Eliana Willis

More stories

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Theater

    Review: In ‘The Wife of Willesden,’ a Literary Marriage Falters

    Zadie Smith brings her first play, an adaptation of Chaucer’s the Wife of Bath tale, to the Brooklyn Academy of Music.This April, in New York, when the rains have come and the winds have calmed and the cherry trees and hyacinths have hustled into bloom, theatergoers might find themselves making a pilgrimage to the Brooklyn Academy of Music’s Harvey Theater, for the New York premiere of “The Wife of Willesden,” the novelist Zadie Smith’s adaptation of a lusty wedge of Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Canterbury Tales.” And despite the punch and panache of the play’s language, they might find themselves going nowhere.As literary marriages go, one between Smith (“White Teeth,” “On Beauty,” “Swing Time”) and Chaucer, is in theory, of true minds. Though separated by some 600 years, both are keen stylists, eager comedians and dyed-in-the-worsted-wool humanists with a consuming interest in the varieties of emotion and experience. But marriage is hard and somehow Smith’s rendering — presented by BAM in association with A.R.T. — never quickens into life. “The Wife of Willesden,” Smith’s first play, is bookish bed death.Smith, aided by the director Indhu Rubasingham, has updated the action to the present and the setting a few miles north, from a South London tavern to a pub on the Kilburn High Road. (Rubasingham is the artistic director of Kilburn’s Kiln Theater, where the play debuted in 2021.) In Robert Jones’s design, the pub expands across the whole stage floor with lamps and lanterns flickering high above. Chaucer’s text, even unfinished, extends to 29 pilgrims and a host. Here the cast runs to just 10, though audience members seated onstage at wooden tables, swell those numbers.A prologue delivered by a character identified as Author (Jessica Murrain, charming in Smith drag), explains the circumstances. These pilgrims aren’t religious. (Unless drinking is your religion?) Instead, they are locals, out for a beer and a laugh and committed to a “lock-in,” a way to keep the party going long after closing time.In Smith’s rendering, Chaucer’s tapestry has shrunk to just one thread, though arguably its most vivid. If you have read “The Canterbury Tales,” from the cheerful bawdry of the Miller’s tale to the formalities of the Knight’s tale, the Wife of Bath will have leaped off the page in her scarlet stockings. Earthy, contradictory, impulsive and self-aware, she seems effortlessly and shockingly modern.The Wife, or Alison as Chaucer calls her, advocates for female pleasure and female autonomy and has some tart words regarding the prowess of her elderly husbands. What does it mean to offer her a modern vernacular and wardrobe? Extrapolating from “The Wife of Willesden,” not that much.Alison has been renamed Alvita. She is played with archness and authority and hip-swinging sass, shot through with vulnerability, by Clare Perkins, who has traded in those red stockings for a cold-shoulder dress and some very high heels. In Chaucer she is introduced as, “a worthy woman all her life.” Here: “She’s been that bitch since 1983.”Story within the story: Troy Glasgow and Ellen Thomas in the tale Alvita tells about a soldier who rapes a young woman and is forced to learn what women really want.Stephanie BergerAs in Chaucer’s poem, she prefaces her tale with what is essentially her life story, enlisting the pub’s patrons as her many husbands and various friends and acquaintances. (The ensemble is nimble throughout.) Smith’s language is jewel-bright, particular and lively, and Perkins’s performance is brassy and expressive. But every time the Wife addressed the Brooklyn audience — sometimes rhetorically, sometimes seeking an actual reply — there was no response to her call.How to explain these connectivity issues? Smith’s vocabulary, which mixes North London vernacular and Jamaican patois, may be one problem. And the accents, however mild, might rattle unfamiliar ears. Then there’s the form, which attempts to expand the monologue into something more communal and multivocal. Rubasingham’s direction is busy. Maybe it’s too busy (there are disco songs and a haloed Black Jesus). And yet these efforts fail to lift this literary exercise to drama.But the principal problem is the way that Smith has collapsed the now and the then. In the general prologue, the Author warns that audience members might feel surprise or offense at Alvita’s thirsty frankness:“It’s worth remembering — though I’m sure you know —When wives spoke thus six hundred years agoYou were all shocked then. The shock never endsWhen women say things usually said by men”Yet there’s no shock here. Alvita has been married more than most, sure, but her advocacy for equality, for freedom, for great sex is hardly radical now. Maybe it wasn’t even so extreme back then; the Wife became a favorite of balladeers. Her speech still has moments of ambivalence, as when she says that she found great happiness with a man who abused her. (Yes, he repented, but still.) And in the tale Alvita tells, about a soldier who rapes a young woman and is forced to learn what women really want, there remains no genuine justice for the victim. But Smith leaves this tension mostly unexplored and unresolved.The play ends with Alvita and her husbands singing along to Chaka Khan’s “I’m Every Woman,” which is both apposite and wrong. The Wife of Bath is an everywoman, but she’s also a singular literary creation, a character who transcends her moment. She doesn’t really need the updates — or the knockoff Jimmy Choos — to speak to ours.The Wife of WillesdenThrough April 16 at the Harvey Theater, Brooklyn Academy of Music; bam.org. Running time: 1 hour 40 minutes. More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Theater

