Presentation on theme: "A Raisin in the Sun (1959) by Lorraine Hansberry (1930-1965) Part I and II of II."— Presentation transcript:
A Raisin in the Sun (1959) by Lorraine Hansberry ( ) Part I and II of II
Langston Hughes’s “Dream Deferred” Intertextuality Dream Deferred What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up Like a raisin in the sun? Or fester like a sore-- And then run? Does it stink like rotten meat? Or crust and sugar over-- like a syrupy sweet? Maybe it just sags like a heavy load. Or does it explode? Talking Points 1)Would you characterize Hughes poem as more of a meditation than a stringent warning or vice versa? Either way, is Hansberry’s project in-line with that of Hughes’s poems? 2)Why do you think Hansberry chose a title for her play that would (almost automatically) make an inter-textual reference to Hughes’s poem? In other words, what purpose(s) are served by this intertextuality? 3)There are many deferred dreams in A Raisin in the Sun? Name (at least) one deferred dream for each of the play’s character and one dream deferred that all the characters share and/or realize? Which dry up? Which fester? Which stink like rotten meat? Which sag like heavy loads? Which ones explode and how would you characterize the aftermath of the explosion? How does pride, dignity, and self-worth play into all of this?
The Genre and Theatrical Conventions of A Raisin in the Sun
MARXIST SOCIAL REALISM Maxim Gorky ( )--the originator John Reed ( )--the American Marxist Missionary Social Realism developed as a reaction against the philosophical vogue of German idealism and the literary vogue of French Romanticism. As the harmful consequences of the Industrial Revolution became increasingly apparent; urban centers grew, and slums proliferated on a new (never before seen) scale contrasting with the display of wealth of the upper classes. With a new sense of social consciousness, the Social Realists pledged to “fight the beautiful art” with any style which appealed to the eye or emotions. They tended, though, to focus on the ugly realities of contemporary life and sympathized with working-class people, particularly the poor. They professed to record what they saw (“as it existed”) in a dispassionate manner. Richard Wright’s NATIVE SON is perhaps the most well known example of African American Marxist Social Realism, but Hansberry’s play runs, arguably, a close second.
Domestic Drama and Socialist Realism Nineteenth century drama took the complete step in incorporating realism into drama, thus resulting in more serious and philosophical drama. Characters and settings gradually developed into the realistic truths of the current society. Along with realism was naturalism or “selective realism emphasizing the more sordid and pessimistic aspects of life.” The twentieth century introduced symbolism into the makings of domestic dramas, ultimately causing variations within domestic drama. Early twentieth century shows incorporated minimal scenery, telegraphic dialogue, talking machines, and characters portrayed as types rather than individuals. Domestic drama suddenly became a combination of naturalism, expressionism, symbolism, and commonly treated psychological affairs. Modern dramas usually revolve around psychological, social, or political affairs, all of which seem to have their roots in domestic drama. Using ita interpretive ideas, such as “distinctive voice and vision,” stark settings, austere language in spare dialog, meaningful silences, the projection of a powerful streak of menace, and outbursts of real or implied violence. Domestic drama also carries the implications of current affairs with society: such as civil rights, feminism and current political and sociological disputes. Talking Points 1)How does A Raisin in the Sun (or the film A Raisin in the Sun) conform to the tenets of the domestic drama, and in what significant ways does it depart from them? 2)Is A Raisin in the Sun a “pessimistic play”? If so, why? If not, why? 3)If domestic drama is typically invested in “psychological affairs,” what “psychological affairs” are Hansberry’s focal points. Are they uniquely African American? If so, how and why is that the case? 4)What social and political affairs are at stake besides integration in A Raisin in The Sun? (Think about black nationalism, internationalism. Local politics in Chicago, etc.)
