pleasantly suprised. We came to watch a play called Streetcar Named Desire and saw so much talent and depth of character, that we could care less that there was no curtain (there doesn't have to be), that they were not face to face or it did not copy the movie. SO WHAT!!! These actors were very talented and hard working and my wife and I were very IMPRESSED!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that is a detriment to this show is this misleading review. I attended the performance last night and I'm sitting here wondering if I saw the same production as Ms. Williams did. The show I saw had no dynamics or tension removed. As far as the "rape scene", being removed....umm....hello....how much of it do you need to see to know whats going on. Audiences do not need to be spoon-fed everything. It was obvious to me. No part of the text was cut out. Yes it may have been a modern choice as far as how it ended with the voiceover of Stanley, but it was a definate choice and I commend that. We're talking about it aren't we? It must have been interesting. If the audience was perplexed as to why she was being commited then they were not paying attention. Or else it was an extremely naive audience. Blance was played to perfection by Roselyn Leon and I failed to see the characters "layers stripped away" as Ms. Williams suggests. John Leon as Stanley was not as consistanly strong in his role but he was hardly what I would call a "reasonable nice guy". Huh? Mr. Leon had moments of rage that were startling. Last time I checked, nice guys don't slap thier pregnant wives in the face. I must admit, I found myself wishing he were just a little bigger in stature, but thats just me. Still a commendable performance and he did not try to copy Marlon Brando which made me very happy.
ReplyDelete