    Review: Laughing, and Crying, in the Face of ‘Grief’

    In his solo show about the death of his teenage children, Colin Campbell recounts his calamitous relationship with the darkest of emotions.Death is often described as a loss, but for Colin Campbell and his wife, it was a theft. On June 12, 2019, the couple’s children, Ruby and Hart, were killed by an inebriated driver in a horrific crash. Ruby was 17 and loved anime; Hart was 14 and worshiped hip-hop. A photograph of them even younger — bright-eyed and golden-haired — rests on a table like a shrine, one of the few props in Campbell’s brusque tragicomedy, “Grief: A One Man ShitShow.”In “Grief,” directed by Michael Schlitt, Campbell recounts his relationship with the emotion. Before the bleak canvas of a back wall, Campbell, a writer and director of theater and film, begins his solo show with a warning of the semi-macabre journey to come: “Tonight, you are going to get taken to some uncomfortable places.” Seconds later, the lights dim and Campbell begins detailing that fatal night.Campbell knows that memories aren’t kept only in the brain; they are also conjured by the tongue. So the remainder of “Grief” unfolds like a talking book of essays (Campbell recently wrote “Finding the Words: Working Through Profound Loss with Hope and Purpose”), weaving together the many ways friends and family fumble grief-talk with stories about Ruby and Hart. Campbell’s blunt delivery of the former often conflicts with his deeply felt recollections of the latter, but what is lost in his uneven performance is more than made up for by his vulnerability.Campbell insists that “Grief” is not an act of sadomasochistic indulgence, nor is the act of dramatizing pain anything new. Sophocles and Aeschylus did it first. Campbell calls back to the Ancient Greek practice of gathering for the sole purpose of communal catharsis through theater, reminding us that “Oedipus” and “Agamemnon” would play out over a full day in 20,000-seat venues. “Grief” simply asks for 75 minutes in a black box.Campbell is not concerned with niceties or palatable jokes. His script acknowledges its brazenness, but only after taking combative jabs at religion, grief books, group counseling and other restorative practices friends dare suggest. He dedicates entire passages to the messy parts of the healing process: how to explain to friends the differences between not wanting to live and being suicidal; how to empathize with other bereaved parents who still have living children; at what point during mourning is morning sex acceptable.I could never answer Campbell’s questions. I’ve never had a child, let alone lost two. But I have said eternal goodbyes. “Grief” opened on what would have been my grandmother Adina’s birthday, April 2. She turned 84 on that day in 2010, and died the next. I imagine that Campbell — adamant that no grief compares with that of losing all your children — might roll his eyes at that anecdote, but including her is the same act of remembrance he spent his unforgettable performance showing me how to do.GriefThrough April 16 at Theater Row, Manhattan; griefaonemanshitshow.com. Running time: 1 hour 15 minutes.This review is supported by Critical Minded, an initiative to invest in the work of cultural critics from historically underrepresented backgrounds. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Television

