I've never seen someone as resentful of his own success and the medium he works in as Bruce Norris. Does he even like plays? Or people? Some consider him a satirist (hmm, I don't agree), some say he's just incredibly cynical (I guess). I say cheer up! You have a Pulitzer! And now you have a big, sprawling period play that's been given a top-notch production at The Public Theater!
I'll say one thing about Norris: he's a very versatile playwright. And no play shows off his versatility more than his latest, The Low Road. It's definitely new territory for him style-wise but thematically, it feels similar to his other work. The Low Road skewers capitalism. It's protagonist, Jim, who is described by Artistic Director Oskar Eustis as "the anti-Candide," has a fleeting encounter with Adam Smith (who also narrates the piece) as a child that inspires his unwavering belief in capitalism and "the invisible hand." Jim staunchly believes that people only deserve what they work for and earn, and that those with more shouldn't necessarily give to those with less. Trickle down economics isn't really his thing. Basically this is the gist of the often entertaining, sometimes fun, and occasionally sluggish play; we spend two and a half hours with Jim spewing his philosophy to anyone who will listen to him.
I'll admit, it was fun to watch a big, period play because they seem to be at a premium these days. (The production is gorgeous from top to bottom.) It was refreshing to see a play that didn't focus on affluent suburbanites in the twenty-first century. And it was nice to see a picaresque! However because it was a picaresque (and props to director Michael Greif for his excellent pacing) we never quite stay with anything too long. Jim, as an adult, essentially becomes a pimp, murders two men, buys a slave, is robbed at gunpoint, has dinner (and insults) a religious cult, and is taken hostage by Hessian soldiers. And this is all before intermission! But when things do get a little room to breathe in the second act, the play begins to drag. Mostly because by the second act we've heard Jim rant about how everyone needs to earn their keep and not rely on handouts about half a dozen times. Yes, yes, we get it.
I couldn't help but look around the audience during the play. They were mostly white, mostly over the age of 40. And yes, this is what most theater audiences look like (I only seem to see diversity at MCC, NYTW, and Playwrights Horizons shows) but I find it most egregious at The Public.
Full disclosure: I have many many issues with The Public. According to their site, they are "of, by, and for the people. Artist-driven, radically inclusive, and fundamentally democratic." They claim to support up-and-coming artists, and tout their "free" Shakespeare in the Park (that is supported by Bank of America and for $500 you can guarantee a seat to these productions!) but let's be real: this season alone they featured works by three Pulitzer winners (they're not up-and-coming, they're here), a book-to-play adaptation by an actress (that they gave a return engagement to for some reason), and a play by a Tony-winning long-established playwright about Joe Papp (the less said the better). In recent seasons they've featured movie stars such as Oscar Isaac, Rachel Weisz, Daniel Radcliffe, and Claire Danes, just to name a few. And let's not forget them just throwing an admittedly underdeveloped production of a David Byrne musical on stage. I paid $99 for Joan of Arc. Sam Gold's Hamlet had tickets for $141. Tickets to The Low Road start at $75. They have so many members that their shows sell out quickly, and therefore, they do not provide many opportunities for people who may not own apartments on 14th street to see their shows. Theater at The Public is not accessible, no matter how much they pretend it is. They get tons of support, and probably make more from Hamilton than other non-profit theaters make in grant money in general. Is it nice to have a non-profit off-Broadway theater doing well? Yes. But let's be real, the wealthy are the ones who can afford to see their shows. It sounds good to say you're for the people but most of your shows aren't very accessible (unless they're not selling well.)
So, to produce a play that basically says, "look how ridiculous people are who don't think we should help each other and spread the wealth" and charge $75+ is hypocritical. And I get it, theater is expensive to produce, and if you want artists to make a decent living you have to charge more blah blah blah blah blah. But the audience of The Low Road are the people who have the money to spread around. They're the Jims, not the John Blankes (the slave he buys who is a much, much better human being than he is.) We want diversity and accessibility in the theater but we also want to make money. And the reality is that a theater like The Public that is doing that well can have it both ways. Except they don't. It's almost insulting to do a play mocking people who do not believe in socialism.
