Jesse Green is right on the money with his review - "a slog to sit through."
I'm usually a fan of Churchill ("Top Girls" being among my favorites), but this play is a muddled mess of history, characters, themes ... all mixing together into a diluted mess of nothingness. Like if "Travesties" and "The Crucible" had a child, but without any of the drama or fun. The performances are mostly strong across the board, but I question the choice to prominently feature disabled actors and an entirely captioned performance - not because the actors aren't strong (they are), but because - contrary to what Chavkin says in that NY Times piece - it doesn't speak or illuminate to anything in the text. All in all, it seems like a gimmick to try and save a lesser play ... and maybe it helps.
And you REALLY have to push back on Chavkin's use of the oldest woman in the cast. While this woman is clearly a strong actress, she is reading from a script and using a LOUD earpiece during substantial swaths of text. I don't fault this actress in the slightest, but rather question a choice that so clearly pulls an audience out of the play. Again, to what end does the inclusion of an elderly actress elevate this text?
The design is mostly compelling, but Chavkin's direction seems to borrow heavily from Alex Timbers' "Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson" and Tommy Kail's "Hamilton" - distinct and specific choices pulled from both that made me wish I was seeing either instead of "Light."
Perhaps a valiant effort to produce this play, but a slow and dull 165 minutes. |
