Celebrated American playwright Lanford Wilson died last Thursday, March 24, in New Jersey. The cause of death was complications from pneumonia. He was only 73, and his death surprised and saddened many.
As fate would have it, the next evening—Friday night—here in Tucson, one of Wilson’s most celebrated plays, Fifth of July, was dying on the small stage of the Cabaret Theater, upstairs at the Temple of Music and Art.
The Winding Road Theater Ensemble—a theater still in its infancy, although staffed by many experienced theater practitioners—is responsible for this coincidentally unhappy event. Just about every aspect of the production exhibits major faults, from questionable characterizations to stuttering pacing to a total lack of insight into Wilson’s play. Fifth of July, along with Talley’s Folly and Talley and Son, comprise Wilson’s Talley Cycle trilogy. Winding Road opens Talley’s Folly on Friday, April 1, and will run it and Fifth of July in repertory for the next couple of weeks.
Wilson, born in Lebanon, Mo., tried commercial art and writing short stories before he found his niche as a playwright. He helped invigorate the off-off-Broadway scene in the 1960s, and his success there developed into a respected presence on Broadway, although his heart continued to embrace an off-Broadway sensibility. This was demonstrated in his efforts to help form the Circle Repertory Company, a company of playwrights writing for a company of actors. His ear for capturing ordinary language and an ability to craft it into lyrical dialogue—which often overshadows actual plot—has garnered him a place in the American Theater Hall of Fame and the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Talley’s Folly won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 1980, as well as the New York Drama Critics’ Circle Award.
Winding Road’s production of Fifth of July unfortunately deconstructs Wilson’s lyrical landscape rather than re-creating it. The production offers little sense of a whole story, or even an evocation of place and mood; rather, we see characters who have no idea how they fit together. It’s not really the fault of Wilson’s piece; rather, the lack of focus and any sense that something might be at stake is the unfortunate consequence of a disjointed approach by director Glen Coffman and company. In his director’s notes, Coffman seems to understand where the richness of Wilson’s play lies, but that understanding does not translate into the actual production.
The play’s plot is a very loose one to begin with—and becomes totally unraveled in this production.
The time is 1977, and in rural Missouri, Ken Talley (Eric Anson), a gay paraplegic Vietnam veteran, lives with his lover, Jed (Christopher Johnson), in his family’s home. He was to begin teaching at the local high school in the fall, but has since dropped that idea and professes an interest in selling his home so he can travel. Ken’s sister June (Susan Kovitz) is visiting with her teenage daughter Shirley (Lucille Petty), along with Ken’s aunt, Sally (Toni Press-Coffman), a likable but odd bird who, more than a year after her husband’s death, is still carrying around his ashes in a Whitman’s Sampler box. Joining them are Ken and June’s childhood friend John (Brian Wees) and his totally drugged-out wife, Gwen (Jodi Ajanovic), who harbors dreams of becoming a country music star. They are accompanied by perpetually stoned guitarist Wes (Paul Matlock). John and Gwen are interested in buying the Talley home, ostensibly, at least, to install a music studio far from the stress of recording in Nashville—stress which locks Gwen’s jaw, rendering her voiceless. However, John may have other motives.
Wilson has created some interesting characters in this entourage of burned out radicals from the ’60s. However, this group of actors does not give them credible life. The trouble with character-driven plays is that characterizations must be strong and convincing. Absent a gripping plot to lend a sense of movement, at the very least, the characters must create a heightened sense of emotional resonance—something to engage us.
Most of the characterizations here are far from nuanced or convincing. If they are anything, they are one-note wonders, and when played together, they do not create a pleasing chord, but a dissonance which prevents any sense that these characters are involved in the same story—and that we might want to be involved in it, too. They are pieces which director Coffman has found no way to stitch together, so there is no strong unifying cohesiveness.
Coffman also has trouble blocking his eight characters on the tiny stage of the Cabaret Theater. The set pretty much fills the small space, and characters often seem to be lined up across the stage, erupting in movement from time to time—often when they have something to say, but sometimes for no discernable reason.