Lorraine Hansberry: Playwright, Social Agitator, and the Radical You Never Knew “All art is Ultimately Social: that which agitates and that which prepares the mind for slumber” 1)Born in 1930 in Chicago 2)W.E.B. Du Bois, Paul Robeson, Langston Hughes, Duke Ellington, and others were frequent visitors in her childhood home. 3)In her early 20’s, Hansberry was a leader of the Communist Youth Movement. 4)As a child, her family moves to an all-white suburb in Chicago: a “hellishly hostile white neighborhood.” Her father’s refusal to vacate the Washington Park Subdivision of the South Side of Chicago led to a key victory in the Civil Rights Movement when the Supreme Court found in his favor (Lee vs. Hansberry) 5)1948- Attends University of Wisconsin at Madison and becomes active in various incarnations of Communist youth groups 6)At the New School, Hansberry takes a class from Du Bois on colonialism. 7)1959 “A Raisin in the Sun” opens in Philadelphia 8)The play runs 530 time on Broadway 9)It is the most successful play written, to date, by an African American and the first play written by an African American woman to appear on Broadway 10)Joins the Daughters of Bilitis in 1957 (the nation’s first lesbian organization) and also advocates for abortion rights and an independent Africa 11)She dies, quite young, in Other Works 1)The Drinking Gourd (1960) 2)The Movement: Documentary of a Struggle for Equality (1964) 3)The Sign in Sidney Brustein’s Window (1965) 4)To Be Young, Gifted, and Black: Lorraine Hansberry in Her Own Words (1969)
The Play‘s Key Themes and Symbols Themes 1)Black Masculinity and Black Femininity 2)Capitalism, Labor, Acute Ghettoitis, Marxism, and the American Dream 3)Pan-Africanism, Atavistic Primitvism, and Black Nationalism 4)The Obligation for Self-Fulfillment and its balance with the Obligation to Support Family and Race (Communal-Fulfillment): The Inter-generational tranfer of wealth and value 5)Matriarchy and the role its plays in a unique and perhaps dangerous African American Christianity 6)Assimilation, Radicalism, and their relationship to Heritage 7)Independence and Pride v.s. Communal Indebtedness 8)Self-Expression and Self-Realization v.s. Communal-Expression and Self-Realization 9)Inter-generational transfer of wealth/value(s) and Continuity 10)Mental and physical migrations 11)The Black Family as both Patriarchal and Matriarchal 12)Self-Expression v.s. Communal-Expression 13)Chicago as National Microcosm Realist symbols 1)Rats. (The rat trap and the toothless rat) What other famous portrait of the racist machinery of Chicago real-estate invoke? 2)Lena’s plant: a little too obvious? 3)Sunlight 4)Clothing 5)Hair 6)Light 7)Dreams
Masculinity, Emasculation, and Performing the Feminine and Reading “Playing” in Plays Talking Points 1)What are the multiple resonances, with respect to the Black Matriarchal family, of Walter Lee’s assumption that Mama will listen to Ruth about the store but not him? 2)Notice that Hansberry has inserted the stage direction (Ignoring her) before Walter Lee launches into his “loudmouth” rant about needing to be backed up by a woman. What are the multiple ironies at work here? 3)Walter, in essence, plays Ruth in this scene, assuming his performance (were he Ruth) would convince Mama to allow him to invest? What does his performance (given the fact that, later, Ruth does ask and Mama still says no) suggest about how he feels about them and where they should be positioned both in society and within the family? 4)Walter buys into a version of the American dream that accepts corruption as a given. Success, in other words, is generally a product of crime? What economic critique is Hansberry leveling with this detail? 5)Eat you eggs! Emasculation, Empowerment, reproduction, abortion.
