Clybourne Park: Review and Rant

[RippedMan]

I saw the Pulitzer-Oliver-Tony Winning Play tonight, and I have to say: So what? I get that it's racially charged and that that is still a "hot topic" in this country, but is it really saying anything all that new on the topic? I felt like in each act the white people came off as the ignorant ones on the issue. Which isn't anything new. And the idea that "it all gets better" or whatever the mother says at the end to her son is such a bland message.

Also, Christina Kirk maybe the most annoying actress I've ever seen. I saw her in A Lifetime Burning awhile back, and now this, and she just grates on my nerves. I mean, what is that character in Act 1? I get she's trying to sort of white-wash what happened to her, but does she need to be a bobble head? Her speech at the end to her son, she kept doing these weird body convulsions.

PPS: I also found most of the acting to be pretty bad. The ginger-haired guy played the same character in both acts. No change in voice, etc. Perhaps that's a choice but everyone else changed, so he just seemed like the odd duck. The pregnant lady in the second act kept doing the same darn hand gesture for every sentence. For a group of actors who have been doing this play on and off for 2 years, I'm surprised the performances felt so stiff and surface value. They didn't seem like real people to me at all.

If I remember correctly, this show didn't get such great notices off-Broadway, right?

[wonderfulwizard11]

I wasn't entirely crazy about the final scene, but I don't think the mother's speech is meant to be a message that everything will all work out. I think if anything, given the events of the second act, the message of this piece is that it's fairly naive to think that things actually will work out.

[RippedMan]

Totally. I was flipping back and forth in my head like does Norris want an uplifting message, or one that we're being naive to think that the world is going to work itself out?

And the show is def. the star, it's not the performances. You could get today's finest actors and I don't think any of them would walk away with the show. It's not that kind of show, which I found interesting.

[After Eight]

Ripped Man,

Sorry you had to suffer through this wretched play. I know your pain.

We all constantly need to remind ourselves that critics mean nothing. Awards mean nothing.

This is just one more illustration of it.

[inlovewithjerryherman]

all I know, as that at Steppenwolf this past fall, this play was off. the. chain.

I'd be interested to see the Broadway production and how it compares.

[Kad]

I actually completely agree with you, RippedMan. Was sorely disappointed by the play (saw it in previews). Was stunned by the gushing notices and the praise for the cast, whom I found, at best, unremarkable.

Christina Kirk was probably giving one of the worst Broadway performances I think I have ever seen. Not a single moment of truth from her. All surface, playing at emotions.

[Idiot]

I went in Los Angeles because I'd heard 'it's supposed to be quite good'.

Yes.

It was supposed to be.

[RippedMan]

I thought, Oh maybe Kirk is giving me all service value because she's hiding her emotions, and she'll have this great big emotional scene. Well, that scene basically happened, but she was still not giving me a human suffering. Just some weird character who was having a breakdown of sorts. Was just strange all around. I don't know how anyone could have liked that.

[Owen22]

"Clyboure Park" is the best American play of the last five to seven years. And there have been some really good plays during that time.

I caught this play first at the Royal Court in London and was blown away. I then followed it to Steppenwolf in Chicago, but their production, though certainly (or seemingly) acted with the same aplomb I have to admit didn't strike me in the same way. Still liked it very much, but was disappointed I wasn't as awestruck that time.

I saw the Broadway version last month and fell in love all over again.

I dunno, critics and awards CAN be wrong, but when the consensus is the Olivier, the Pulitzer AND the Tony....if you don't like it, it probably isn't the play...

[dramamama611]

No play (or any other work of art) can possibly speak to all audiences equally. Why BLAME the poster? For whatever reason, whether you agree or not, the play didn't work for RippedMan -- why does that have to show a fault? He pretty clearly gave us his reasons to explain why he felt so, he's entitled to that opinion without being told that he's the problem.

[After Eight]

"I dunno, critics and awards CAN be wrong, but when the consensus is the Olivier, the Pulitzer AND the Tony....if you don't like it, it probably isn't the play..."

You're right, you dunno.

Talk about naive. Not to mention presumptuous.

It is the play.

[Kad]

Clybourne Park is in no way the best American play of the last several years.

[TalkinLoud]

Thought it was one of those "issue plays" that so desperately wanted to be about BIG THEMES, but instead delivers a dramatically limp, mostly superficial discussion of a topic. Reminded me of Next Fall from a few years back.

Also, totally agree about the acting. Kirk and the red-haired guy who played the priest in the first act were people I have singled out in conversations with people.

[iluvtheatertrash]

I don't think it deserved a Pulitzer. But Norris is a master at structure. The correlations between then and now, the way it all comes together.... fascinating to watch unfold.

I think they're doing some fine ensemble work, but very few performers stand out. Shamos and Wood are giving wonderful performances, Shamos in particular.

I don't think the white characters come across looking worse. I walked in hearing so much ranting about "racism", and was shocked to see just how racist it was in EVERY direction. The audience I was with laughed together, cheered together... and it was (as I recall spending a good deal of looking around at intermission out of curiosity) a varied crowd.

It is certainly not the greatest American play. And I wouldn't even rank it in a Top 25. But I enjoyed it a great deal.

The only "You Know a White Guy Wrote This" moment for me was the graffiti crack-den of Act Two.

[Auggie27]

Having seen SHADOW BOX, ELEPHANT MAN and TOP DOG rewarded, only to find myself somewhat underwhelmed by them all in the theater, I respect alternative opinions.

That said, what I loved about CLYBOURNE is the very thing that many find irritating, or in stylistic opposition to its satirical edge: its heartrending coda. The final moments of the play make (to me) a most persuasive emotional case for the dramatic and theatrical synergy between the two disparate acts, that this is a deeply American story, its roots tangled in many kinds of dreams and tragedies. The ending ties together much of what comes before, and as entertaining as the comedy is, the play's ultimately heartbreaking to me.