One could hope that some of these missteps might be corrected as the show finds its stride, but I’m not sure there is an incisive enough vision in this production for there actually to be a stride to hit.
Before the show, as the audience was told of Wilson’s unexpected death, Coffman dedicated the theater’s two productions to Wilson’s memory. Let’s hope that Talley’s Folly redeems the theater’s wish to celebrate Wilson’s sizable contribution to the American theater.
This article appears in Mar 31 – Apr 6, 2011.
I absolutely cannot believe that Ms. Forrester was at the same production I was! This does not appear to be a review but rather an attack on what was for me (and several other people with me – a few who plan to attend the show again during the run because they liked it so much) a decidedly lovely experience. The only thing I agree with in this unpleasant diatribe is the fact that the Cabaret stage is small. I thought the blocking (considering the small stage) was really very good and the positioning of the actors provided some really wonderful tableaus. The acting was above average (in a couple cases, way above average) and there were several truly touching moments! In closing, all I can say is that you should see this play for yourself. I think this reviewer is totally out of touch with reality and, in effect, has told potential playgoers that it would be better if they stayed at home and watched Simpson’s re-runs. Believe me, nothing could be further from the truth! Please, go see this wonderful play!
Perhaps Ms Forrester mistakenly saw Sex & the City 2.0- this would explain how very far off the mark she is regarding this production. I agree with the previous poster- See this show for yourself and disregard this review.
I just created a bio so I could comment on this show or rather make a public point. For the record, I absolutely enjoyed this show but the point I would like to make is regarding the Tucson theatre reviewers. I find it odd that Kathleen Allen and Sherilyn Forrester seem to write the same review, so we can count on Ms. Allen to poorly regurgitate the same thing that Ms. Forrester has written about this show. If you have a moment go back through archives of reviews in Tucson over the past year and it looks as though they either passed around a cheat sheet or they just share the same brain because at times they even use nearly identical sentences and odd review points. Either way I find it embarrassing for Tucson theatre and these newspapers, what has happened to journalistic integrity and where is the Editor In Chief? Am I the only person who has recognized this as an issue?
The Game – if Kathleen Allen’s review comes out and says the same thing as this review then come back here and post a comment. My prediction is Ms. Allen will print more or less the same thing but she will be a bit more nasty toward the actors because she does not appear smart enough to know the difference between an actor’s choice and a director’s decision (I learned that in Theatre 101.) Post back here after Kathleen’s article is printed.
I agree wholeheartedly with those who have commented on this misguided at best, hostile at worst, review of this production. It seems to me, and I too was at the same performance, that the reviewer has something of an ax to grind, as it does not appear that she is talking about the actual production at all. Perhaps ‘deconstruct’ the one word she used that does have some resemblence to the production – is the operative one here, as that is exactly what the play and its characters call for. The fragmented nature of all its parts and layers held me until the end, when if only for a brief moment, those very delicate edges seemed to brush up against each other. Well that is the genius of Lanford Wilson’s writing, and in fact was the experience I encountered at this production. Go see it!
FYI: It’s not cool to post an entire review from another media source. That’s called stealing. If anyone would like to review Dave Irwin’s take, go here: http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/arts/report/…
I saw the production, too. And Ms. Forrester is too kind.
However, I’m pretty stunned that people can’t seem to disagree with critics or others without resorting to personal attacks. Civility, anyone?
I must agree with the comment that Sherilyn Forrester seems hostile. I would use the term mean-spirited. When is it ever appropriate to use death and dying is such a coy, tongue in cheek way. She may have thought she was being clever but she was just being rude. After reading that comment and seeing what poor judgement she possesses how can I trust anything else she has to say. The rest of the review became a moot point.
Theatrical criticism can be accomplished in a creative and polite way. I am not saying she has to like everything she sees, I am saying that civility is a two way street. It is difficult not to be rude back-but I am a gentleman. I saw the same performance she saw and do not understand what she is talking about-by the way, Ms Forrester I have over 35 years in the world of show business and have been in, produced, directed,designed, built, painted and choreographed for over 300 productions. What are your qualifications?
