For me, Playwrights Horizons is best described by a lyric from Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine's Pulitzer Prize-winning musical Sunday in the Park With George (that, coincidentally, originated at the non-profit), "what matters is the means not the ends." I often admire how diverse their slate of artists tend to be, and how interesting, compelling, and exciting their offerings sound. And make no mistake, they have produced plays I love, by playwrights and artists I idolize.
And then often times, the shows don't deliver on their promise. Especially this season. Sarah Ruhl's For Peter Pan On Her Seventieth Birthday felt half-baked, like a poor attempt at Annie Baker's brilliant mundanity, and Max Posner's The Treasurer, although anchored by a terrific performance by Peter Friedman, was a bore.
Their third offering of the 2017-2018 season is Robert O'Hara's Mankind. O'Hara imagines a future where women have become extinct due to the treatment they received at the hands of men, especially the outlawing of abortion. The bodies of men have adapted to allow them to conceive and carry babies, and O'Hara's central couple, Jason and Mark, who are, as the play calls them, "fuckmates," (a.k.a fuck buddies) discover they're about to become parents. I don't want to spoil anything but I'll tell you that the play hits upon many of the hot button issues we're bombarded with day after day in the news: feminism, reproductive rights, organized religion, and climate change. Oh, and did I mention it's a comedy?
Walking into the theater, you're hit with the sound of the voices of many of the current feminist heroes: Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Malala, and hey, did I hear Oprah Winfrey's Golden Globes' speech from just last week? I wasn't sure how to react to this; O'Hara identifies as a man, and while I appreciate it when men are allies, I often worry about allies overcompensating. What does this play written and directed by a man (O'Hara also directs) with a completely male cast have to really say about feminism and women's rights and productive rights, especially at a time when they are truly under attack?
But all of my anxieties disappeared once the play began.
I'm not saying O'Hara is the preeminent feminist of his time. I'm not even sure he make any good points. But what he did write (and direct) was a very funny, topical play that I enjoyed watching. I don't get to say that very often these days! The all-male cast was excellent, especially Bobby Moreno as Jason, and it was nice to see Andre DeShields redeem himself after Classic Stage Company's As You Like It. His fire-and-brimstone preacher was downright frightening, especially when you consider he was only preaching the same things so many misogynists and "pro-lifers" spew today.
Clint Ramos' set, a multi-room cube that was pulled apart throughout the 1:50 running time, was one of my favorites of the season.
And oh, that act one finale! I've seen many, many plays in my lifetime but never one who held a mock mass inspired by the Catholic church and asked its audience (well, part of the audience) to get up and pray. Usually immersive theater that requires audience participation irritates me but at that point, I was so enraptured by the play, I didn't mind playing along.
But that's not to say the play is perfect.
O'Hara seems so wrapped up in his belief that men are ridiculous and they will ultimately lead to the demise of well, mankind (which is not a belief he holds alone, I can tell you that much) that he doesn't do such a great job of world building. He lets his politics drive the play. We're thrown into this world that looks an awful lot like ours (and by my calculations, they're supposed to be about 150 years in the future), and the only explanation we get for the extinction of women is that abortion was outlawed, and this led to healthcare issues that led to women being completely wiped out. We're told men's body have adapted to conceive, carry, and give birth (with the help of a machine that looks like a cross between a space pod and an MRI machine), and they can even nurse but we're not told how this happened. Do I need a detailed explanation like David Henry Hwang so egregiously provided in his re-writes for the recent M Butterfly revival? Nah. Absolutely not. But O'Hara has given us this insane speculative play, and it doesn't seem like he really thought out how this all happened. My biggest question is about menstruation. Do men do that now? They must, if they have eggs inside of them, right?
The second act is arguably weaker than the first, especially with the first being as plot-heavy as it is. But you know, it's easier to get someone up the tree than it is to get them down. O'Hara begins the second act with our central couple as the center of an organized religion they've inadvertently began (thanks to the birth of their daughter, the first female born in a century, who subsequently dies due to the pollution in the air), and they're not sure how to get out of this predicament. They don't really believe the doctrine that they've been credited with but they have little choice--the feminists who believe in them are strangely militant, and they are ready to shoot the minute they try to escape. (This is where the play gets a little dicey for me. If I didn't know going in that O'Hara was on the side of the Feminists, I would've thought he was lampooning them.) The ending is abrupt, as though O'Hara wasn't quite sure how to wrap everything up so he just sort of stuffed it all into a corner.
Regardless of the plotholes, I still really enjoyed Mankind and recommend it wholeheartedly. It is one of the better offerings I've seen this fall/winter, and it's refreshingly topical and timely without patting itself on the back. And it made me smile! I can't even tell you the last time that happened in any theater.
I'm not saying O'Hara is the preeminent feminist of his time. I'm not even sure he make any good points. But what he did write (and direct) was a very funny, topical play that I enjoyed watching. I don't get to say that very often these days! The all-male cast was excellent, especially Bobby Moreno as Jason, and it was nice to see Andre DeShields redeem himself after Classic Stage Company's As You Like It. His fire-and-brimstone preacher was downright frightening, especially when you consider he was only preaching the same things so many misogynists and "pro-lifers" spew today.
Clint Ramos' set, a multi-room cube that was pulled apart throughout the 1:50 running time, was one of my favorites of the season.
And oh, that act one finale! I've seen many, many plays in my lifetime but never one who held a mock mass inspired by the Catholic church and asked its audience (well, part of the audience) to get up and pray. Usually immersive theater that requires audience participation irritates me but at that point, I was so enraptured by the play, I didn't mind playing along.
But that's not to say the play is perfect.
O'Hara seems so wrapped up in his belief that men are ridiculous and they will ultimately lead to the demise of well, mankind (which is not a belief he holds alone, I can tell you that much) that he doesn't do such a great job of world building. He lets his politics drive the play. We're thrown into this world that looks an awful lot like ours (and by my calculations, they're supposed to be about 150 years in the future), and the only explanation we get for the extinction of women is that abortion was outlawed, and this led to healthcare issues that led to women being completely wiped out. We're told men's body have adapted to conceive, carry, and give birth (with the help of a machine that looks like a cross between a space pod and an MRI machine), and they can even nurse but we're not told how this happened. Do I need a detailed explanation like David Henry Hwang so egregiously provided in his re-writes for the recent M Butterfly revival? Nah. Absolutely not. But O'Hara has given us this insane speculative play, and it doesn't seem like he really thought out how this all happened. My biggest question is about menstruation. Do men do that now? They must, if they have eggs inside of them, right?
The second act is arguably weaker than the first, especially with the first being as plot-heavy as it is. But you know, it's easier to get someone up the tree than it is to get them down. O'Hara begins the second act with our central couple as the center of an organized religion they've inadvertently began (thanks to the birth of their daughter, the first female born in a century, who subsequently dies due to the pollution in the air), and they're not sure how to get out of this predicament. They don't really believe the doctrine that they've been credited with but they have little choice--the feminists who believe in them are strangely militant, and they are ready to shoot the minute they try to escape. (This is where the play gets a little dicey for me. If I didn't know going in that O'Hara was on the side of the Feminists, I would've thought he was lampooning them.) The ending is abrupt, as though O'Hara wasn't quite sure how to wrap everything up so he just sort of stuffed it all into a corner.
Regardless of the plotholes, I still really enjoyed Mankind and recommend it wholeheartedly. It is one of the better offerings I've seen this fall/winter, and it's refreshingly topical and timely without patting itself on the back. And it made me smile! I can't even tell you the last time that happened in any theater.
Comments
Post a Comment