Threaded Order Chronological Order
| INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long | |
| Last Edit: lordofspeech 11:12 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 11:01 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| I had a difficult time following the story: 1) Was the beautiful actress who played the prostitute in the play-within-the-play supposed to be the same actress-character during all the various incarnations of the play-within-the-play? At one point, she seemed to be playing a renowned European actress who was a non-Jew welcoming the younger, Jewish actress into her company. And then they seemed to develop a romantic relationship through their "onstage" kissing scenes. But, later, didn't the younger actress get fired because she was Jewish and the non-Jew stayed on? And this was a betrayal/complication in their relationship, right? But there was no pay-off to their break-up, right? Because then they hired a new actress who was (according to the super-titles and her hyper-American accent) a non-Jew, right? And this actress/character also became a lesbian through her participation in the onstage kissimg scenes? Or was that supposed to be just comedic and not real? And then did the non-Jewish other actress (Katrina Lenk), the one who played the prostitute in the play within the play, fall in love/lust with this newly engaged shiksa actress? And did the former, non-shiksa actress (played by the actress who had also played the Jewish counterpart) ever appear again and have any sort of confrontation with her former lover who was now making out and in love with this new girl? The doubling (or maybe it was tripling of these roles) completely obscured whatever ongoing narrative was intended. 2) I think the wife of the playwright and the first, Jewish actress who essayed the virgin-role in the play-within-the-play were meant to be different characters, right? 3) The actresses Katrina Lenk played may have been one or two or three different characters, right? The most identifiable was the one in Berlin who smoked cigarettes and was glamorous and not Jewish and became lesbian (or at least became open to and experienced a physical relationship with a woman) through her work on the play-within-the-play. But was this the same character who went on tour with them? And, though I don't know exactly when she became a different character, but was this the same character when they got round to doing the show, in Yiddish, in New York? And what about when they opened uptown in English? Was that the same character playing the role in English and now, presumably, carrying on an affair with the new, younger, shiksa-actress she was playing opposite? And did she leave for Europe with the troupe? And was she supposed to be the same one who was sickly but went on anyway in the performance in the Polish ghetto? I began to doubt all markers of time/space/history as we watched these actors (not only Lenk) live through both the first and second world wars and still be being cast in their same roles in the play-within-the-play. 3) Were we supposed to believe that Paula Vogel's details of storyline were accurate or merely charmingly fanciful? By the time that the fantasy-escape-of-the-two-lesbian-characters-in-the-play-within-the-play occured, I was already wondering what, if anything, was real here. Was the troupe really arrested, mid-performance, in the Polish ghetto and then taken to a concentration camp? And was it the same troupe from the first show, including the central actor-manager (Schildkraudt?)? 4) and what about the endearingly played stage manager (played by Richard Topol)? Was he just a writer's conceit or had he indeed participated in the play-within from its inception through the New York opening, the return to Europe, and then the troupe's being killed by Hitler's forces? 5) was the history intentionally fast-and-loose because the playwright was making a somewhat far-fetched meta-statement parallelling the current US immigration policy with the censorship of the play-within's New York debut, or was the history for real? 6) were we supposed to think that if the playwright of the play-within-a-play had made an appearance in court he could've had any impact on the verdict? It didn't seem that his testimony would've made a difference: the play had been judged indecent; what could he have done anyway? But this seemed to be a big deal in the storyline, that he didn't go. 6) there were similarities between what Moises Kauffman did with GROSS INDECENCY and what Vogel was trying to do here. Recreate history with a modern lens and extrapolate an overarching perspective about how gayness, sexual transgression, and theatre reflected the entire universe at one moment in time. But perhaps Vogel didn't have the extensive historical documents available to her to fix the details in her story to a reality. And, quite possibly, the doubling and tripling of roles was a really bad choice, which unhorsed the entire narrative at key moments. Or perhaps, in a desire to show the roles of the two Jewish lesbians in the play-within-the-play as being more important than the actresses who played them, Vogel (and her director) just lost me. 7) the audience kinda liked it; seemed to like its politics...? But whether the point was that The playwright never shoulda let the lesbian scene be cut because if he hadn't, the play as a whole wouldn't have been censored Or that once the first, Jewish girl was fired, the production's lack of integrity doomed it to failure... Or that the Censorship and closing of the play was an ad hoc expulsion of the troupe from the US and, ipse facto, delivered them to the concentration camps in Europe Or (now I'm being flip, but it seemed so) that every actress who plays either of the two lesbian characters in "God of Vengeance" will probably become a lesbian herself...? I was left behind by the story-telling in this one, for sure. Admiring of Richard Topol's charm in (lucky he) a very consistent role, of Akerlind's lighting (and shadows), and of Katrina Lenk's stage charisma, singing and dancing, and arresting beauty. |
|
| reply to this message |
| Reading the projections is key | |
| Posted by: bkn97 01:42 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long - lordofspeech 11:01 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| Nearly every scene has a title, usually with character names and locations projected on the three walls of the stage. The production makes it clear from the top that we can't just ignore these projections. I found everything crystal clear with the help of these headers, but also because I found the actors did exceptionally specific portrayals of multiple characters. This sort of play (minimal set with a few actors playing many roles in countless short scenes over the course of decades) usually doesn't capture me, but I found that the tightness and grace of the production, as well the aforementioned performances, deepened the experience immensely. I was captivated and moved to tears on both occasions that I saw it. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Reading the projections is key | |
| Posted by: Shutterbug 03:13 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: Reading the projections is key - bkn97 01:42 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| Agreed! The projections made the story very easy to follow. I'm wondering if the projections are obscured in certain areas of the theater. For instance, in the last rows of the orchestra, does the mezzanine' overhang obscure the audience's ability to see the projections? If so, I would avoid those seats. INDECENT tells a potent, highly theatrical story that is so relevant to our current times. I love the ad campaign that says something to the effect of "When immigration is banned, the truth denied and love condemned - art matters more than ever." So true in this play and in our current political climate. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Reading the projections is key | |
