My preface to these thoughts is that I do not know the original play. I do not know the text of it or any other staging of it so I don't know what choices and edits were specifically made for this production.
For this production of the play, I
thought it made a lot of sense to map the story onto 1950's gender and nuclear
family dynamics. It played well with the conflicts within the family as
the story unfolded. Mr. Antrobus is the patriarch, the brilliant inventor, who
leaves the domestic sphere to do all these “important” things and then absolves
himself of responsibility for the children and relationships he isn’t nurturing.
Henry/Cain is basically a representation of toxic masculinity, a kind of
violence that can’t be excised, partially because of the permissive protectiveness
of Mrs. Antrobus. Meanwhile, Gladys, their daughter, is forced to be “perfect.” In
act 1, she’s not allowed makeup. In act 2, she’s reprimanded for colorful
tights. Her father largely ignores her except when he needs reassurance about
his perfect family and his legacy. (I found the growling voice that James
Vincent Meredith used, especially in act 1, to be a little difficult to
decipher.)
The most interesting parts of act 1
were the puppets and the household dynamics. I think the woolly mammoth puppet
is fine but the dinosaur puppet really does deserve all the mentions it has been
getting. It’s well-crafted in a basic structural way so it moves well and it’s
able to puppeted effectively. But the design is also softened and rounded in a
subtle way that makes it cuter; and it has the most beautiful eyes. The glossy black material should just read as teddy bear, but somehow, they feel like horse eyes
with that same curious emotiveness and sensitivity in them.
Sabina tells us that she’s a good
actress in her asides but I wasn’t clear on how we were supposed to feel based
on the way Gabby Beans played her. I think Gabby is a good actress and that
comes through when she breaks character. But within the play, more so in acts 1
and 2, she plays it so heightened that it doesn’t feel like she’s acting. It
truly feels like she’s playing the role as someone who doesn’t understand the
words she’s speaking. I thought this was to the detriment of some of the relationship
dynamics of the play, especially our understanding of the conflict between
Sabina and Mrs. Antrobus. In act 1, we learn that Mr. Antrobus basically took
her on as a mistress/second wife and then when he tired of her, she ended up
actually fulfilling the duties of a maid. In act 2, Sabina is trying to steal
him away from his wife. In both acts 2 and 3, Sabina comments on why she must
be stuck in this role. But I wasn’t clear on what this was meant to represent.
Are there some women who just “can’t be wives”? It didn’t seem to have a specific
class component to it so what makes Sabina this other "type" of woman?
The weakness of act 1 was everything
after the “refugees” showed up. Honestly, after subjecting the audience to
acoustic guitar and singing in Greek, plus speeches from two religious figures,
and then more bad singing from the ensemble, I don’t know how we were expected
to find them sympathetic. Because I spent most of the act immersed in the
household dynamics, waiting with the characters for Mr. Antrobus to come home,
when he did, I was more inclined to be sympathetic to the women. He wanted to
be a good guy and invite these people in. He had lofty ideas of preserving
culture but no sense of pragmatism and the rot in his own family was partially
caused by his negligence.
They should have just cut act 2. It
starts with a dance number from the ensemble that’s really poorly choreographed.
I think it’s supposed to be fun but it comes off as ironically fun and is
tiresome to sit through. Mr. Antrobus gives a speech as the representative of humanity.
And then Mrs. Antrobus gives a speech as his little wife. I understand that it
was supposed to a direct comment on their fracturing marriage but it also
sounded like a speech Phyllis Schlafly could have given about the importance of
family so I do not know how I was supposed to take it. It was unpleasant to sit
through the more contentious relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Antrobus in this
act and the misogynistic insults. I don’t know, maybe if you let her do
something besides sew and look after the children, you would perceive her as
smarter. Or maybe you’re just tired of being with the same woman and want an excuse
to cheat. I also found it weird the way the boardwalk characters could be read
as queer and marginalized. And yet, being on their “side,” allies you with Mr.
Antrobus and infidelity. I wish they would have just cut the entire fortune
teller bit. Priscilla Lopez delivered those lines with absolutely deadly
pacing. It was SO slow and SO boring. I did like the bit with Natasha/Sabina
refusing to perform the infidelity scene in full and Mrs. Antrobus throwing the
bottle into the ocean but I don’t think they were fully unpacked enough to be
that satisfying or feminist. It felt like lampshading the problems without doing anything to address them within the play which was possible because of all the asides. I did like that sparkly red Statue of Liberty
outfit they put Sabina in. It was one of the few standout costumes.
I don’t know if I totally grasped what
they were trying to convey in act 3. What does it mean to link Henry’s antisocial
tendencies to the revolutionary rhetoric he spouts when he comes back from the
war? Are we supposed to find something truly sympathetic there? Does he have
real pain and valid grievances that are not being addressed causing him to lash
out in violence? Or is this a conservative take where we’re meant to see the
revolutionary rhetoric as empty because he’s always been violent and the
characters contradict the story he recounts? He does end up back in the fold
and the actor does seem to reach some peace after that near accident. But at
the same time, violence followed by apology is the same pattern we’ve seen from
the character throughout the play. I don’t know that I took much from the last
moments of the play. I know they were meant to be poignant but the gesture out to the audience didn't seem to give a clear direction on how to proceed. But I do remember Sabina wanting to keep her beef cubes and eventually traipsing off to the movies. It might have been
my growing antipathy, or at least, my refusal to align with Mr. Antrobus’ point
of view throughout the play, but I rejected the Antrobus’ morality. Yes,
preserving books and culture is of importance but there was something hollow to
how they moved through the world, something never quite resolved. They ultimately always behaved like they were in a dog-eat-dog world while pretending to be better.
