The ones whose lives are upended

I went to the Hilberry Theatre last evening to see the play Sweat by Lynn Nottage. The play won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 2017. The setting is in a bar in Reading, Pennsylvania in 2000. The characters work on the floor at an area factory – well, the bartender Stan did and his assistant Oscar will. It is the life they know and in many cases the lives their parents and grandparents knew.

This is just after the tech stock crash. Companies are moving operations to other countries. And these characters are the ones whose lives are upended. Tracey, Cynthia, and Jessie are good friends until Cynthia is promoted to supervisor. Tracey accuses her of getting the job because she is black. Cynthia’s ex-husband Brucie worked at a different factory where a strike has now stretched to almost two years. Brucie is now an addict. Tracey’s son Jason and Cynthia’s son Chris are best friends. Chris wants to go to college to become a teacher, but Jason tells him why take the low wages of a teacher over the better wages of a factory job? Chris doesn’t have money for college anyway.

Then the rest of them are locked out of the factory after their machines are hauled out in the middle of the night. Cynthia is accused of not fighting sufficiently hard to keep their jobs. They all become desperate and defiant.

Reading, PA is the setting because in 2011 it was one of the poorest cities in America with a poverty level of 40%. Playwright Nottage spent more than two years interviewing numerous residents. She constructed her play from their stories.

This is the Hilberry, so of course the production was well done and well acted. I was particularly impressed with the guy who played Brucie.

The website Encore Michigan posts reviews of professional theater productions across the state – at least the ones that have a run long enough for them to post a review before the end of a run. David Kiley wrote the review for this play. I think Kiley wrote more about the background of the play than the play itself – the specific plot and the quality of the production and acting.

There are two more performances – tonight and tomorrow.

Musical as social commentary

This was the last weekend for the theater programs at Wayne State University, with both the Hilberry (graduate level) and Bonstelle (undergraduate) Theatres putting on worthwhile productions.

On Thursday evening I saw the Hilberry production of The 39 Steps, a comic farce based on the Hitchcock thriller of the same name. One actor played the main character Richard Hannay. An actress played three major female roles. Two men were listed in the program as "Clown" and took on a wide collection of roles, sometimes switching with the change of a hat, other times with complete costume changes in an amazing short amount of time. Three more actors were listed as "Stage Hand." The stage held only four large steamer trunks, which these stage hands moved about as needed, they then supplied, or became, the various props. They served as doors, overstuffed chairs, fireplace and mantle, automobile, and lots of other things. Along the way the actors worked the titles of many Hitchcock films into the dialogue and included many British literary references. All in great fun.

I saw the Bonstelle production of Urinetown, the Musical on Saturday. The basic premise is that a prolonged drought meant water must be severely rationed. Water rates have climbed so high that the poor can no longer afford their own facilities yet must pay high rates to pee in public facilities. In the next scene we see the head of the corporation that owns all those public facilities bribing his senator to get the Senate to raise rates once again. So, yeah, we're dealing with issues of privatization of public utilities, corporate greed, widening income inequality, and political corruption. All wrapped up in song and dance. That is complicated by the daughter of the corporate head, freshly graduated from the most expensive university in the world, falling in love with the guy who encourages the poor to revolt over the raised rates. Along the way Officer Lockstock (sidekick: Officer Barrel), who is itching for an excuse to crack a few heads, occasionally explains things to Little Sally, such things as: We don't want to drag down the opening scene of a musical with too much exposition. Save some of it for the next scene. The ending is more realistic than happy (which Lockstock warns us about) in which the solution to corporate terror is not well thought out and causes more problems. Even though the subject may be grim, the jokes, the exuberant dancing, and the sly references to other musicals make the evening a lot of fun.

I do have one small complaint with the plot. The rebel leader works mighty hard to prevent the rebels from committing a particular act of violence. However, he does not quite say that the only way to defeat corporate greed is non-violent resistance and urging corporate leaders into community. The rebels resolve the conflict with an act of violence of their own.



I just checked stats for this blog. During one hour yesterday the blog got 398 page views. I normally see rates of 3-5 views an hour. I'm not sure whether to believe this because the page views by county adds up to only 255.

Wilde time

I saw a performance at the Hilberry Theatre yesterday. The weather was quite messy, so if I hadn't ordered and paid for a ticket I would not have bothered. Snow fell while I taught yesterday afternoon and highways were slow going for the evening commute. But instead of going home I went to Detroit's Midtown area.