    ‘Star Trek: Picard’ Season 3, Episode 8 Recap: Consequences Abound

    Jean-Luc breaks Data in case of emergency. Vadic makes a move.Season 3, Episode 8: ‘Surrender’Much of this season of “Picard” revolves around familial relationships, particularly parenting. There’s how we choose to do it (Beverly). The consequences of avoiding it entirely (Jean-Luc). The weight of keeping our children safe (Geordi). How we grieve (Riker and Troi.)It takes being captured on a brutal enemy’s ship for Riker and Troi to finally have an impactful conversation about their marriage and the loss of Thad, their child. Riker wanted to bathe in his grief as his lone remaining connection to Thad. Troi wanted to protect Riker from that pain using her Betazoid abilities, which has the unintended effect of pushing a wedge between them. Riker wanted to cocoon himself, which was unacceptable to Troi.In their prison cell, they are honest with each other, as married couples should be. It turns out their grief is a prison unto itself. They disagree on how to grieve, but it shows the strength of the foundation of their relationship that they can finally talk like this. (Another indication: We learn that a changeling came to Riker and Troi’s home pretending to be Riker, which Troi snuffed out right away.)“You can’t skip to the end of healing,” Troi says.And then she embraces him, as a loving spouse would, rather than as the ship’s counselor we’ve come to know for decades. Troi also informs Riker that she doesn’t like their move to the intergalactic suburbs. Fair enough. Been there.This was just about the only scene that worked for me the entire episode in a season that has otherwise been great. When Worf shows up to rescue Riker and Troi, he gives a campy, borderline romantic speech about how he is now sensitive to Troi, which Riker notes is “inappropriate.” He’s right! It was weird!When things seem bleakest for the Titan, Jack has a deus ex machina at the ready: He is a living Professor X with Cerebro capabilities. He can control others’ movements, read their minds and see through them — although we don’t know why. It’s a handy tool when your ship has been overtaken. (Parenting looms over small moments of the season, too, as when Jack quips to Vadic that Beverly taught him “better manners than that.”)But it’s hard to separate this from the fact that none of this would have happened if it hadn’t been for another disastrous planned hatched by Jean-Luc in last week’s episode, which caused the crew to lose control of the Titan to begin with. Captured on the bridge, Shaw lectures Seven about the consequences of our actions. Jean-Luc placed the ship and its crew — once again — in great danger with a foolhardy plan to bait Vadic in last week’s episode. Now we see the consequences: T’Veen (Stephanie Czajkowski) is executed, a crew member that 100 percent died in a needless way.Speaking of Shaw: The writing of his character this season has been all over the place. It undermines his character, despite a strong performance from Todd Stashwick. When Vadic moves to execute one of his crew members, Seven tries to intervene and sacrifice herself. Shaw, the captain, holds her back, telling her there’s nothing she can do. This seemed out of character compared with the Shaw we saw earlier in the season — the rule-following captain who prioritizes the safety of his crew.Shaw strikes me as the type of person who would have offered to sacrifice himself, rather than interrupting Seven’s attempt to do so. Just moments before, Shaw upbraids Seven for not blowing up the turbolift with him inside to keep Vadic from taking over the ship. When T’Veen is executed, Shaw barely reacts. Given his emotiveness throughout the season, that stuck out like a sore thumb.Even so, this episode seemingly brings an end to Vadic, who is sucked out into space, and the Shrike, which is blown up by the newly emboldened Titan crew. As Vadic, Amanda Plummer played an excellent villain, but she deserved a better death — assuming it is a death — than to be so easily outsmarted by Jack. (Not to mention: What was Jack’s plan exactly? What if Vadic hadn’t moved the rest of the crew to another room?)Vadic also leaves with a secret: What’s the deal with Jack? Why is he Professor X? What’s up with the red door?I don’t have a great theory. But Troi says that there’s a “darkness” around Jack and a voice inside him that is “ancient and weak.” “Ancient” is an interesting hint. The Pah-wraiths perhaps? They would have had good reason to link up with changelings after what happened in “Deep Space Nine.”Odds and EndsI lied. One other part of the episode worked for me: seeing the original cast back together in one room for the first time all season. While the episode seemed rushed, this was the moment we’d all been waiting for as we head into the final episodes of the season.Data co-opts Lore’s brotherly resentment and uses it against his evil twin. Historically, Data has often had difficulty reading the room. But in this case, he diagnoses Lore’s jealousy and uses it to mold a whole new version of himself. It’s arguably the most human Data has ever been. Data seems to revel in Lore’s misery when he says, “We are me.” It’s possible that our favorite android has developed the ability to experience schadenfreude. (Also, some fun fan service when Data offers up his memories to Lore, such a Tasha Yar sighting.)Some of the behavior of this new contraction-using Data seemed silly to me, particularly when he “greets” the Titan and calls himself a “friendly positronic pissed-off security system.” If New Data is a combination of Data, Lore, B-4 and Lal, where would that language even come from? It seemed forced, just to get a laugh from the audience. But Data also seems to have a new purpose now: Instead of trying to find out what it means to be human, he’ll now contend with how to handle aging. (Data’s old friends should probably be more suspicious about Data than they seem. Lore has repeatedly shown up in their lives, and he seemed within seconds of taking over the android body entirely. How do they know that Data isn’t actually Lore taking advantage of their need to have their old friend back?)A commenter last week asked a question for which I don’t have an answer: A big part of the plot seems to concern what the changelings will do with the corpse of Jean-Luc, given that he is slated to speak at Frontier Day. But why would Jean-Luc still speak at a big Starfleet celebration when he is a fugitive?The Titan blows up the Shrike. I’m sure there’s no strategic advantage to examining a superior changeling ship’s technology when many of them have taken over Starfleet, but we digress.Vadic orders members of her crew to go find Jack. She has control over a good portion of the Titan. No one thinks to look for a doctor in sickbay? According to Beverly, Vadic didn’t have control of bridge consoles, so how did she have control of the ship? Why wouldn’t she spend her time trying to take command of the most essential section of the Titan? More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Theater

