So Jen and I took in The Homecoming tonight. On the one hand, what a fabulous cast: Ian McShane, James Frain, Michael McKean, and (my personal favorite) Raul Esparza. On the other hand, what an unenjoyable play.
The first act was B O R I N G. A whole lot of set up that really felt like it didn't need to take anywhere near all the time it actually took. The second act picks up a lot, but the plot takes such a turn into the absurd that I felt totally mystified. Jen and I admitted to each other over coffee after the show that we felt like we just weren't getting it. Surely these characters couldn't have really been saying and doing the things they said and did in earnest, could they? They must all be some kind of metaphor or representation for something else, right? We mulled over many half-baked theories, some of which might have made an interesting college essay and none of which made for a particularly riveting night at the theatre.
Most disappointing, really, was my Raul. He just wasn't good. Accents are absolutely not his strong suit, as evidenced in Taboo, Comedians, and any other show where's he's supposed to be British. I'm not sure if he was so focused on the accent that he forgot to act or what, but while the rest of the cast was natural and at least somewhat authentic, he seemed mannered and uncomfortable. I have a theory that now that he's marginally famous, at least in the theatre world, he's scared to take risks. It's like he knows he's being watched and so afraid of getting it wrong that all the raw emotion and intensity that made his earlier performances so powerful gets completely stifled. Truly, a knockout performance still wouldn't have made this show successful for me, but I do look forward to the day that he wows me again.
Friday, December 14, 2007
A Matinee, A Pinter Play...
at 12:22 AM
Labels: On the Boards
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm so sad to hear that Raul is letting you down! I know how much you love him.
OMG! We saw it this week, too, and our reaction was almost identical. What the hell was it even about? Perhaps it was groundbreaking and genuine when it premiered in the '60s, but in this production, nothing at all seemed real, and the all-out absurdity in the 2nd act had me scratching my head. We have to talk more about this!!
I studied up on this last night after I got home like I was preparing for an exam. I've maybe, sort of got a handle on the themes now, but....no. I still have no idea what the hell that was.
But James Frain....
I think maybe too much set-up in act one and absurdity in act two is just Pinter's style. I went to go see Caretaker a couple of years ago just for the thrill of being in the same room as Patrick Stewart. The acting was all excellent, but the play itself fit the same sort of "boring, boring, boring, bor--wait... what!?" pattern that you're describing.
Post a Comment