Sometimes a play is so bland, so inert, that it becomes offensive. That play is Fire in Dreamland.
That's not to say there aren't a lot of interesting ideas in Rinne Groff's new play. Yes, writing a play about a foreign filmmaker making a movie about the 1911 fire in Coney Island and the disillusioned, aimless woman who becomes obsessed with him and the movie seems like a good idea. Setting it right after Superstorm Sandy is an even better idea. There is much to mine from this. But as a native Brooklynite who knows Coney Island well and lived in the borough during Sandy, it feels like Groff didn't quite understand the neighborhood, it's rich history, and it's long-time struggles. She merely skims the surface of the racism and classism that was evident in the area (before and) after the hurricane. It's as though Groff mentions it because she should but really has no interesting in developing it an idea from it. It's criminally underwritten. If she's trying to make a connection between the devastation of Coney Island after the storm and the lack of structure in her protagonist, Kate's, life, and the 1911 fire, then Groff doesn't follow through with this.
Fire in Dreamland actually focuses on Kate, who has a civil service job, two Masters degrees, a bad apartment (that might have a second bedroom?) in Coney Island, and has made a promise to her father on his deathbed to do something meaningful in her life. Kate exists only on the surface, and what we know about her is cliche. Nothing we haven't already seen or read or heard in a bunch of other stories. She's stuck, too scared to make a real decision for herself and her life, so she is enchanted by a handsome foreign snake oil salesman. And she is so taken by his ridiculous movie idea that she is willing to let him move in with her, quit her job, actually be a part of the movie, and basically give up her entire life for this so-called film. This is totally believable; people who don't have much going on for themselves often cling to even the smallest things and give them great meaning. As I mentioned above, there's some interesting ideas here.
The problem is that Fire in Dreamland is dramatically inert. For about an hour or so, we're stuck with Kate and the filmmaker, Jaap, in her bedroom/apartment. They don't go anywhere. They talk about the film, they watch a bit of clips of it, they talk about the animals that perished in the fire, especially the black lion, and quickly Kate realizes she blew up her life for something that is merely a pipe dream. There may never be a film. But great theater this does not make. Coupled with a practically empty stage, none of this is compelling. It doesn't go anywhere. And we don't really know enough about Kate. And we don't invest enough in Coney Island. And Jaap really doesn't get any development; who is he? What does he really want to accomplish? Why Coney Island? And let's not forget Lance, the third character who Jaap originally takes advantage of (off-stage, of course). We know next to nothing about him.
So what is Groff trying to accomplish here? It's not conceptual or creative enough to forgive the weak character development. The characters aren't strong enough to call it a character study. And the plot, well, forget about the plot. There's no there there. And there should be. Another rewrite or some time with a dramaturg truly would've helped this play. Open the play up. Let these characters live a little and let the audience get to know them.
That's not to say there aren't a lot of interesting ideas in Rinne Groff's new play. Yes, writing a play about a foreign filmmaker making a movie about the 1911 fire in Coney Island and the disillusioned, aimless woman who becomes obsessed with him and the movie seems like a good idea. Setting it right after Superstorm Sandy is an even better idea. There is much to mine from this. But as a native Brooklynite who knows Coney Island well and lived in the borough during Sandy, it feels like Groff didn't quite understand the neighborhood, it's rich history, and it's long-time struggles. She merely skims the surface of the racism and classism that was evident in the area (before and) after the hurricane. It's as though Groff mentions it because she should but really has no interesting in developing it an idea from it. It's criminally underwritten. If she's trying to make a connection between the devastation of Coney Island after the storm and the lack of structure in her protagonist, Kate's, life, and the 1911 fire, then Groff doesn't follow through with this.
Fire in Dreamland actually focuses on Kate, who has a civil service job, two Masters degrees, a bad apartment (that might have a second bedroom?) in Coney Island, and has made a promise to her father on his deathbed to do something meaningful in her life. Kate exists only on the surface, and what we know about her is cliche. Nothing we haven't already seen or read or heard in a bunch of other stories. She's stuck, too scared to make a real decision for herself and her life, so she is enchanted by a handsome foreign snake oil salesman. And she is so taken by his ridiculous movie idea that she is willing to let him move in with her, quit her job, actually be a part of the movie, and basically give up her entire life for this so-called film. This is totally believable; people who don't have much going on for themselves often cling to even the smallest things and give them great meaning. As I mentioned above, there's some interesting ideas here.
The problem is that Fire in Dreamland is dramatically inert. For about an hour or so, we're stuck with Kate and the filmmaker, Jaap, in her bedroom/apartment. They don't go anywhere. They talk about the film, they watch a bit of clips of it, they talk about the animals that perished in the fire, especially the black lion, and quickly Kate realizes she blew up her life for something that is merely a pipe dream. There may never be a film. But great theater this does not make. Coupled with a practically empty stage, none of this is compelling. It doesn't go anywhere. And we don't really know enough about Kate. And we don't invest enough in Coney Island. And Jaap really doesn't get any development; who is he? What does he really want to accomplish? Why Coney Island? And let's not forget Lance, the third character who Jaap originally takes advantage of (off-stage, of course). We know next to nothing about him.
So what is Groff trying to accomplish here? It's not conceptual or creative enough to forgive the weak character development. The characters aren't strong enough to call it a character study. And the plot, well, forget about the plot. There's no there there. And there should be. Another rewrite or some time with a dramaturg truly would've helped this play. Open the play up. Let these characters live a little and let the audience get to know them.
Comments
Post a Comment