Capitalism, Labor, and Leisure Reading Telling Contradictions Talking Points 1)Ruth tells Mama of Walter’s desire and feelings about investment and advancement with particular respect to “colored people”? She also relates that this necessitates, in Walter’s eyes, a gamble. Consider the American dream and the myth of Horatio Alger? What commentary is Hansberry making about labor on the one hand, and “owners” (investors) on the other? If the owners are gamblers are they really living out the American dream? If not, what are they doing? 2)Mama makes a distinction here between business people and plain working folks. In the end, her statement turns out to be true. What might Hansberry be trying to suggest (given the totality of events) about labor and economics in this play? 3)The “color line” asserts itself into a conversation about labor in a very intriguing way here. How do Mama’s flu remarks speak to the theme of assimilation at work in the play? 4)Consider Ruth’s suggestion. For her, wealth is leisure (potentially) here. What commentary is Hannsberry making about wealth (with respect to labor and leisure) with this line? 5)Think of two ways to play mama’s line 10,000 dollars. What dramatically different suggestions could the actor make?
Pan-African Solidarity, Atavistic Primitivism, and the Possibility of Black Nationalism Reading WTF? Moments “OCOMOGOSIAY!” is a Yoruban chant that “welcomes the hunters back to the village." "Owimoweh" is the title of a Yoruban chant, referring to the waking of the lion. Talking Points 1)How do Walter’s and Beneatha’s actions in this scene speak to heritage, and how do they manifest atavistic primitivism? What is Hansberry trying to suggest with all of this? 2)Notice that the stage directions repeatedly point to “things we cannot see” and lighting that suggests Walters imagination, Also notice that when this happens, the stage directions tell us the “inner Walter is speaking; the Southside chauffeur has assumed an unexpected majesty” In what way is Hansberry sly distancing herself from iterations of atavistic primitivism and to what ends? In other words, what is this inner an atavistic construct? 3)George brings matter to an abrupt halt here. How does his rejection of Walter’s brotherhood speak to Hansberry’s messages about black nationalism and and internationalism? (Keep in mind that George is a rich shmuck.) 5) Why a record? Why not just drumming? What is Hansberry suggesting about the possibilities pitfallls and successful modus operandi of Du Boisian Pan-Africanism with all of this?
Inter-generational Transfer of Value(s) Talking Points 1)Walter Lee has grown-up with his “face pressed against the glass” (as we see in his monologue). Mama, on the other hand, grew up in an environment of racial terrorism (left the South) and seems, at times, all too content with her lot. How might proximity to wealth/leisure help to account for the thing that’s “changed” which Mama so laments? 2)Consider the multiple ironies of the line “Once upon a time freedom used to be life--now it’s money.” How do these ironies (or do they) support Walter’s notion that it was “always money, Mama. We just didn’t know about it.”? 3)Walter is certain Ruth would never consider an abortion, and Mama is immediately suspicious (in this sense Walter can be said to have internalized his parents’ professed values more fully than they have). Mama does not condemn Lena, though, for what might happen. Instead, she blames Walter for not doing more to stop her, calling him a disgrace to his father’s memory. Why does Walter remain silent? How does his silence actually complicate Mama’s statement? (Keep in mind Walter Lee’s father’s motto about dreams and children) How does this help us to recontextualize Walter’s silence? 4)If Walter is a disgrace to a memory, what memory is he disgracing? How might not pursuing economic success also be a betrayal of not only his father’s memories, but of his father’s dreams?
“In my mother’s house…” Close Reading More Inter-textuality John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. Mathew 5:38-42 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Talking Points 1)In light of Matthew’s Gospel-- clearly invoked and inverted with the line “In my mother’s house”--how in Beneatha more “Christian” than her mother in this scene? 2)Keep in mind the following: A) The Father’s house has many mansions. B) The Younger apartment is a rat-trap. C) The new Younger home--the mansion mama has prepared for her children-- we know, will be a type of hell. In light of all this, how is Hansberry positioning Beneatha’s Marxist vision of religion? How does this positioning (when considered in light of Mama’s rather non-Christian “conversion”) make us think of Mama (or more specifically Mama’s religion) differently? How does Mama’s decision to hand-over the head of the household (and to leave the house) impact your interpretation of all this? 3)Does Mama really have a counter-argument here besides violence? What does that imply? 4)Notice the tension and echoing between the lines “I don’t accept” and “we ain’t gonna have.” How does it speak to the play’s vexed positioning of a mandate for self-fulfillment and familial indebtedness?
