![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sarah Ruhl Vibrator Play
Dec. 6th, 2009 06:04 amWe went to see Sarah Ruhl's latest _ THE NEXT ROOM or the vibrator play_. Last year I read a hagiography of her in the New Yorker and picked up a book of some of her plays which I enjoyed and wanted to see onstage.
So when our friend Gail planned a visit I got onto TDF and got cheap seats that turned out to be front row mezzanine (my favorite!)
The reviews have been mixed, I think, because the work is so uneven. There are segments and moments that are delightful, where something doesn't go how you think it would but instead in an unexpected but real way. Then there are segments and moments that are so cliche and hackneyed that you think you're watching a not-good freshman dramatist's "serious" work or (even worse) a Hallmark/Lifetime TV movie.
Oddly enough, most of these reviews are correct because of this weird mix. The acting/directing (how do you separate them? you can't) doesn't work, I think, because it's for the most part too stylized. I don't know if a more natural touch would glarify the script's inconsistent tone, or if it was a choice, but it was so obvious that the actors had been told to *act* *more* that it was hard to see them as real people. I've seen Michael Cerveris in several things now and never felt a touch of sympathy for any of his characters and that didn't change here.
Except for Maria Drizzia, who excelled at showing a real person inside her character that you could care about while getting every bit of humor possible (and the show is very often quite funny, especially the first act.)
There are interesting subjects, one of the core ones being that in the 1880s, women's sexuality was so suppressed that manipulating them to orgasm using fingers or vibrators was not considered a sexual act - it was inducing "paroxysms" that released the pent up fluid of the womb which caused "hysteria". A medical treatment.
Ultimately I agree most with Variety's review: "play amuses and charms even if it doesn’t quite satisfy."
So when our friend Gail planned a visit I got onto TDF and got cheap seats that turned out to be front row mezzanine (my favorite!)
The reviews have been mixed, I think, because the work is so uneven. There are segments and moments that are delightful, where something doesn't go how you think it would but instead in an unexpected but real way. Then there are segments and moments that are so cliche and hackneyed that you think you're watching a not-good freshman dramatist's "serious" work or (even worse) a Hallmark/Lifetime TV movie.
Oddly enough, most of these reviews are correct because of this weird mix. The acting/directing (how do you separate them? you can't) doesn't work, I think, because it's for the most part too stylized. I don't know if a more natural touch would glarify the script's inconsistent tone, or if it was a choice, but it was so obvious that the actors had been told to *act* *more* that it was hard to see them as real people. I've seen Michael Cerveris in several things now and never felt a touch of sympathy for any of his characters and that didn't change here.
Except for Maria Drizzia, who excelled at showing a real person inside her character that you could care about while getting every bit of humor possible (and the show is very often quite funny, especially the first act.)
There are interesting subjects, one of the core ones being that in the 1880s, women's sexuality was so suppressed that manipulating them to orgasm using fingers or vibrators was not considered a sexual act - it was inducing "paroxysms" that released the pent up fluid of the womb which caused "hysteria". A medical treatment.
Ultimately I agree most with Variety's review: "play amuses and charms even if it doesn’t quite satisfy."