    The Enduring Appeal of ‘Wagatha,’ Now on Stage and Screen

    A dramatization of the trial between the wives of two soccer stars is returning to the West End in London, joining TV shows, podcasts and documentaries about the high-profile spat.With its stage transformed into a green soccer pitch, “Vardy v. Rooney: The Wagatha Christie Trial” at Wyndham’s Theater in London last November promised its nearly sold-out audience a game, and the two women onstage were both trying to score a goal.But as two pundits ooh’ed and aah’ed from the sidelines, the actresses sparring were not playing soccer stars but the women married to them, caught at the center of an Instagram feud turned high-profile libel case that captured the British public’s attention last May and peeled back the curtain hiding the machinations of British celebrity and the glitzy world of English soccer.“I see it as a comedy of manners,” said Liv Hennessy, the writer of the play, which returns to the West End on Thursday at the Ambassadors Theater. “It’s a theatrical way for us to look at the way people behave in our current society.”The play is just one recent retelling of the real-life case that became known as the “Wagatha Christie” trial, in which Rebekah Vardy, the wife of the Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, sued Coleen Rooney, the wife of the former Manchester United star Wayne Rooney, for defamation. The catalyst: Rooney’s accusation, on Twitter, that Vardy had leaked her personal information to the British press.The wives and girlfriends of soccer players — commonly known in Britain by the acronym WAGs — have long been followed by tabloids, but Rooney’s post caused an online furor. Its escalation into the legal realm led to breathless coverage, drawing in powerhouse lawyers and unearthing revelations about both women’s personal lives.The legal side of the long-running saga came to an end last July, with the High Court ruling against Vardy, saying that the reputational damage from the scandal was not libel and ordering Vardy to pay almost all of Rooney’s legal costs, which amounted to about £1.7 million, or $1.9 million.But the case’s power as a story has lived on, with production companies, documentary makers, podcasters and journalists finding the unfolding trial and its cast of characters just too irresistible not to dissect, all helped by the availability of the weeklong case’s court transcripts.“It’s the old adage of: You can’t write this,” said Thomas Popay, the creative director of Chalkboard TV, which produced a two-part dramatization, “Vardy v. Rooney: A Courtroom Drama,” that aired on Channel 4 in Britain last December. “We literally didn’t. We took the transcripts and recreated them.”Alongside the West End play and Channel 4 show, offerings for followers of the feud include a BBC podcast called “It’s … Wagatha Christie” and the Discovery+ documentary “Vardy vs Rooney: The Wagatha Trial.” Rooney has signed a Disney+ deal for a three-part documentary looking at the events leading up to the trial, and the saga is reportedly being considered for a retelling as part of the series “A Very British Scandal.”Rebekah Vardy, left, lost her defamation case against Coleen Rooney, right, in London’s High Court last year. Rooney described how she concocted a sting operation to reveal the betrayer.Daniel Leal/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“All of us can relate to the idea of being betrayed — especially betrayed by someone who we trusted,” Popay said. “And on Vardy’s side — we can all relate to not being believed.”In her 2019 social media post, Rooney described how she concocted a sting operation to reveal the betrayer by posting false stories that were visible to a single account — Vardy’s — to test if they would turn up in The Sun, a London tabloid.The popularity of the post led to Rooney being nicknamed “Wagatha Christie” — a portmanteau of WAG and Agatha Christie, the mystery writer — for her detective work. Vardy quickly denied she was the leaker and sued Rooney for defaming her.“We are absolutely interested in people’s misfortunes and what goes on in celebrity lives,” said Adrian Bingham, a professor of modern British history at the University of Sheffield who has studied media and gender issues. The women’s involvement with the soccer world gave their dispute resonance with a wider audience, he added, while the legal case gave the non-tabloid media a legitimate reason to cover it. Producers of the adaptations say they have asked their own lawyers to look over scripts, lest they find themselves accused of defamation.The court transcript itself had moments and revelations that many say were ripe for re-enactment: a phone with key evidence in the form of WhatsApp messages, apparently lost to the bottom of the North Sea; lawyers in wigs formally reading out text messages from the women, some containing profanities; Vardy’s tears on the witness stand after cross-examination by David Sherborne, Rooney’s lawyer.“It was positively Shakespearean in terms of how it went down,” said Popay. “We decided the best thing to do and the most accurate thing to do was to completely recreate the trial by using the court transcripts verbatim.” His company’s show, which was commissioned in May during the trial and aired in December, drew 1.5 million viewers.In the Channel 4 show “Vardy v. Rooney: A Courtroom Drama,” Vardy is played by Natalia Tena, seen here arriving at court.Channel 4Hennessy, the writer of the West End play, also relied heavily on the court transcripts, but took liberties by leaning into the soccer world, structuring the play like a game itself. Reading the transcripts, she said she was struck by the humanity of the two women, who have both been criticized (Vardy has said that people made abusive threats toward her and her unborn baby following that fateful post, while the trial laid bare tensions in Rooney’s marriage and her experience growing up with fame).“It does ask how complicit we are in creating public figures, and tearing them down when they don’t meet our standards,” Hennessy said.Even at a rehearsal in late March, before the play’s official return, it was clear the trial continued to intrigue and perplex even the cast members. During a pivotal scene in which Rooney is grilled by Vardy’s lawyer on precisely why she made the fateful decision to share the feud with the world, the actors broke character to pose their own burning questions: Was that decision one of a calculating woman, or a woman at a breaking point? Why had she not privately confronted Vardy? And what did it feel like to live, as they imagined Rooney did, in a world where one’s image could become a public commodity?Though celebrity gossip can be easy to dismiss as frivolous, the two opponents in the trial were both women from working-class backgrounds who laid out one aspirational pathway for others like them, said Rebecca Twomey, an entertainment correspondent who has covered both women closely.“We like to put people on pedestals — and bring them down,” she said, adding that many people enjoyed a modern-day pantomime. “You might think they’re airhead WAGs, but these are two sharp, intelligent women.”Still, the enduring appeal of the high drama of “Wagatha Christie” is also simple, Professor Bingham said.“The reason people are telling it is not because it’s insightful,” he added. “It’s because it’s a great story — with great lines.” More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Television

