The Coram Boy
So I went to see The Coram Boy on Broadway last night. I had received three unsolicited responses that I needed to see it, it was my kind of show, and it was the best direction anyone has ever seen. So I scored $20 tickets and thought "what the hell, everyone is talking about it"
I'm going to cut right to the chase here. I don't know how I feel about it. It was remarkable, meaning it needs to be remarked upon. I feel like it was to much. It was over-directed. It was to much stimulation. It should have been my favorite show. It should have touched me and made me shimmer with hope. It should have stuck with me in a different way. It however put me in a funk.
The reason everyone said I would love it, and that it was my kind of show, was because it had all the elements that I build my shows out of. The problem being that it had ALL the elements. It was overkill. It eventually became " Look how we solved the underwater scene" or "look how we solved the scene that takes place over 6 months" or "look at what we came up with for this moment" Believe me I want to steal things from this show, but they will not all be going into one production. At some point someone should have told the director to stop, or she should have stopped herself. Reading over her Bio you find out that she also co-designed the show, and usually designs all the children's shows at the National Theatre. It all makes sense. She was directing from a design perspective.
Now don't get me wrong. There were fabulous performances. The Two Coram "boys" played by Xanthe Elbrick and Uzo Aduba were stunning. The 40 voice choir that sang through the show was inspiring. But it was all competing with each other into a gigantic cluster fuck of "stuff". Maybe it was the most amazing direction, there was so much going on and nobody got hurt. But that isn't the tell-tale sign of good direction. Could it have been done without all that "stuff" or even some of it? The answer is a resounding yes. Unfortunately the designer overuled the director, even though they were the same person.
I think the thing that bothers me the most is that it could have been so amazing. It is by far the most imaginative thing on Broadway, probably the most imaginative thing since Mary Zimmerman's Metamorphoses. The problem is though, that Metamorphoses didn't fill in all the gaps for you. Metamorphoses let you use your own imagination to paint some pictures. Coram Boy uses so much Imagination that their isn't enough room for you use your own. If, on the other hand you substitute a microphone stand fro a tree or a bowl of water for the ocean, the audience suddenly has some imaginative work to do. And this is the intensely pleasurable work of using the brain and the imagination to construct narratives and associations. Minimalism allows you to participate, less is more. By Maximizing the very important in Minimalism it accentuates what you want to show or shed light on. This was an example of Maximalism at its deadliest, Faux Minimalism.
I love SITI company and Anne Bogart, but the problem I have with their shows and Anne's approach can be summed up by her very own fears. A review of one of her early shows by Critic Ben Brantley was "...visually stunning, but unnecessary." I feel that way sometimes about their shows. I feel that way about The Coram Boy. But I still will go and see anything SITI does, and am participating this summer with them, and am devoting the next three years of my life to Anne. There is something there.
Gertrude Stein said "There is no there, there" when referring to Oakland, California. There is some there, there in SITI Shows. And there is some there, there in The Coram Boy. It is just hidden under many layers of "stuff". If you can see it, I would try and do it. Look for the there. Tell me what you think.
I'm going to cut right to the chase here. I don't know how I feel about it. It was remarkable, meaning it needs to be remarked upon. I feel like it was to much. It was over-directed. It was to much stimulation. It should have been my favorite show. It should have touched me and made me shimmer with hope. It should have stuck with me in a different way. It however put me in a funk.
The reason everyone said I would love it, and that it was my kind of show, was because it had all the elements that I build my shows out of. The problem being that it had ALL the elements. It was overkill. It eventually became " Look how we solved the underwater scene" or "look how we solved the scene that takes place over 6 months" or "look at what we came up with for this moment" Believe me I want to steal things from this show, but they will not all be going into one production. At some point someone should have told the director to stop, or she should have stopped herself. Reading over her Bio you find out that she also co-designed the show, and usually designs all the children's shows at the National Theatre. It all makes sense. She was directing from a design perspective.
Now don't get me wrong. There were fabulous performances. The Two Coram "boys" played by Xanthe Elbrick and Uzo Aduba were stunning. The 40 voice choir that sang through the show was inspiring. But it was all competing with each other into a gigantic cluster fuck of "stuff". Maybe it was the most amazing direction, there was so much going on and nobody got hurt. But that isn't the tell-tale sign of good direction. Could it have been done without all that "stuff" or even some of it? The answer is a resounding yes. Unfortunately the designer overuled the director, even though they were the same person.
I think the thing that bothers me the most is that it could have been so amazing. It is by far the most imaginative thing on Broadway, probably the most imaginative thing since Mary Zimmerman's Metamorphoses. The problem is though, that Metamorphoses didn't fill in all the gaps for you. Metamorphoses let you use your own imagination to paint some pictures. Coram Boy uses so much Imagination that their isn't enough room for you use your own. If, on the other hand you substitute a microphone stand fro a tree or a bowl of water for the ocean, the audience suddenly has some imaginative work to do. And this is the intensely pleasurable work of using the brain and the imagination to construct narratives and associations. Minimalism allows you to participate, less is more. By Maximizing the very important in Minimalism it accentuates what you want to show or shed light on. This was an example of Maximalism at its deadliest, Faux Minimalism.
I love SITI company and Anne Bogart, but the problem I have with their shows and Anne's approach can be summed up by her very own fears. A review of one of her early shows by Critic Ben Brantley was "...visually stunning, but unnecessary." I feel that way sometimes about their shows. I feel that way about The Coram Boy. But I still will go and see anything SITI does, and am participating this summer with them, and am devoting the next three years of my life to Anne. There is something there.
Gertrude Stein said "There is no there, there" when referring to Oakland, California. There is some there, there in SITI Shows. And there is some there, there in The Coram Boy. It is just hidden under many layers of "stuff". If you can see it, I would try and do it. Look for the there. Tell me what you think.
posted by The Necessary Theatre at 7:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home