Full disclosure: for what its worth, when I read the play -- almost a year before the production arrived on B'way -- I didn't find it remotely funny.

[Owen22]

No, its definitely you. There is taste and there is being subjective. But we are all on here because we tend to know what good theatre is. There is not acknowledging a good play simply because it doesn't appeal to you, but when you go on such a diatribe against something most theatre professionals think is pretty amazing, well, there is something about the subject matter and what the play is saying that is bothering you on an unpleasant level. I don't want to speculate what that is but I probably wouldn't want to know you in real life, know what I'm sayin'...

[frogs_fan85]

I didn't get how people found this play shocking or outrageous. If the material provoked that sort of reaction in you, you need to get out more.

[Kad]

Yeah, subtly accusing people of racism is really going to help your argument here.

Nothing is universally beloved, despite whatever awards or critical praise or audience approval it garners.

And the negative opinions in re: Clybourne Park seen in this thread are hardly unique.

I found it in its best moments merely adequate. Its insights in racial dynamics are hardly revelatory or presented in a new way. It boils down to "Everybody's a Little Bit Racist", with an ironic coda put at the end.

Why it's being heralded is difficult for me to put together- and my opinions are typically in line with critical majority. Perhaps the connection to Raisin in the Sun lends it more of a literary air (Raisin-level literature it sure ain't). Perhaps it presents its well-worn opinions in a way that is palatable for a largely white theatre-going audience, as opposed to the irreverent or abrasive way it's been done before. It all felt safe and smug.

For what it's worth, I found the Lincoln Center program available at the theatre to be more compelling. The essays in that were truly illuminating- particularly the one about racially-driven real estate in the 50s/60s. Too bad Norris hardly even broached that topic. But then, I suppose indicting white audiences for the urban decay of many now primarily black neighbors wouldn't be as palatable.

[Owen22]

"It boils down to "Everybody's a Little Bit Racist", with an ironic coda put at the end."

Really? That's all you saw? Really? wow...

[Kad]

Instead of being condescending to everyone who didn't like it, why don't you share what YOU thought it said?

[Owen22]

"Yeah, subtly accusing people of racism is really going to help your argument here."

I was hardly being subtle, but since you didn't "get" the play you probably wouldn't understand that.

The play is the opposite of "everyone's a little bit racist". It points to people like you who indeed, WANT to think we live in a post racial "everyone's a little bit racist" world where "everyone's a little bit racist" is okay. Where they see a play this scalding and this biting and thinks it about "everyone's a little bit racist". Its comforting. Its nice. If everyone's a little bit racist, that means we're a little bit non-racist too. We are propelled from the comedy of the second act back to the late 50's after we've laughed and laughed at the modern day racists of our modern ilk, complaining about the lost culture, the lost heritage, the lost real estate, complaining that "everyone's a little bit racist" while being a little bit racist. But then we see Kenneth, what Kenneth DID out of racism. Not so funny anymore. Not as safe. Right? No wonder people like you who only see what they need to see didn't like the play.

Okay, I'm done with you and this thread. Feeling a little dirty being here. Buh-bye.

[Kad]

I'm so glad you had to get down in the dirt, apparently, to say what you actually saw in the play. I don't even see how you can glean my own views on racial politics based on my opinions on the play.

I get the play. I just don't think it's NEARLY as deep and biting as you do. I wanted it to go FURTHER. To interrogate DEEPER. To show how ****ed up the country is in terms of race, and how it's snowballed from decades and decades of institutionalized racism, racism in every aspect of our culture, from media to real estate. I don't think we live in a post-racial society at all. Far from it. Anyone with ears and eyes open since the 2008 election can see that.

What we GOT are cliche characters in both acts. The quietly suffering Negro, the oblivious housewife, the Karl Lindner 50's racist talking about "those people". The politically correct but ignorant yuppies, the indignant black people. We got an "offensive" joke-off. We got a tacked-on coda that seemed like a desperate attempt to add weight to a slight play. In my opinion, plays like this, with their strawman, cliche characters that are sufficiently distanced from the audience, making it safe for them to laugh at and never relate to, are not helpful and do nothing. Sorry.

South Park's "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson" said more about modern racial dynamics with more bite than this play.

If ANYONE has issues here, your own rant seems to indicate it's you.

So pack up your toys and leave. You've done nothing but condescend and accuse others of being terrible racists for not liking this goddamn play. You're completely incapable of defending your opinion, or really even stating it with detail to begin with.

[dramamama611]

{claps wildly for Kad!}

[iluvtheatertrash]

Kad and I have very different opinions on this play. But I've still gotta give it to him. Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody's got one. If you can't respect the opinions of other board members, don't come back.

[uncageg]

I am glad I am not the only one who feels this way. I Don't think it deserved the Pulitzer either. It was full of itself and gave off the impression that you were supposed to feel like you just saw something really "important". The actress who played the wife in Act One was extremely annoying. I kept thinking Kristin Wiig. I also don't think it deserved the Tony. I left the theater felling thiinking "this has been done before."

[theaterfan862]

I think Clybourne Park does not live up to its hype and accolades. I saw the show a day before the Tony nominations were announced and found it to be very disappointing. The play left me cold and I wanted more from it.I also agree that Kirk's performance was annoying and not very genuine. The whole bit about about the neapolitan ice cream in the first act was drawn out way too long and became really annoying! The play did have some enjoyable moments but overall it was not satisfying. Peter and the Starcatcher, Other Desert Cities, and Venus In Fur were all a better night at the Theatre IMHO.