Resistance, Heritage, Assimilation Reading Miscommunication and Contradiction Talking Points 1)Consider the ironic meta- theatricality of George’s line (they are in a play) as well as the plethora of contradictions issuing forth from him (e.g. “That’s what being eccentric means--being natural.” How does George’s confused thinking bear witness to Beneatha’s assertion that he is an assimilationist Negro? 2)Is there a similarity between the fictional uncle “Uncle Tom” and George the “fictional” assimilationist? Are they not, here, both fictions? Explore the resonance of this question. 3)Beneatha offers a “dictionary definition” of assimilation straight from the black-radical edition of Websters. She then sets herself apart from George by saying that she, unlike him, embraces her heritage? To what extent is Beneatha full of “it”? Is she also trying to assimilate? If so, how so? 4)Consider where Beneatha’a knowledge of Africa comes from. Is this the normal means by one which establishes heritage? If not, what is Hansberry trying to suggest about the complex notion of African-American heritage here? (Don’t forget that Beneatha, insofar as her family is concerned, is rather close to rejecting a heritage)
Home: Independence and Submission Hansberry’s Micro and Macrocosmic Talking Points 1)Consider the first monologue on this page. How does Asagai position death? Do you take his vision to be “African” or something more? To what other kind of thinking does Asagai’s monologue point and how might he seen as a mouthpiece for Du Bois (who had, by this time, become a Pan-Africanist socialist). How does his demand for action from Beneatha figure into all of this? 2)How does his request that Beneatha leave with him for home complicate the notion of Asagai as “authentically African” or Pan-Africanist? 3)Asagai positions “home,” for Beneatha, as ancestral origin. How does Mama’s earlier attempt to give Asagai a “second home” (in combination with the fact that Nigeria is NOT Beneatha’s home) frustrate the discourse of lineage here? (Notice he even uses the word “pretend”). How is Hansberry forcing the audience to confront the idea that “going back home” is not as easy as it seems and why is she doing it? How does Asagai’s notion of a home in contant flux or forward movement play a role in all of this (notice the contradiction that arises in Asagai’s characterization of Nigeria as a home of contant flux once he starts luring Beneatha with mentions of “old songs”? 4)Asagai has an “our people” and Beneatha, perhaps, has two. How or are their two “our people” different? 5)Asagai distances himself from Beneatha, arguably belittling her as a young creature of the New World? Is Asagai a creation of the New World? Why not? 6)Asagai is rather aggressive and repressive in this scene. He seems to almost want to capture Beneath. What do you make of this? To what kind of Pan- Africanism (that Du Bois’ rejected) point? 7)Beneatha (a perhaps faux-”stand-in” for Hansberry herself) seems to take all Asagai has to say as gospel. Given all we’ve just discussed, what do you make of her angry echoing of Asagai at Walter? Is she using the term in the same way, in a different way, or both? Explain.
Acting “Black” and “Playing Black” in the Black Play Talking Points 1)Walter plays “darkie” in front his family to Beneatha’s great shame. Of course, here, Walter plays the role to a hilt, but to what extent is he simply dramatizing his every day life (or what we know of it from the play)? 2)Is Walter playing at assimilation or something else. If something else, what? 3)Once Walter acts-out a loss of race pride, Beneatha delivers a heavily charged line, “He’s no brother of mine.” Explore the line’s multiple resonances (noticing her later use of the word “individual”) and those of the phrase “a toothless ra”t? 4)Why does Hansberry repeatedly call attention to playing Black in a Black play? What purposes are served? 5)How has death now come into the house? How does this explain why it didn’t when Walter’s father died? 6)Contrast Mama’s desires to “begin again” with Asagai’s, Ruth’s, Beneatha’s, and Lena’s desire to move forward. 7)Notice that Walter’s plan would probably fulfill Beneatha’s dream of becoming a doctor, but for her the cost is to high? What is the cost (or value lost)?