I'll say one thing about Norris: he's a very versatile playwright. And no play shows off his versatility more than his latest, The Low Road. It's definitely new territory for him style-wise but thematically, it feels similar to his other work. The Low Road skewers capitalism. It's protagonist, Jim, who is described by Artistic Director Oskar Eustis as "the anti-Candide," has a fleeting encounter with Adam Smith (who also narrates the piece) as a child that inspires his unwavering belief in capitalism and "the invisible hand." Jim staunchly believes that people only deserve what they work for and earn, and that those with more shouldn't necessarily give to those with less. Trickle down economics isn't really his thing. Basically this is the gist of the often entertaining, sometimes fun, and occasionally sluggish play; we spend two and a half hours with Jim spewing his philosophy to anyone who will listen to him.
I'll admit, it was fun to watch a big, period play because they seem to be at a premium these days. (The production is gorgeous from top to bottom.) It was refreshing to see a play that didn't focus on affluent suburbanites in the twenty-first century. And it was nice to see a picaresque! However because it was a picaresque (and props to director Michael Greif for his excellent pacing) we never quite stay with anything too long. Jim, as an adult, essentially becomes a pimp, murders two men, buys a slave, is robbed at gunpoint, has dinner (and insults) a religious cult, and is taken hostage by Hessian soldiers. And this is all before intermission! But when things do get a little room to breathe in the second act, the play begins to drag. Mostly because by the second act we've heard Jim rant about how everyone needs to earn their keep and not rely on handouts about half a dozen times. Yes, yes, we get it.
I couldn't help but look around the audience during the play. They were mostly white, mostly over the age of 40. And yes, this is what most theater audiences look like (I only seem to see diversity at MCC, NYTW, and Playwrights Horizons shows) but I find it most egregious at The Public.
Full disclosure: I have many many issues with The Public. According to their site, they are "of, by, and for the people. Artist-driven, radically inclusive, and fundamentally democratic." They claim to support up-and-coming artists, and tout their "free" Shakespeare in the Park (that is supported by Bank of America and for $500 you can guarantee a seat to these productions!) but let's be real: this season alone they featured works by three Pulitzer winners (they're not up-and-coming, they're here), a book-to-play adaptation by an actress (that they gave a return engagement to for some reason), and a play by a Tony-winning long-established playwright about Joe Papp (the less said the better). In recent seasons they've featured movie stars such as Oscar Isaac, Rachel Weisz, Daniel Radcliffe, and Claire Danes, just to name a few. And let's not forget them just throwing an admittedly underdeveloped production of a David Byrne musical on stage. I paid $99 for Joan of Arc. Sam Gold's Hamlet had tickets for $141. Tickets to The Low Road start at $75. They have so many members that their shows sell out quickly, and therefore, they do not provide many opportunities for people who may not own apartments on 14th street to see their shows. Theater at The Public is not accessible, no matter how much they pretend it is. They get tons of support, and probably make more from Hamilton than other non-profit theaters make in grant money in general. Is it nice to have a non-profit off-Broadway theater doing well? Yes. But let's be real, the wealthy are the ones who can afford to see their shows. It sounds good to say you're for the people but most of your shows aren't very accessible (unless they're not selling well.)
So, to produce a play that basically says, "look how ridiculous people are who don't think we should help each other and spread the wealth" and charge $75+ is hypocritical. And I get it, theater is expensive to produce, and if you want artists to make a decent living you have to charge more blah blah blah blah blah. But the audience of The Low Road are the people who have the money to spread around. They're the Jims, not the John Blankes (the slave he buys who is a much, much better human being than he is.) We want diversity and accessibility in the theater but we also want to make money. And the reality is that a theater like The Public that is doing that well can have it both ways. Except they don't. It's almost insulting to do a play mocking people who do not believe in socialism.
Comments
Post a Comment