| Posted by: eatstake 06:46 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Reading the projections is key - Shutterbug 03:13 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| I sat in the next to last row of house left side orchestra. The supertitles were still visible although there were 2-3 times where I had to duck slightly to make sure I saw everything, or look over at the stage left projections. But the majority of them where there were only a few lines of text were visible beneath the overhang. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:52 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long - lordofspeech 11:01 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| I think what your post and some of the responses tell us is that some people are more fond of literality than others. And some care more about the minutiae than the big picture. There is nothing wrong with that; the same things don't appeal to all of us in the design of a play any more than in, say, the design of our living rooms. Collaterally, some folks like clear resolutions whereas others like plays that leave things to the viewer's imagination. To me this is a play that (to its credit), despite having an obvious intention and point of view, does not beat a singular point into the audiences' heads. I've always thought that Paula's plays (and a sizable percentage of off-B and off-off plays) work best for those who can relax at the theatre. I don't think that's your style. I'm curious, if you go to a museum, MOMA or the Met? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 01:40 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: re: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long - ryhog 12:52 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| Ah, you are respectfully trying to get to the root of our varying tastes and opinions! For what it's worth, I go to MoMA more often though I am less likely to ever find the Met disappointing, and I see more plays off- and off-off-Broadway than on. I suppose it's possible that I hold the Met and Broadway to a higher standard, but I am fairly certain I would have had the same response to "Indecent" at the Vineyard that I had at the Cort. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long | |
| Posted by: ryhog 02:06 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: re: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long - TheOtherOne 01:40 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| The met/moma thing was really just a throwaway on my part-not some seriously thought out barometer of anything. Likewise, I don't think we can generalize about on vs off-B, if for no other reason than because so much of the former arises from the latter. I do think that there is a somewhat broader and (somewhat) valid taste observation that has to do with how literal and "tight" a play is. And I think we see more of a collision on Broadway, because there is a smaller portion of the audience that is interested in what I called the relaxed approach to viewing theatre. I think, as an example, this is why people like Will Eno causes the sort of convulsive reactions we have seen. On Broadway, I think (without intending to be exclusive about it) he is close to the outer edge, whereas off and off-off B there is a lot of much more extreme and experimental work extending back to the Richard Foreman fever dream margin. FWIW I do think it is worth talking about the roots of taste to the extent we can make sense of it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long | |
| Posted by: wizrdofoz27 11:45 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long - lordofspeech 11:01 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| To all your "was this actor playing X and Y supposed to be playing different characters?" I'm pretty sure the answer is usually yes. I loved all the multiple part-playing in this play, though I see how it could have been confusing. I think there was some continuity in the play, and it wasn't confusing to me - they seemed to do a good job of introducing each new character as they entered the story. I don't know how much of the play was real, or how much was made up. I didn't see the play presenting itself as a documentary - I'm sorry if you went into it expecting that. I thought it was a fictional play based on true events. To your last question, the point of the play was whatever you walked away from it thinking about. Does every play have to have a cleanly-put 'point'? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long | |
| Last Edit: TheOtherOne 11:41 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 11:39 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long - lordofspeech 11:01 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| I can't answer your questions, but I believe you are asking them because "Indecent" is never really about anybody and never actually tells a story. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 12:05 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: re: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long - TheOtherOne 11:39 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| Ok. Makes sense. It's more of a "gloss" on a series of ideas and scenes rather than any real story. I do wish there had been a "director's notes" in the program. I'm not usually such a stickler for what's real, but, with this pseudo-historical docu-drama-fantasia, after a while I was just exercising patience with each new scene, even while noting the high quality of the production elements. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 12:13 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: re: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long - lordofspeech 12:05 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| That is how I felt as well. It was a frustrating experience. I felt it relied on its audience's sense of victimization to validate itself. We never really knew any of its characters, nor did we know much about "God of Vengeance," the play within the play, without which there would have been no "Indecent" to begin with. The very impressive production values ended up seeming like clutter. As I said: frustrating. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| yes, and... | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 01:25 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: re: INDECENT questions: MAJOR SPOILERS and way too long - TheOtherOne 12:13 pm EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| ...I guess I got invested early on in what I perceived was a lesbian love story. And the firing of the Jewish actress, who I mistakenly thought was the same character as the playwright's wife. (I didn't figure out she wasn't till late in the play.). The odd thing was that neither of the two leading ladies were sufficiently differentiated for me, except when the one became a shiksa. And I kept wanting to know what happened to the actress-character who became a lesbian. But maybe that never even happened. Maybe that lesbian stuff was only in the "onstage" scenes from "God of Vengeance," and all the (multitude of...?) actresses who played those roles were just actresses, probably heterosexual and no set of them had ever fallen in love. Curiouser and curiouser. Someone asked me about museums. I like moma and the met, but the met's better for family meetings and luncheons because moma gets too crowded. MOMA introduced me to DuChamp when I was a kid, so I will always love it, if only for that. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.038736 seconds.