Pride, Manhood, Possession, Conclusion- Hope, Explosion, or Pessimism? The Deceptively Simplicity of Socialist Realism Talking Points 1)Things come to a rapid climax (thematic wise) on this page. Once Walter is said to have found his “manhood” and asserts his pride, the family departs “my mother’s house”? What are the multiply implications of this departure (which is, notably, a prideful ascent and fall)? 2)What do you make of the notion that once Walter finds his pride, Beneatha’s wish to marry and go to Africa appears little more than childish to the rest of her family? 3)Decode the symbol of Mama’s plant. Why is it of such importance that she take it with her? (Remember that her other “harvest” constitutes her children) How does (if it does) the Lord’s mercy figure into all of this? 4)We have already noted that this is far from a “happy ending.” In light of their ambiguous fates, recall both the social realist dictate to “record what they saw as it” and the resonances and suggestive powers of Hughes’s poem. Is a similar effect produced here? If so, what is it? In other words, how is this play a cry of revolt, and why is that cry never quite heard (remember the constraints of form here)?
Writing Reviews Lesson 2 AND 3
Writing a Theater Review: Broad Aims The Function Of Reviews And Reviewers Published reviews vary a great deal. The best daily newspapers see the reviewer’s job as to report on a more or less important public activity, the importance which – and the space given to that reporting – is often determined by such considerations as the volume of money spent upon the productions reported upon or the perceived status of the production company. Most dailies, however, offer a simpler service (in the form of a brief ‘taste test’) to the theatre goer who wants to know if the show is worth seeing. In more serious publications, a theatre critic will have a wide-ranging knowledge of drama and the theatre, definite views about what is undesirable or desirable, and a sense of the context in which the reviewed performance is taking place; he or she can take up more inclusive topics, going beyond the performance on the night to a discussion of individual artists and their development, a particular style of production, company policies, theatre finance, theatre in the community – and so on. Sample the reviewers and journals listed below. The Broad Aims Of Reviewing Two points need to be made at the beginning: Firstly, there is no one review style or structure that suits all purposes (contrary to what many of you will have had drummed into you with the VCE Drama ‘CATs’). Different kinds of plays and different kinds of productions naturally lead one to review them in different kinds of ways. It is important to respond to the particular kind of experience provoked by a performance in a particular kind of way. Secondly, reviews are often the raw material of theatre history; long after the play is out of print or its producing company has ceased to exist – and long after a particular kind of fashion has passed – the printed reviews often remain as the only record of a performance. It is therefore also important to report, as accurately as possible, the basic circumstances of the play, the production and the performance. In broad terms, your reviews should: 1)Evoke (or give an accurate impression of) the performance for someone who has not been there; 2) Convey a considered personal judgment of the quality of the experience; 3) Where there is a text which you can be reasonably expected to read, or of which you can form a sufficient impression, consider how the text wasinterpreted.
Writing a Theater Review Specific Aims and Presentation 4. Specific Aims Here are some questions which you will normally need to consider: What kind of play is it, and what is it about? It is usually necessary to provide a (very brief) summary of the main action – which does not mean telling the whole story through all its windings. What is the style of performance? (Eg. Elaborate? Simple? Rough? Naturalistic? A mixture of styles?) As the play progresses your ability to describe style more exactly will grow. What is the nature of the theatre experience? (Your own responses are crucial, but since theatre is a public event, you should notice how others responded, the atmosphere of the evening, the social context and allied matters. Again, these vary widely.) Remember that the purposes of the theatre are varied and so too are the expectations of audiences. How good is it? (Be careful to try to distinguish here between the text and the performance. This is sometimes very difficult, and only a rash reviewer condemns a new play (for example) if there is a reason to suspect that the performance has done it less than justice. Cases vary: you sometimes also see brilliant performances of unworthy material.) In thinking about any of these four questions you will need to describe aspects of the performance in detail. In other words, back up your judgment with evidence from the play and the performance. Some topics you might treat are: acting, direction, design, use of music and dance, special effects; imagery (in word and spectacle), grouping, pace and timing, atmosphere or mood. Remember that these are only examples and not in all cases appropriate. In discussing any of these you should be as precise and evocative as possible. 5. Presentation Your reviews must be headed by the following information: title, author (and translator if appropriate), director, designer(s), company, and venue. Length: about 1,000 words. 6. Reviewers and Journals You may like to read some examples of what professional reviewers do. Among the famous practitioners (in English) were George Bernard Shaw, Max Beerbohm, Kenneth Tynan, Mary McCarthy and Walter Kerr. Reviews of varying quality can be read in the local and national press; the Arts pages in The Australian give about as good a national summary of Australian theatre as we get at the moment, while reviews in Real Time are more diverse. 7. Assessment In assessing reviews, account is taken of your argument and critical response, your theatrical awareness and your presentation and expression. Two points to note: reviews of plays and performances are typically written in the present tense and actors, directors etc are not referred to by their first names.