    Stephen Colbert on Trump: ‘Business Fraud Is His Brand’

    Colbert recapped Donald Trump’s post-arraignment return to Mar-a-Lago, “where he held an angry rally for all his cult members.”Welcome to Best of Late Night, a rundown of the previous night’s highlights that lets you sleep — and lets us get paid to watch comedy. Here are the 50 best movies on Netflix right now.The Return of Florida ManFormer President Donald Trump returned to Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday after being arrested and arraigned on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.“And you know what? I’m not sure if that’s fair,” Stephen Colbert said on Wednesday. “Business fraud is his brand.”“And after his arraignment, he hauled his ass to LaGuardia, got on his private jet, flew to Mar-a-Lago, where he held an angry rally for all his cult members.” — STEPHEN COLBERT“Then it was time for the former president to take the stage and inspire a nation with a six-minute list of unresolved grievances. Well, come on, what do you expect? You’re listening to a 76-year-old man in Florida.” — STEPHEN COLBERT“So he was arrested and released, and we never got a mug shot. But that did not stop the ex-president’s campaign from making one up and selling it on a T-shirt that says, ‘Not guilty.’ OK, but if he’s not guilty, why did you put him in a mug shot? Just sell a poster that says, ‘Wanted! for following too many laws.’” — STEPHEN COLBERTThe Punchiest Punchlines (‘Back So Soon?’ Edition)“Meanwhile, after his arraignment, Trump flew back home to Florida and held a rally in Mar-a-Lago. It’s always nice to have a traditional post-arrest reception.” — JIMMY FALLON“The whole staff looked at him like, ‘Back so soon?’” — JIMMY FALLON“Former President Trump spoke last night at Mar-a-Lago following his arraignment and said, ‘I never thought anything like this could happen in America.’ Honestly, neither did I. I mean, you got away with so many crimes for so long. Trump getting arrested was like ‘Avatar 2’ — I just figured it was never going to happen. Then it finally did, and I was like, ‘You know what? Worth the wait.’” — SETH MEYERSThe Bits Worth WatchingJordan Klepper visited a Trump indictment rally in New York for Wednesday’s “Daily Show.”What We’re Excited About on Thursday NightMolly Shannon will appear on Thursday’s “Tonight Show” ahead of hosting this weekend’s “Saturday Night Live.”Also, Check This OutDante ZaballaA dozen musicians, scholars and critics weighed in on the best music of the jazz pianist Mary Lou Williams. More