First stop, after a slow drive from the college, was Whole Foods, as in while I'm in the area… By the time I parked near the theater I had only a half hour for supper (though I could have -- and did -- delve into what I had just bought at Whole Foods). I dashed into a Mid-East fast food place on the Wayne State University campus (of which the Hilberry is a part).

The preshow discussion for a very sparse crowd started a bit late. The speaker was John Corvino, a WSU philosophy professor and known as the Gay Moralist. It is his reputation that prompted me to attend last night's performance rather than one with better weather. He gave a bit of background and context for the evening's play, though he didn't enhance the evening's experience all that much.

The play was Gross Indecency: The Three Trials of Oscar Wilde. The script was written/assembled by Moises Kaufman. He's the same guy who created The Laramie Project about the death of Matthew Shepard and both plays have actors playing multiple roles. Material was taken from the various descriptions of the trial (including the official transcript) and writings of the participants.

Yes, we're talking about the famous Oscar Wilde, the one who wrote the novel The Picture of Dorian Gray and the play The Importance of Being Ernest among lots of other things that skewered Victorian England. I had known the outlines of the 1895 trials: Wilde took Lord Alfred Douglas as an "intimate friend." Alfred's father, Marquess Queensberry who was estranged from his son, objected to the relationship and threatened Wilde. Queensberry left a calling card at Wilde's club, which contained the words, "For Oscar Wilde, posing as a somdomite." He wasn't a good speller. Wilde sued for libel. Queensberry responded that it wasn't libel because it was true. During the trial when Queensberry's lawyer threatened to call several of Wilde's boy-toys as witnesses, Wilde withdrew the suit. That implied Queensberry was telling the truth. And that implied the Crown has a case of gross indecency against Wilde.

I didn't know the second trial ended in a hung jury or that there had been a third trial. I did know the final trial (which I thought was the second) ended in a guilty verdict. Because the crime was so detestable the judge sentenced Wilde to two years of hard labor. The judge thought Wilde deserved more, but the law limited the sentence to two years. Serving that time broke his health. The nature of the crime and the cost of the trials caused his finances to collapse. Wilde died three years after release at the age of 46.

There were two telling moments in the trials. At one time Wilde was asked by the opposing lawyer if he had kissed a particular boy. Wilde said he had not. Why not? "Because he was ugly." Wrong answer. The second was when he was asked, "What is the love that dare not speak its name?" Wilde's response was eloquent and too long to reproduce here. The text is in Wilde's Wikipedia entry.

At the start of the second act the playwright, portrayed by an actor, interviews a college professor about Wilde. It covered some of the same material John Corvino did. One point presented: Is it appropriate for Wilde to be described as gay when he didn't see himself as gay? Part of that is the concept of homosexuality was just making its way into English. That could be argued for a long time.

More importantly is Wilde's contribution to modern thought. Wilde defended Dorian Grey, in spite of its unsavory characters, because the story is told artistically. By the end of the trials Wilde began to see himself as a homosexual. Alas, the "professor" in the play was rambling and the Wikipedia entry doesn't have a section on cultural contributions.

I knew the Hilberry was color-blind when casting. There was a show a few years ago in which a senator in 1950s America had a black actress playing his wife. But I didn't think their casting was gender-blind. This play has nine actors on stage, all but two playing multiple roles. I was surprised that the actor playing lawyer Sir Edward Clarke was female. She and the female playing the judge (and one of the insolent boy-toys) did a marvelous job. In reading the program afterward I found out why women had those roles. There are only a dozen actors in the company this year (usually 18-20) and seven of them are male. They didn't have enough men for all the roles.

I also noticed something in the program that raises another question. The Hilberry Theatre company awards a Master degree in acting and takes three years. Actors are listed as "2nd year" etc. But this time there are no "1st year" students. Is the program ending or downsizing? Perhaps changing focus? There are 1st year students listed in the other departments -- acting, scene and light design, stage and theater management.

A review of the play is here, though this blog doesn't allow extracting an isolated entry. Scroll down to find it.

Heady evening entertainment

Thursday evening I finally saw the movie Quartet. One of my church friends kept telling me I would love it. My verdict: Wonderful to see a movie built around classical music. Many of the secondary characters actually had careers in opera or classical music. Fine performances by the leads (to be expected when Maggie Smith is one of them). Some interesting and quirky characters. And a predictable story -- didn't Mickey Rooney and friends perfect the plot of doing a show to save a beloved institution and having to convince a recalcitrant person to join them and didn't they do that more than a half century ago?


