Fences

I have not been able to put my finger on exactly why, but Fences did not work for me. The dialogue is very good, which came across much more in seeing the play than in reading it. The characters are well developed through the dialogue, there is transformation and growth in the characters, they complement each other well. But I did not feel connected to the characters, I was not moved by them, I did not empathize with them, nor was I invested in their trials and tribulations.

Reading Fences, I think that Wilson did an impeccable job of describing, in words, characters that are recognizable as full-fledged, filled out human beings. It is easy for characters to come across as flat and un-dynamic when reading them on a page, but Wilson succeeded in telling his readers who his characters are.

Onstage I was, if possible, less convinced of the characters than when reading the play. Troy was too angry, Cory too moody and sullen, and Rose, who I was very impressed by when reading Fences and who I had thought was the strongest character, came across as a very weak character onstage. This very well may have been because of the particular production I saw. But even so, I was not convinced. What this taught me was that there is so much more that will be added to a play than what is seen on the page. Like I mentioned in the blog about The Last of Our Boys, one production of a play will differ dramatically from all other productions of the same play. Also, a production that works for one person may not work for another.

What I learned from reading and seeing Fences is that writing plays is hard. Not everyone will ever be satisfied with your production; even if five hundred people think it is brilliant, one hundred will think it sucked, and another hundred will think it is lacking substance, or coherence, or meaning. So I think the take-home message here is make yourself happy—do what you want, use your artistic license, and don’t let other people’s ideas make you think you are wrong (unless the vast majority tell you it is awful, then it probably is).

Bug

Like The Last of our Boys, the set for Bug was visible to the audience on entering the theater, but this time because the seating was all onstage, surrounding the set. I very much liked this choice of staging—it created an intimate atmosphere in which to experience the play.

The realism in this production was the most disturbing, but also the most effective, part for me. In The Last of our Boys I can appreciate that, as a staged reading, it wasn’t going to be perfect and that it did work to have the actors sit to the side while offstage. However, Bug did exactly what I like in a play and made everything seem real. Bug was incredibly daring, another aspect of it that earned my respect. The predictable, unemotional, slow moving, no action plays can work, but a piece as terrifyingly real as this one is something special. When I watch a play that takes me on an emotional rollercoaster, I know that I have just experienced something of substance and talent. Bug not only affected my emotions, but actually made me feel physically ill, which is a very rare occasion. Theater has such an advantage over films in that we are in the same room with the people putting on this entertainment for us; smelling the cigarettes, watching the actors ‘snort’ cocaine and ‘smoke’ crack, the wine bottles, and, most of all, the insect bites and blood—none of these have the same effect when seen on a screen. I think it was incredibly brave for the playwright to write a play that includes such real-life, but not so socially acceptable, features; it challenges directors, actors, and producers, makes them think about how far they are willing to go, makes them meet the writer half way. I like that kind of challenge.

This is a heavy and very, very intense story. I think it was daring to write this content and storyline; it is important to write what is true, important to show that life is not simple, easy, or without tension, conflict, and pain. I imagine, though, that this sort of work is hard to write. But if you can write it, it will look really good onstage.

The Last of Our Boys

The Last of Our Boys

The first thing I noticed on walking into this staged reading was the set. Likely a low budget production, it was not on some big stage, with curtains, the lights low, and a dramatic moment in the beginning where the set is suddenly revealed, possibly with actors already interacting with the set. Instead, the lights were already up onstage, so what we saw on entering was the set as it would be for the production—but without the actors. It created an interesting and slightly unusual dynamic to get to know the set first, memorizing the placements of things, venturing guesses as to the content of the play based on what I saw on the stage, and wondering how each piece would function within the production. Having the set revealed to the audience from behind a curtain is a very purposeful way of telling them “the play has started; it is time to pay attention and become hypnotized by the production you are about to see.” This can add to the experience of going to see a play and I think it is something that the audience expects, perhaps looks forward to, that moment when they know it is time to be consumed by whatever production is about to be put on for them. However, seeing the set beforehand has its benefits as well and, while it takes away a ‘reveal moment’ at the beginning, it also lets the audience prepare a bit more for what is in store in the coming two hours or so. This process is gentler, more subtle, and gives the audience time to assimilate into the theater experience.

The actors sat on the side of the stage for the production, not backstage, which was another unusual aspect of this theater-going experience. I think these liberties were taken because it was a staged reading. It says pretty loudly “you are watching a play; we are actors,” which is not a bad thing, but it is a very intentional choice and simply a matter of preference. This part did not work for me because I am very attached to the hypnotizing aspect of theater-going and having the actors enter from a place that I could see them did interrupt this hypnosis a bit.

These two aspects of the production certainly made parts of the experience different from what I think people expect from the theater. However, the play was very engaging, as were the actors, so these differences did not detract from my overall enjoyment of the play. The lesson here, I think, is that a well-written play has the capacity to come across even in a staged reading.

It is all a matter of taste—this is the big take-home message I got from seeing The Last of Our Boys. As a result, every production is going to be incredibly different; even productions of the same play will vary dramatically from one another because of nuances in directing, acting, staging, and so forth.