The New York Times Typical Template for Theatre Reviews: The 5 Components of 1000 words 1)The review begins by locating the event in such a manner as to lure the reader into a feeling that she/he is experiencing the geist of the event (recording history while distorting it) while simultaneously letting the reader “in on” the reviewer’s feelings about the play. 2)The reviewer then offer more concrete details via, usually, focusing on the director, composer, writer and producer to relate the “who what where and when” while simultaneously performing two additional functions: positioning these figures in terms of their own past production and good artistic production in general, and hinting at whether or not they have lived up to their rep (whether good or bad). Here, her/his strong opinion usually surfaces. 3)The review then typically, in the U.S., moves to an evaluation of the principal players that seems, at first, like a telling of the tale (nothing is given away of course). How the tale is told (its use of irony, it’s tone), in turn, further conveys the reviewers impression of the play. If the review is a “pan” the reviewer sometimes and sometimes does not “trash” the performers for their performances, but more often the reviewer will be a bit reserved in this respect, preferring instead to praise one actor (or element of the show) in her/his concluding sentiments in order to implicitly “pan” the work of others. 4)The review will evaluate one or two production elements (usually the set designer lighting designer, except with a musical (where the composer is almost always the member of the “team” singled out). 5)The review will forcefully, then, drive its evaluative point home. 6)In a condensed-telegraphic-small-font paragraph, most of the people involved in the production of the show are mentioned but are not reviewed. What’s the trick? Skillfully accomplishing parts of several steps in each step taken. In other words, the best reviewers use, but manage to hide the template. No one is better at this then Ben Brantley.
As Good as It Gets?: Ben Brantley Pans Addams Family according to (while skillfully manipulating the template) Buh-Da-Da-Dum (Snap Snap) By Ben Brantley Published: April 9, 2010
Buh-Da-Da-Dum (Snap Snap) 1, 369 “words”- PART I Imagine, if you dare, the agonies of the talented people trapped inside the collapsing tomb called “The Addams Family. ” Being in this genuinely ghastly musical — which opened Thursday night at the Lunt-Fontanne Theater and stars a shamefully squandered Nathan Lane and Bebe Neuwirth— must feel like going to a Halloween party in a strait-jacket or a suit of armor. Sure, you make a flashy (if obvious) first impression. But then you’re stuck in the darn thing for the rest of the night, and it’s really, really uncomfortable. Why, you can barely move, and a strangled voice inside you keeps gasping, “He-e-e-lp! Get me out of here! That silent scream rises like a baleful ectoplasm from a production that generally offers little to shiver about, at least not in any pleasurable way. The satisfying shiver, of course, was what was consistently elicited by the gleefully macabre cartoons by Charles Addams that inspired this musical, as well as a 1960s television series and two movies in the early 1990s. It’s a rare American who isn’t familiar with the sinister little clan (which first appeared in The New Yorker magazine in 1938) for whom shrouds are the last word in fashion, and a guillotine is the perfect children’s toy. This latest reincarnation of “The Addams Family” is clearly relying, above all, on its title characters’ high recognition factor. That such faith is not misplaced is confirmed by the audience’s clapping and snapping along with the first strains of the overture, which appropriates the catchy television theme song. When the curtain parts to reveal a Madame Tussauds-like tableau of the assembled Addamses, there is loud, salutatory applause. There they are, lined up like tombstones (appropriately, since the setting is a cemetery) and looking as if they had just stepped out of Charles Addams’s inkwell. Shrink these impeccably assembled creatures to a height of 10 inches, and you could give them away with McDonald’s Happy Meals (or, given the context, Unhappy Meals). Free for all What steps are being accomplished here? What overlapping of steps is going on? And how is this overlapping both elegantly incorporated and, yet, disruptive (to an extent) to the template? Do you feel as though an informed and distinct voice is speaking here? Why? Do you feel like the critic is an authority? How did he make you feel that way?