Last evening I went to the Hilberry Theatre to see Marat/Sade by Peter Weiss. When I was an undergrad (um, 37 years ago) I took a class in theater lighting design. So I was part of the lighting crew when the college put on that play. It seems we had one too many people in the class because I had to be there for every show but didn't have all that much to do other than watch it.

Alas, I didn't remember much of it and this interpretation was quite different from what the college had done. This one even had singers. The play-within-a-play tells the story of Jean-Paul Marat, one of the firebrand writers behind the French Revolution. Many of his ideas eventually evolved into socialism. The author put him together with the Marquis de Sade, whose name became the root of sadism. So we have the peasants demanding Marat give them their rights, Marat expounding on how to overthrow the powers of the time and what kind of society could be the replacement, and de Sade poking holes in Marat's thinking. To make it even more interesting all the characters of the interior play are played by residents of an insane asylum. The exception is de Sade, who is directing the play (and apparently wading into the midst of it). A heady brew for an evening's entertainment.

One thing the de Sade character said stuck with me. It is a criticism of socialism (or perhaps of communism). Suppose you have a society in which everyone is doing a job they love (I guess one of the ideas of socialism). What happens if a worker aspires to better him or herself? Does he hit a ceiling beyond which there is no advancement? Do leaders or administrators have to force him back into place?

Documenting and defining America

I had an enjoyable day yesterday, though not quite all I was hoping for. The noontime concert at the WSU music department was cancelled and they didn't even post a note on the venue door. Somehow all the students knew and didn't show…

That meant I was able to get to Part 2 of my day earlier than expected, which was the Detroit Institute of Arts, including member previews for their Norman Rockwell exhibit. More in a moment.

Part 3 was the show at the Hilberry Theatre of Born Yesterday. It's the story of a junk man who has become wealthy through WWII and is now in Washington to buy a senator. The story is actually more about his ditsy blond girlfriend whom he rescued from the chorus line of a Broadway show. He sees she will embarrass him as they move through high society, so he hires a newspaper reporter to make her a bit smarter. Two months later we see that plan works a little bit too well.

The Hilberry troupe has both black and white members, which can lead to some interesting casting decisions. The one black in this show, a woman, didn't play the hotel maid, but the senator's wife. In 1946 there would have been no white senators with a black wife, or at least not without drawing a great deal of comment. But the play offered no such comment. I applaud Hilberry for being color blind in their casting -- better yet of avoiding the easy way out by casting her as the maid -- even as I watch a black woman and thinking she's playing the role of a white woman. It is perhaps good for Detroit audiences to see a black person out of context and the situation taken in stride, showing why should there be anything out of the ordinary in this?

The Norman Rockwell exhibit showed a large number of the artists works (including and beyond the Saturday Evening Post covers) and put him into historical context. At the end were all 322 Post covers stretching over 47 years. First of all, the show demonstrated that Rockwell is a fine artist, especially good at facial expressions. His scenes are understood quickly, showing an instant from a story. It is usually obvious what brought the scene about and how it will probably play out. In that sense, he is a master storyteller.

The historical context first mentioned how Rockwell's art is a product of his time, but also how it shaped how American's view themselves, what it means to be American. One big example is Rockwell's Four Freedoms posters. The ideas came from a F.D. Roosevelt speech in which the president said freedom of speech, of religion, from fear, and from want are universal ideals and should be available around the world. But in portraying the Freedom From Want as a Thanksgiving feast Rockwell made Americans think the Four Freedoms were uniquely American ideals.

Another influence is in children. Rockwell was able to use cuteness and nostalgia to portray an idealized childhood. The exhibit's historical context said that Rockwell influenced early television and most TV families of the 50s and early 60s (and onward, including the Cosby show in the 80s) portrayed kids the same way Rockwell did. That got me wondering, as I stared at yet another cute kid (created for a cereal box), whether the Fundie's claim that everything they do is "for the children" is another Rockwell legacy.

While I come away with a higher appreciation of Rockwell's skills as an artist and storyteller, all that cuteness, white bread wholesomeness, and nostalgia can leave an excessively sweet taste behind. That is why I was pleased to see the second-to-last room of the exhibit (the last room had the 322 Post covers). These were paintings from the 50s and 60s when Rockwell began to be disturbed by institutionalized racism. One of the paintings here was about a young black girl being escorted by US Marshals so she could integrate a school (you can see this image in Rockwell's Wikipedia entry). The other was of two white and one black civil rights workers -- one white man is already down and the other is trying to hold up the black man who has been severely injured. The standing white man is facing the mob (we only see their shadows), knowing he's next. He did more art on racism in the 1960s for Look magazine.