  • 100 Shares159 Views

    in Theater

    Review: ‘A Little Life’ Is Quite a Lot

    Self-harm, lashings, child prostitution, rape: Ivo van Hove’s adaptation of the 2015 novel tests the audience’s trauma threshold.How much is too much? The question recurs a lot during “A Little Life,” the theatrical pileup of suffering and woe that opened on Wednesday at the Harold Pinter Theater in London. The play is beautifully acted but surpassingly bleak, and spectators may find their own threshold for trauma tested more than once. I know mine was.Telling of a New York City lawyer who seems to know very little but pain, this is the English-language debut of a much-traveled Dutch-language production, directed by Ivo van Hove, that reached New York last year. That version was first seen in 2018 at the International Theater Amsterdam, where van Hove is the artistic director. To create the English adaptation, he has joined forces with the Dutch dramaturge Koen Tachelet and Hanya Yanagihara, the American writer on whose 2015 novel the show is based. (Yanagihara is also the editor of T: The New York Times Style Magazine.)This latest iteration — which runs at the Harold Pinter through June 18, then transfers to the Savoy Theater until Aug. 5 — has been selling out and generating tabloid headlines, not least because the show’s fast-rising leading man, James Norton, appears naked for extended sequences.But far more noteworthy is the grievous state in which we find Norton’s character, Jude, whether clothed or unclothed, pretty much throughout. “You’re so damaged,” Jude’s longtime friend-turned-lover Willem (a sweet-faced Luke Thompson) tells him, in the understatement of the night. When Jude does undress, we see a body disfigured by scars. Self-harm, rape, lashings, child prostitution, attempted murder: Jude has known it all. No wonder the play’s website comes with an elaborate content warning and the offer of “post-show support resources.”Yanigahara takes 720 pages to tell the story of four college friends whom we follow through their precarious lives — though Jude’s is the most awful: Willem, a womanizing actor, is his best buddy; then there are J.B. (Omari Douglas), a prickly painter; and Malcolm (Zach Wyatt), an architect who comes from family money.From left: Thompson, Norton, Zubin Varla as Harold, Emilio Doorgasingh as Andy, Zach Wyatt as Malcolm and Omari Douglas as J.B.Jan VersweyveldIt’s not the fault of Douglas or Wyatt, both fine actors, that J.B. and Malcolm seem to fade from view as the play proceeds. A feisty J.B. drives the opening scene, set at his 30th birthday party in Lower Manhattan, but is soon relegated to painting in silence on the periphery of the designer Jan Versweyveld’s multipurpose set, which manages to accommodate a kitchen, a hospital room and an art studio in one tall space.Video footage of New York on either side of the stage provides a sense of place lacking from the script. And although the play’s events span decades, there’s hardly a mention of politics or culture, as if these topics might detract from the misery unfolding across nearly four hours. (This version is a half-hour shorter than the Dutch one.) An exception is Jude’s fondness for one of Mahler’s “Rückert-Lieder,” which begins with the line, “O garish world, long since thou hast lost me.”Yes, Jude does experience kindness: He is adopted as an adult by his former professor, Harold (an elegant Zubin Varla), whose wife, Julia, has been excised from the stage adaptation.And he finds a companion and ally in Ana (the expert Nathalie Armin, the play’s lone female role), a social worker who helps him push through his concealed trauma.Mostly, though, you just watch as Jude rolls up his sleeves and takes a razor to himself yet again. The production owes an enormous amount to Norton, a likable and attractive stage-trained TV star in a role that playgoers might otherwise recoil from, and this performance is sure to be a contender for the Olivier Awards, Britain’s equivalent of the Tonys.But I couldn’t help nodding in agreement when Willem remarks in the second act that he is “sometimes surprised” that Jude’s still alive. You emerge stunned at the sheer mercilessness of it all, but moved? By the acting, yes. But not the play.A Little LifeThrough June 18 at the Harold Pinter Theater, then July 4 to Aug. 5 at the Savoy Theater, in London; alittlelifeplay.com. More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Theater

