Seminal Work? Or Museum Piece?
By Jesse Schmitt
David Mamet has always been one of my favorite writers. More than the fact that he so ably and deftly carves out of his characters words, a sickening portrait of the Old West, Marlboro Man, American male machismo which has dominated this nation’s perception of reality and life and to a large extent for a segment of the population, still does.
I’ve known a less publicized and more intimate David Mamet; through his words, I’ve studied his teachings. Many people may know that he and actor William H. Macy began the world renowned Atlantic Theatre Company; what many do not know is that in addition to his writings for the stage, screen, and his directing, David Mamet is also a book author. I learned a lot about theatre and live performance from his books “Writing in Restaurants,” "True and False," and “Three Uses of the Knife.”
I learned what it meant to be an actor from a playwright’s position and what steps need be taken for a show to really gain traction and spread wings. David Mamet is the one whose words gave me courage to break out on my own and it is, in large part, due to his “it’s not going to be easy but this is how you do it,” approach which put the real world in real terms for me. His plain spoken attitude showed me that writing in itself is a job which requires a leap of faith and more importantly, a trial-and-error command of your own perception of yourself, even when others have written you off for dead.
Equally important, I’ve always respected his talent and his opinion; how could you not? Love it or hate it, the opinion in all of the cannon of Mamet shoots out like a lightning bolt; you are never at a loss for words as to where the artist’s voice is in his pieces.
So I have a definite opinion of David Mamet and his various works at various stages in his career. Many people know many titles in the Mamet catalog: “Glengarry Glen Ross,” “Oleanna,” “Speed the Plough,” “American Buffalo;” all of these plays and many more have helped us to define a writer who is still at his pinnacle of influence, has effectively and effortlessly crossed genres, and continues to pump out a respectable amount of work if for no one’s sake than his own amusement or his own outrage.
It is with the greatest amount of respect for the original playwright and for the artists involved in this most recent production of “Sexual Perversity in Chicago (The Flight Theatre 6476 Santa Monica Blvd. Hollywood)” that I say, I still have a tough time stomaching that play. I’d been lucky enough to see this play previously in Edinburgh Scotland at the Fringe Festival in 2001. I didn’t like it then and my opinion has not changed. I went into this show with an open mind; I even desperately wanted to like it; but time has not changed the core of this show.
Even Mamet’s own opinions on the work appeared bitterly laced with acid: “…as a callow youth with hay sticking out of my ears, I sold both the play and the screenplay for about $12;” this led to the majority of his subsequent productions being kept in check by his own production vehicle. Despite the fact that reference was alluding to the less than phenomenal “About Last Night” movie adaptation of this show; the subtext was clear. The artist did not want this to become his seminal work; he was much too smart for that. He knew that this tiny one act play which had helped propel him to prominence may be a step along the path but he did not want this to be the work about which his entire career was based and on which his name would be made.
Yet still, it is produced and still people take these four shallow characters down the road which was crafted for them and still it is troubling and missing the point and purely a vanity project.
Just ask Joe Kreimborg; the star and producer of this show. Mr. Kreimborg plays Danny Shapiro; an insecure office worker who is the morning after wingman of his more than outspoken co-worker, Bernie (Jeff Markey). Bernie tells the tales and Danny sits in awe. Even though we're introduced to him in the subordinate dynamic, Danny ends up hooking up with this woman, Deb (Agatha Nowicki) who probably sleeps with him because she is at a crossroads in her life. Deb is in a similar situation as Danny as she plays wing-woman to her spurned best friend. It may seem that this is the perfect situation for both Danny and Deb as they can help their friends come to terms with their insecurities. However this is not the case; Bernie has feigned interest in his friends real life relationships; Danny has just crossed Deb’s totally over the top best friend and roommate Joan (Necar Zadegan).
Such is the life of the dating masses; however it’s too bad that Joan and Bernie have their own ideas about losing their friends to the commitment and sacrifices which go along with steady relationships. Joan has been scorned; Bernie hyperbolizes his own sex life; neither one of them is comfortable losing their sounding boards to the “wah-wah” of pedestrian relationships.
In this production, Joan and Bernie seem to be the only one’s who have hit their stride. You always know what’s going on in their head; it could be the writing, which may be what Mamet was saying, but there seems to be another thing going on. Mr. Kreimborg, as the stated in the program producer, seems to have his own ideas about this character and hasn’t seemed to (I hope) listen to the director (Alex Feldman)
I can’t blame the director because when the star of the show is also the producer, they will do whatever they want. As a producer who has made a fool of themselves onstage before by not listening to a director, I know. However I can’t totally hold the director harmless; let’s just say that Mr. Feldman could have done more.
I understand that Danny is engendered in the text as “meek” and “shy” but the portrayal of Mr. Kreimborg of the character was totally obnoxious, unbelievable, and not current with the spirit of the times. It was the 70’s man! Their costumer, set dresser, and props person got things right; Mr. Kreimborg missed it. Specifically, he mumbled his lines, he talked to his shoulder, and there was this perpetual, effeminate, giggle which sprung up from his Danny which was his trademark sound and, in this text, gets a resounding thumbs down. Maybe if he’d “thrown it in” once or twice for effect; but it was like every other word. For Mr. Markey it must have been like yelling at a three year old!
Bernie was well played; his intensity transcended the babble; similarly with Ms. Zadegan; her portrayal of Joan as an untrusting, cynical, aggressive, and Girl-Power’ish woman, who is conflicted due to her overwhelming need for her friend, was well played. But Ms Nowicki was completely unmemorable. When Ms. Nowicki and Mr. Kreimborg were onstage together, it was like peeling back fingernails across a rusty chalkboard.
But maybe that’s the point. It seems like a young, inexperienced writer who would make observations and generalizations like this. So maybe, for all of our sakes, we had just better leave “Sexual Perversity in Chicago” on the shelf. As a period piece, it’s bearable. But even then, when we’re trying to move forward the discussion and get beyond certain stereotypes, it would seem necessary to leave certain works alone for a few hundred years, before we’re able to get to a point where revivals like this seem “quaint.”
Or you could just do whatever the fuck you want…heh-he!
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20030504/ai_n12739273
http://www.plays411.com/newsite/show/play_info.asp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment