The characters Wednesday, Monday, Saturday, Sunday, and Comrade Buttons (Sonia Goldberg), were all characters that were written as men in the book but played by women in the show. Monday's character was actually female in the play as, I believe, was Comrade Buttons. There is another character who is disguised as a man but is actually a woman, but I don't want to give that away. Many of the women actors seem to be playing male characters, and I noticed that those roles held higher positions of power in the organization. It was hard to tell if the adaptor was being true to the sexism of the time or couldn't imagine the more powerful characters as women, even if they were played by women. These casting choices could be metatheatrical, reminding the audience that it is a play and it is all about illusion. Plays depend on people pretending to be other people. It also pertains to the plot of this play, where no one is telling the truth about their identities.
This play was very humorous due to many of the recurring jokes. One of my favorite elements of visual humor was the obviously false beards. Whenever a character's true identity would get discovered, they would dramatically rip off their beard and declare who they truly were. Tuesday had an especially false beard, and stereotypical Polish accent, so when he was discovered it was a very jarring switch to his normal accent which I thought was hilarious. Also I thought that Lucien's monologue after he found out that he was not going to become the new Thursday, but instead Symes, who he just found out was a police officer, is going to be Thursday was absolutely hilarious. His facial expressions and melodramatic emotions alarmed the people around him. The reactions of his fellow anarchists were also effective and humorous. I also thought that Dr. Bull was funny in an unnerving way and the first time you hear his voice is hilarious. The way he could sense where people were made him like a stereotypical Bond villain. The Marquis was hilarious because of his conceited physical ad libbing, like when he would be checking his teeth in a knife.
People who would like this show are people who like recasting and rethinking older works, hilarious anarchists, and obviously false beards. It was a lot of fun and I enjoyed the humor and wit of the play and performances.
Photos: Suzanne Plunkett
The play was very good at showing realistic scenes of the struggles of rehearsing and producing a play in toxic environments. Red Rex is completely run by young idealists who don't seem to have any idea that what they are doing is unethical. For example, they did not have an intimacy choreographer in the show within the show (though they do for Red Rex--Christina Gorman). The director didn't think she needed one because she is a gay woman and didn't think she could make anyone uncomfortable. But the reason you have intimacy choreographers is because the director's vision can be more important to them than the wellbeing of their actors. It is kind of like a conflict of interest. The play was also very good at showing the relationships that people develop when they are involved in a show they think will suck or is problematic. Nicole and Adam start a romantic relationship (which is then weird and is then not weird) because they have bonded over their annoyance with Lana and the play. The stage manager, Tori, reaches out to the set designer, Max (Nate Faust) because they are both being mistreated/ignored by Lana. By the time the show opens they have gotten closer and related to each other because they've fought for each other to be respected. Tori has to endure the show Lana produced longer because she has to be there every night, watching the show over and over, a show that goes against so many things that she believes in. She has to keep watching all these scenes and interactions that she told Lana repeatedly made the actors uncomfortable. It doesn't destroy Tori's relationships with the actors because they are all trying.
The type of appropriation we see in this show is literally a white person taking a black person's story and passing it off as her own fictional work. It shows what is wrong with Chicago theater as well as appropriation more generally. It shows a situation where you might be tempted to excuse the appropriation because it appears to be well-meaning and not as obviously appropriative as something like Cher wearing a native american feather headdresses or dreadlocks. I don't think that playwrights shouldn't be able to write characters of different races. But it is especially not okay to take a story from someone who is an actual living person and has an actual life story and take it and tell them how they feel. Lana also changes the original story to have a happy ending that fits her idea of white people as heroes and consent as not always important. The managing director, Greg (Chris Chmelik), tries to bribe the person whose story it is into silence so that the company can profit from the story. Just because you pay someone for their story doesn't mean you have a right to tell it, especially if you are going to change it to make your own points.
Even though this play focuses on some very serious topics, it still has a lot of comedic scenes. One of my favorite of those scenes is where Lana explains the artistic vision for Jagged Surrender and you can see the pure concern on the character's faces. Because you can also see the audience across from you, you also see the concern on their faces for the very artsy bullcrap that Lana has decided to try to create. This was quite funny because I related to the experience of looking at a pitch for a show and just being confused. I also loved Tori's reactions to almost everything. She was so deadpan but you could still see her true reaction even though it was masked. The pitch of the poster to Lana when they had already made it seemed reasonable, but Lana's notes for it and her reaction were totally ridiculous. You see this reaction a lot when directors don't know what direction they want to go with a show, so they decide to ask you to take two opposing ideas and make them work together.
People who would like this show are people who like holding a mirror up to the Chicago theater community, realistic plays about plays, and making fun of artsy bullcrap. I think this is an amazing show. I loved the concept and it was done so well all around. I loved it.
Photos: Lee Miller, Gregg Gilman
Motherhood is a very prominent theme in this play. All of the mother characters have very different ways of going about it. For example, Soledad tries very hard to micromanage her daughter because she believes that she knows what’s best, but her own daughter, Gabriela, parents very freely--possibly because of the way that she grew up. As the play progresses, Gabriela starts to notice that she doesn’t want to be this prodigy that her mother sculpted; she wants to find herself and stop lying to herself. This storyline was very impactful and it translated into this wall of tension that added a lot to the party scene because it kept coming up and down. They wanted to click and work well together, and sometimes they did, but very quickly they were at each other's throats. The possible reason for that comes to light later in the play, but I found the mother-daughter relationship to be one of the most enthralling relationships in the play even before I knew the reason.
The ghost story in the play at first seemed very out of place. At first it was like a loose piece of string holding the two plays--The Abuelas and The Madres--together, but the revelation of who certain characters really were added a lot. The interactions with the ghost became more and more effective and emotional until it came to this great conclusion where the wall between the two worlds broke down and we got to see real interactions. Those interactions may not have really happened, but they needed to happen for the play and for Gabriela. This was emphasized by the startlingly subtle set which looked like a prison as well as Gabriela's home.
The arguments were dealt with very well in this show. They were not repetitive and each time a character would make a new discovery. The moments that were most effective for me were those between Gabriela and her husband Marty because of the moments where it would get so passionate that things would slip out. They use this method a lot in plays and sometimes it seems inorganic, but the actors here were so strong that their relationships, the argument, and their technique seemed very natural. The arguments had a very nice staggered build to them. They don't go from zero to a hundred; they build gradually up and shrink down in a believable way.
People who would like this show are people who like walls of tension, familial ghost stories, and micromanaging mothers. I think this is a very effective show. It has beautiful performances, a compelling script, and strong character relationships. Even though the story is about finding yourself, it was obvious they spent a lot of time developing the relationships between the characters. I think that people should definitely go see this show. I really liked it.
Photos: Joel Maisonet
I enjoyed that the fights were not just to simulate violence in this show. They would illustrate internal battles. Whenever Halo is having issues within her family, it is shown as her beating up her family but not in a I-want-to kill-my-family kind of way. It was in a this-is-the-way-I-process-my-emotions kind of way. The climactic fight scene used this tactic by Halo starting to fight with one person, played by the same actor as her mother. And as it progressed, she faces other fighters, also played by the actors who played her family. She realized she had to fight her own family to resolve her own problems. It is an interesting way of taking the idea of family conflict and making it literal in a figurative setting. We can see her fighting her family, when in the reality of the show she is fighting with her MMA opponent and her understanding of her own limits. This is what makes this show different from other fighting shows. It is more focused on family and more about life than fighting, though it connects the two.
I thought it was interesting how this play seemed to be reminiscent of a person's everyday life. Scenes went in cycles: work-home-training, work-home-training. Her work is telemarketing for an internet provider, where she is harassed by people she calls. During one of these scenes Halo delivers a fantastically desperate monologue that was beautifully performed. Home--back with her indecisive, paint-shade-obsessed mother--is another load on her back each day. And training is where she can let all that go, even if it is challenging and her relationship with her trainer is at first quite tense. The cycle adds to the effect of Halo seeming like a real person, which in another wrestling show that I really like, The Elaborate Entrance of Chad Deity, is not so much focused on. That play is more about the drama and the fighting and the damage. That story is more heightened, mystical, and poetic, and this one was more down-to-earth and relatable. I do like both versions of the story, but I had never seen it done in this way before so that was exciting and interesting.
People who would like this show are people who like literal family conflicts, relatable wrestling, and paint-shade-obsessed mothers. I think this is a really well-done show with great actors. It added something new to the wrestling play genre and it was very enjoyable. I really liked it.
Photos: Austin D. Oie
The audience had a different configuration than you would normally see at Steppenwolf; there were audience members on the stage. They were in groups of twelve and six, separated by railings from the stage. It reminded me of either a courthouse or opera house, jury boxes or opera boxes. If it is a courthouse, it explores the idea of the divorce as a legal proceeding and the audience as the jury judging Torvald and Nora. If it is an opera house, it is a callback to the original controversial production of A Doll's House. It was controversial because of the idea that a woman had the right to leave her husband or have a life of her own not centered around a man. You are watching the audience's reaction to the play.
In the first play, Nora leaves her kids as well as her husband, which was very controversial at the time of the the play and still today. Neither play is talking about parents leaving their children; they are only addressing mothers leaving their children. I don't think that anyone should necessarily leave their families unless it is for the greater good. But it troubles me that Nora is judged for leaving her family where a man might not be. I think the playwright is showing Nora as selfish because she is presented as a hyperfeminist crazy lady stereotype and all the other characters are trying to show her how much she hurt them. That makes the audience lose sight of what may have been Torvald's faults. She had to abandon her children to have a fulfilling life, but it is the fault of society not her. Society at that time said that if you are a woman you can have children and take care of them and be a housewife or you can be a woman who never settles down and has a career. Now if a woman says they want kids and a career, they just have to do both. Men have always been able to do both, but it is harder for mothers (because they are traditionally asked to do the bulk of the actual parenting) and women in the workplace (because they don't get paid as much, are harassed more, and usually don't get as many promotions and job offers because of their gender). Society doesn't say that women can't have children and a job anymore, but the truth of it is that it is going to be more difficult in both areas for a woman.
My issue with this show is that it doesn't seem to have a lot of heart. It seems almost to be an essay on stage. It seemed to be people talking, not people living or feeling. I know that all of these actors are phenomenal, and they can show you a lot of range of emotion, but I didn't see that much in this case so I assume that might be on purpose. The stage was also undecorated, besides a box of kleenex and bottles of water, which makes it seem unrealistic, which gives the play a general feeling. It doesn't set a tone or specify time or place. It is sort of a blank canvass that the story doesn't fill because it doesn't seem like much of a story. It seems more like a collection of statements.
People who would like this show are people who like revisiting old work, thinking about how "the place of a woman" has changed and not changed over time, and kleenex. I think this type of show would appeal to people who like less active theater that is thought-provoking rather than emotion-provoking.
Photos: Michael Brosilow
Hester tells her five children a story about how all of them came to be. It was about how she was a beautiful princess and she had so many people who wanted to marry her that she decided to marry them all. And each of them gave her a child with a different strength and that is how she got the names for each of the children. Each of the actors did a phenomenal job distinguishing the child characters from their adult characters. They also didn't overemphasize the youth of the children. They had behaviors we see in children without making them clichés. I loved all the children, and at some points I would forget that they were played by the same people who played the adult roles because I was so immersed in the performances of the child characters. It exemplifies why Hester loves her children so much because they are so pure compared to the corrupt society around them. It feels like she has to protect them from becoming like her, and it is heartbreaking when we think that she can't.
This show is saying that in our society people are cruel to the poor even though they act like they care. The welfare woman's (Ryann) entire job was to care, but in reality she didn't. She just pretended to care because she was paid for it. She even takes advantage of Hester for her own gain. She gains pleasure, fulfillment for her husband, a relaxed back, and cheap labor on a dress. The show seems to be saying that rich and middle class people like to keep the poor at a distance so they can feel more powerful, important, and successful than others. The Reverend talks about how the world romanticizes the poor, but only the distant poor, because we want to think that the poor near us are poor because they have made wrong decisions. Hester has a lot of children, all by different fathers, and falls for people too quickly, is illiterate, and easily fooled. The point of the play is to shed light on issues like how race, sexuality, and gender relates to poverty. It is not just personal decisions that lead to poverty.
The people who are "helping" Hester manipulate Hester because they know she loves her children more than she loves herself, so they can take sexual advantage of her. Consent is especially complicated in these situations where someone is being willingly manipulated; Hester thinks that she will get what she needs for her and her family if she just does what the "nice" rich man says and doesn't question him. She is literally being f-ed over by society. It is the most visceral way to get across the notion that Hester is being taken advantage of. And a lot is added to visceral reaction by the gorgeous performance of Jyreika Guest. It beautifully combines desperation with power and generosity with pain.
People who would like this show are people who like dark metaphors, compelling child characters, and revealing hard truths. I think this show takes a really beautiful and poetic approach to a very ugly subject. It has a versatile cast, a compelling script, and focused and effective direction. I loved it.
Photos: Austin D. Oie
The relationships in this show are very complicated because of infidelity, differences in the preferred upbringing of children, and misconceptions about the other partner's intentions. There are infidelities in each couple with some interlocking storylines. I noticed the theme of the more committed parent staying committed to the family and not cheating, whereas the more disconnected parent seems to want to forget about responsibility, cheat, and forget they had a child in the first place. The people who are having affairs seem to be looking for people who have the same issues as them. It seems like they are looking for another parent to have an affair with, because they think they understand the issues, but that just ends up ruining more families. Not all the affairs have the same outcome. Scott has dealt with Jason's crap too much and is done with cleaning up his messes and letting him fulfill his needs elsewhere. His mistake was agreeing to have a family with this guy who didn't seem to want to have a family. Jason was very good with the kids, but after he had done what the kids needed him to do he didn't want to deal his husband's needs. He wanted to find someone who would just meet his needs, someone he can be selfish with. I feel like Scott saw a family and Jason just saw kids, which led to the end of the family. Alan and Rob also had a difficult relationship, but their contract was stricter so the affair was more of a betrayal. Because they feel their child will suffer if they split up, they decide to do what is best for the kid and in that way they end up restoring their relationship, loving each other, and finding their spark again. It is also because Alan finally realizes he needs to connect with his kid and not just make excuses. I felt less hopeful for Michael and Serena because they still don't seem to agree about parenting, babysitting, or the way their relationship should be, which is basically the core of every parenting partnership.
Society seems to think of every parenting couple as a mother and a father. Even if technically by gender both are fathers in these gay couples, I found myself thinking about the more nurturing parents as motherly, and the parents who were having a more difficult time connecting with their children as the fathers. That was definitely true about the straight couple, but I also applied it to the gay couples. Society has influenced us to think that women raise children and men provide financial support. But this play breaks those molds and shows that the most nurturing gay parent sometimes has to do both because they are the people who understand how life works and what their kids need to succeed. It is not because a parent is working outside the home that they are disconnected from their kids. In this case it is because both of the less connected parents thought they would like to have children because they were an artist and writer who like making things, but then they discover it is more than just creating and you don't have as as much creative freedom as you hoped. Both of the gay couples show two nearly opposite sides on the spectrum of adulthood. One is the nurturing breadwinner who thinks they know what they need to teach another person and make a functioning person in society. The other is a person who is focused on making a name for themselves, spontaneity, and themselves. This play made me think about the reasons people classify certain behaviors as motherly or fatherly. Nurturing and commitment should be universal parenting tools, and both parents should take responsibility to know what they are doing, no matter what their gender.
People who would like this show are people who like explorations of parenting, complicated pursuits of happiness, and beautifully acted relationships. I really liked this show. It was well-written and made me think a lot about my own unconscious prejudices and assumptions about gender, relationships, and parenthood.
Photos: Michael Brosilow