Buh-Da-Da-Dum (Snap Snap) 1, 369 “words”- PART 2 This is not an inappropriate thought, since this show treats its characters as imaginative but easily distracted children might treat their dolls, arbitrarily making them act out little stories and situations. The creators of “The Addams Family ” — which has a book by Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice and songs by Andrew Lippa — have said they wanted to return to the spirit of the original New Yorker cartoons. It’s true that the show has moments that quote directly from Addams’s original captions. But those captions were for a limited number of single-panel cartoons. So what to do for the rest of the evening? The answer, to borrow from Irving Berlin, is “Everything the traffic will allow. ” A tepid goulash of vaudeville song-and-dance routines, Borscht Belt jokes, stingless sitcom zingers and homey romantic plotlines that were mossy in the age of Father Knows Best, “The Addams Family ” is most distinctive for its wholesale inability to hold on to a consistent tone or an internal logic. The show, which was previously staged in Chicago, has a troubled past. The original directors, Phelim McDermott and Julian Crouch (also the production’s designers), still retain director credit, but Jerry Zaks, identified in the program as a creative consultant, is known to have reworked the show. (The look is Charles Addams run through a Xerox enlarger, though it makes witty use of the classic red velvet curtain.) Mr. McDermott and Mr. Crouch were responsible for the blissfully ghoulish little show “Shockheaded Peter, ” and their darkly precious aesthetic is the opposite of that of Mr. Zaks, a veteran purveyor of Broadway razzmatazz. So a collision of sensibilities was to be anticipated. What’s more surprising (given Mr. Brickman and Mr. Elice’s solid collaboration on “Jersey Boys ” ) is the ragbag nature of the script, which seems to be shaped by an assortment of mismatched approaches. The show begins with the expected milking of classic Addams perversity, in which morbidity is automatically substituted for cheerfulness. But somewhere along the way the plot becomes a costume-party rehash of the proper- boy-meets-girl-from-crazy-family story line that dates back to “You Can’t Take It With You. ” Free For All Do you get a sense of the play and what it would be like to be there/watch it? Why? As you acquire this sense, what additional steps is Brantley accomplishing? Notice how Brantley is always doing two things at once. Now point to a few instances and tease-out how accomplishes this and what end it suits.