    Did Your School Play Face Pushback? We Want to Hear From You.

    Picking plays and musicals has become more complicated in some school districts. We’d like to hear about your experience.The school play is a cherished ritual for many students — and their proud parents. But choosing shows can also be complicated, and there have been instances of pushback against plays or musicals from people raising concerns about content or language.The Times is trying to assess how such concerns have affected school productions. Have concerns about potential criticism influenced which shows are selected for school productions? Have the concerns prompted changes or cancellations to scheduled shows? We’re interested in hearing from teachers, administrators, parents and students.We will not publish any part of your submission without contacting you first. We may use your contact information to follow up with you. (Please fill out this form only if you live in the U.S. and you’re 14 or older. If you’re between the ages of 14 and 17, The Times will ask to get in touch with your parent or guardian before asking any follow-up questions.) More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Theater

    Alex Edelman, ‘Just for Us’ Comedian, Will Bring Show to Broadway

    The solo performance will open on June 26 at the Hudson Theater.Alex Edelman, a comedian who grew up in an Orthodox Jewish home and turned the antisemitism of his online critics into material for his monologues, will bring his much-admired memoiristic show, “Just for Us,” to Broadway this summer.For the past five years, Edelman, 34, has been developing “Just for Us” and, with breaks forced by the pandemic, has performed it in Australia, England, Scotland and Canada, as well as in New York, Washington and, beginning next week, Boston, near where he grew up. The show’s sold-out Off Broadway runs, which started at the Cherry Lane Theater in 2021 and moved last year to the SoHo Playhouse and then the Greenwich House Theater, won a special citation this year at the Obie Awards.The one-man show covers a lot of thematic territory, but it is built around Edelman’s seemingly unlikely (and perhaps unwise) decision to drop in on a meeting of white nationalists gathered in Queens.“The show is about the costs of sublimating parts of ourselves to fit in,” Edelman said in an interview.The Broadway run, scheduled to last for eight weeks, will begin performances on June 22 and open on June 26 at Hudson Theater. The lead producer, Jenny Gersten, is the interim artistic director of the Williamstown Theater Festival, in Massachusetts, which presented Edelman’s show last summer in the Berkshires. This will be Gersten’s first Broadway outing as a lead producer; she will produce it along with Rachel Sussman (“Suffs”) and Seaview, the theater company established by Greg Nobile and Jana Shea. (Seaview is also producing this season’s “Parade” and “The Sign in Sidney Brustein’s Window.”)Edelman said he had repeatedly reworked the show, primarily at the advice of the comedian Mike Birbiglia, who has had two of his one-man shows on Broadway; Birbiglia produced the Off Broadway runs of Edelman’s show and will help produce the Broadway run as well. The show is directed by Adam Brace, who is an associate director at Soho Theater in London.Edelman splits his time between New York and Los Angeles, where he has done some screenwriting — he worked on an adaptation of the novel “My Name Is Asher Lev” that has stalled — and said he continues to tweak “Just for Us.” A variety of prominent comedians have come to see the show, including Jerry Seinfeld and Billy Crystal, and each time, Edelman has made a point of asking for advice.“Part of the reason you can live with a show for a long time is if you’re meticulous, little changes feel like big changes — one word can change a whole joke,” Edelman said.He is obviously jubilant about the Broadway transfer — he visited the Hudson, where Jessica Chastain and Arian Moayed, who are now starring there in a revival of “A Doll’s House,” showed him around.“I never thought I’d get to do a show on Broadway, and I genuinely can’t believe that I have this chance,” he said. “It feels a bit like fantasy camp.” More