I enjoyed the show and think all readers should form their own opinions after seeing it for themselves.
Jeez Louise. Okay, let’s start with the review. Ms. Forrester, I think once you’ve emptied both barrels, you don’t need to reload and start again. We got that you hated the production by paragraph 1; your editor (whom I believe would be happy if all theater companies went under) really gave it away with that knife-in-the-gut headline. But you go on and on and on and…see? It’s no fun when you know what’s coming.
I imagine a cold-hearted, turtlenecked, schmoe dictating to herself as she types, chuckling with glee, like Higgins when he thinks he’s finally caught Magnum with the Ferrari. However, I don’t think that is really who you are. I don’t think it gives you pleasure to trash a show. I think you are a defender, of sorts, of theater done well. I wish you could also be a true defender of the effort. You know what it’s like to do theater. Have you forgotten the feeling of being panned? I am in no way saying you should give a show a pass, just because someone dared to put up the money, get a cast, rent a space, pay for ads, spend weeks of their lives for, in the end, pennies. I’m saying, wasn’t there SOME little positive thing you could say? A spoonful of sugar, as the saying goes.
Now to the show. I’m going and you can’t stop me. Try as you might, and you did try…I’m going anyway. I like both the Wilson plays they’re doing and I’m pretty sure I’m going to like these productions. If I don’t, I’ll come back and eat crow. And I don’t like crow one bit.
Here’s the deal.
A lot of people are really upset about Sherilyn’s relationship with Kathy Allen. No one in the theatre wants to see the critic from the Weekly and the critic from the Star come to a show, sit right next to one another, and then write painfully similar (positive OR negative) reviews. I disagree with Stage Hand’s comment that Jimmy Boegle wants theatre in Tucson to go under. The Tucson Weekly has long been an extremely generous advocate of the Arts in Tucson and a lot of that credit is due to Jimmy. They don’t have to cover anything they don’t want to cover and they cover every single thing they can. The headline reflected the review published and nothing else, quite accurately, too.
I’m one of the actors in FIFTH OF JULY and what I take issue with is the comments about Lanford Wilson and our production of his play both being dead just because Glen Coffman had the audacity to make a heartfelt acknowledgement of his passing and his contribution to American theatre on opening night. That’s snarky, it’s not artistic criticism. Snarky isn’t even necessarily a bad thing, if there’s some wit to it (James Reel, we really miss you right now). That was cheap and gross and unfortunately it’s all anyone in the Tucson theatre scene can talk about. I have people coming up to me every day now and apologizing to me for what was said in this review and not because the review was negative but because it was hideously nasty. It’s almost as though the cast and their performances have been completely disregarded (since they weren’t actually assessed in any way in this review) as bad simply due to what appears to be some kind of vendetta with Glen and / or Winding Road Theatre Ensemble.
Sherilyn is absolutely entitled to her opinion and she should make it clear, that’s her job as a Theatre Critic, not to give a pass or an easy review or whatever. I don’t mind a bad, even a scathing review — if it’s thoughtful, specific and well written.
Thank God for Nathan Christensen. I’d take a bad review from him any day.
In the interest of full disclosure I am the director of Fifth of July reviewed above. I, of course, disagree with its general and unsupported statements. My real issue, however, is Ms. Forrester’s using the occasion of the death of one of America’s greatest playwrights to make a cheap reviewer’s quip about the play “dying onstage.” It is appalling, disrespectful, and crass. Whatever my comment bodes for future reviews from Ms. Forrester i don’t know nor do i care. My only hope is that in future reviews (of my work and everyone else’s) she will be a little more thoughtful, respectful, and have a little more taste.
My apologies to Jimmy Boegle. I may have been having a flashback to a former AzStar editor – an unfair comparison. Thanks for setting me straight, rickydale.