Buh-Da-Da-Dum (Snap Snap) 1, 369 “words”- PART 3 Gomez (Mr. Lane) and Morticia (Ms. Neuwirth), the heads of the family, discover to their alarm that Wednesday (Krysta Rodriguez), their 18-year-old daughter, has fallen in love with Lucas Beineke (Wesley Taylor), a young man from a middle-class all-American home. What’s more, Wednesday has invited Lucas and his parents — Mal (Terrence Mann) and Alice (Carolee Carmello) — for dinner, and insists that the family try to act “NORMAL” for the night. That directive includes Uncle Fester (Kevin Chamberlin), Grandma (Jackie Hoffmnan), little Pugsley (Adam Riegler) and Lurch (Zachary James), the towering, taciturn butler. It is clear things will not go well when, as soon as the Beinekes arrive, Mal asks, “What is this, some kinda theme park? ” Of course it is, Mal. This is a 21st-century Broadway musical. Did I mention, by the way, that the Addams homestead in this version is in Central Park? In what appears to be a tourist-courting stratagem, the seeming strangeness of the Addamses is equated with the strangeness of New Yorkers as perceived by middle Americans. (Cue the old New York City jokes.) But it turns out that all of us are strange in our own ways (even Beinekes), that love conquers all, and that Morticia and Gomez are really just a pair of old softies, who worry about the same things that all moms and dads do, like getting older and seeing their children leave the nest. These worries have been set to blandly generic music by Mr. Lippa. (Sergio Trujillo did the perfunctory choreography, which includes a chorus line of ancestral ghosts.) And though the show makes fun of the greeting-card perkiness of Alice, who writes poems, listen to what Gomez sings to his daughter: “Life is full of contradictions/Every inch a mile./At the moment, we start weeping/That’s when we should smile. ” Though encumbered with a Spanish accent that slides into Transylvania, Mr. Lane is in fine voice and brings a star trouper’s energy and polish to one wan number after another. Ms. Neuwirth, whose priceless deadpan manner is one of Broadway’s great assets, here uses it as a means of distancing herself from an icky show and a formless part. Everyone else tries not to look embarrassed, though it’s not easy in a show that relies on a giant squid to solve its plot problems, makes Uncle Fester a cloyingly whimsical sentimentalist (he’s in love with the moon) and transforms Grandma into an old acid head out of Woodstock. That squid is the work of the wonderful puppeteer Basil Twist, who also whipped up a giant iguana, a regular-sized Venus fly trap and a charming animated curtain tassel. Fans of the “Addams ” television show will be pleased to learn that Thing (the bodiless hand) and Cousin Itt make cameo appearances. They receive thunderous entrance applause and then retire for most of the night. They are no doubt much envied by the rest of the cast. THE ADDAMS FAMILYBook by Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice; music and lyrics by Andrew Lippa; based on characters created by Charles Addams; directed and designed by Phelim McDermott and Julian Crouch; choreography by Sergio Trujillo; creative consultant, Jerry Zaks; lighting by Natasha Katz; sound by Acme Sound Partners; puppetry by Basil Twist; hair by Tom Watson; makeup by Angelina Avallone; special effects by Gregory Meeh; orchestrations by Larry Hochman; musical director, Mary-Mitchell Campbell; dance arrangements by August Eriksmoen; vocal arrangements and incidental music by Mr. Lippa; music coordinator, Michael Keller. Presented by Stuart Oken, Roy Furman, Michael Leavitt, Five Cent Productions, Stephen Schuler, Decca Theatricals, Scott M. Delman, Stuart Ditsky, Terry Allen Kramer, Stephanie P. McClelland, James L. Nederlander, Eva Price, Jam Theatricals/Mary Lu Roffe, Pittsburgh CLO/Gutterman-Swinsky, Vivek Tiwary/Gary Kaplan, the Weinstein Company/Clarence LLC and Adam Zotovich/Tribe Theatricals by special arrangement with Elephant Eye Theatrical. At the Lunt-Fontanne Theater, 205 West 46th Street, Manhattan; (877) Running time: 2 hours 30 minutes.WITH: Nathan Lane Gomez Addams), Bebe Neuwirth (Morticia Addams), Terrence Mann (Mal Beineke), Carolee Carmello (Alice Beineke), Kevin Chamberlin (Uncle Fester), Jackie Hoffman (Grandma), Zachary James (Lurch), Adam Riegler (Pugsley Addams), Wesley Taylor (Lucas Beineke) and Krysta Rodriguez (Wednesday Addams). Free for all How is Brantley offering standard reviewing fare here? (conforming to the template). Does it annoy you? Why or why not? Brantley has to go “here,” but did his early creative intertwining make the playing out of the template seem acceptable? Describe the various tones and registers at work throughout the review. They each accomplish specific tasks. What are some of these tones and tasks here?