Clybourne+Park


 * Christian: For the most part I thought your critique was focused and appropriate. You could have done without the two paragraphs on the plot and story, however. Also please note my reaction to a few points you make and some word usage. Thanks. FR**

Christian Baumgarth Performance Critique- "Clybourne Park"

The University of Georgia theater department's production of "Clybourne Park" offers an in depth look as to how racism has evolved from the civil rights era to the present day. The play tells the story of the events that took place in the same Chicago house 50 years apart. In the year 1959, civil rights acts had yet to be put into place and feelings of racism still ran deep in some communities. Many whites did not want to live in the same areas as blacks and people were still adjusting to integration. Modern day racism is completely different. It is centered on the theory that one needs to be "politically correct" at all times and focuses more on the things that someone might say that could be considered offensive. This play is extremely well written for one that deals with such a controversial topic.

The theme that this play attempts to shed light on is depicted well in the plot. Act I focused on Bev and Russ, a white married couple, who were selling their house in a middle-class neighborhood. They were informed by a community member, Karl, that the family who purchased their house was black. Karl is convinced that this shift in racial diversity of the community will cause the value of homes in that area to diminish and tried to convince Bev and Russ to change their minds. The family's black housekeeper, Francine, and her husband, Albert, were called upon for advice on this situation which led to a debate over racism in the community. Eventually, Russ kicked everyone out and he and Bev sold the house.
 * The following two paragraphs focus on the plot and story. Note that on the Performance Critique page I asked that you NOT focus on this matter, if only because it is more about the play and less on how the play was interpreted by the actors, directors, designers, etc. When you write about Hedda Gabler, please focus on the performance and interpretation. OK? Thanks. FR**

In Act II, the same house was under construction as Steve and Lindsey, a white couple new to the neighborhood, were looking to rebuild the property. A committee of community members met to discuss the project. Two members of the committee in particular were Lena and Kevin, a black couple from down the street. Lena is a relative of the family that bought the house from Bev and Russ in Act I. She did not want the house to be torn down because of the importance it had to her family and tried to convince the group to see her side of this debate. The discussion of the cultural importance of the house developed into another heated racial debate centered around what is "appropriate" for people to say about other races in today's society. Kevin and Lena ended up leaving angrily and the rest left, too, as it was getting late and they had accomplished nothing in the meeting. The script does a good job of distinguishing between two eras of the same issue.

The actors did an excellent job bringing the characters to life. Almost every character in the play was either angry or emotional at some point, especially during the heated debate scenes. All of the actors did an exquisite **(ww?)** job portraying that emotion in their acting, especially the actors playing Russ, Bev, Lindsey, and Lena who each had moments of intense emotion. They worked well with each other as an ensemble, particularly during the scenes where people were talking over each other. This also aided in the realistic effect of the play in that the conversation did not sound scripted. However, not every character was meant to be serious. The actors playing Jim and Dan had to be quirky and their lines helped to ease the mood and add humor to the most tense scenes in the play. One actress was also challenged with playing a deaf woman and, more than likely, she studied the amount of clarity she should use in her speech to sound authentic. The actors clearly understood the backgrounds of their characters and developed voices for each to indicate their moods in a particular scene.

Acting alone was not enough to portray these characters. The costumes needed to be relevant as well. The costume department did a favorable **(ww?)** job choosing clothes that would fit the time period. The women in Act I wore large dresses, the men wore collared shirts, and the housekeeper and her husband wore less fancy attire. In Act II, the government workers wore suits and business attire while the homeowners were in modern clothes including t-shirts, blouses, and shorts. Also, the outfits for the construction worker and Bev's son in the army looked very authentic. I realized during Act I that the more serious characters wore darker colors, such as Russ and Karl in their dark button down and business suit respectively, and the more quirky characters wore brighter colors, such as Betsy who was in a polka dot dress. In Act II, I noticed that the black family was dressed slightly better than the white family was. This could be to juxtapose the ratty attire from the black couple in Act I. Whatever the motive was behind the small choices in the costumes, every actor was dressed appropriately for his or her character. **(good)**

All of the action in this play took place in a precisely designed set. The set of the play was designed to be as realistic as possible. In Act I, the wood-constructed set looked like an actual living room from the 1950s with a dining room table, couches, shelves, books, and more. It was easy to establish the fact that the family was moving due to the multitude of empty boxes around the set and the areas of the room that looked to have been cleared out already. The exits from the living room to the kitchen, basement, and stairs to the second floor were used well by the actors in conveying actions happening out of view of the audience. In Act II, all of the furniture, shelves, and tables were taken out and the room became very bare. This, accompanied with the door and stands being used as a meeting table, made it very easy to determine that this site was under construction. The set however, was not designed to have every part of it in view of the entire audience. From my seat, I could not see the actors when they stood in the doorway which was an issue. However, all in all, the set fit this play well. **(You know you might have concluded that regarding the issue of racism, "the train was starting to leave the station" where civil rights for blacks was concerned and where racism is concerned today, like the house it is still in a state of transformation.)**

A good set and good actors cannot tell a full story without proper lighting. The lighting was fairly consistent for most of the play and was used effectively. For the majority of the play, the entire set was lit with natural color to give the audience the feeling of looking into someone's living room. There was also light coming in from the window and door to imitate **(simulate?)** sunlight. The last scene of the play, however, featured dimmed, dark, purple sections of light on the construction worker reading the letter center stage and on Bev and her son by the stairs. This lighting gave the set an eerie atmosphere and helped to establish that this was a flashback and that the actions on stage were occurring independently of each other. The lighting in this play was all fitting and helped to aid the actors in telling the story.

There were no microphones used in this play due to the theater's small size. However, this did not mean that sound was not important. The only additional sounds added during the play were a phone vibrating sound effect in Act II and music. The play featured a few instances where a character was listening to the radio. The music matched each time period and faded perfectly with the actor turning the knob down on stage. The best use of music, however, was before the play began and between acts. The music before the play began was from the mid-20th century and matched the setting of Act I while the music between acts shifted to a more modern sound to match the setting of Act II. This was pretty ingenious in my opinion and is something similar to what I did as a sound operator for a production a few years ago.

All of these elements of the play were put together by a great director. The director of this play made a lot of choices that, in turn, impacted the audience's experience. It all started with the choice of casting. Race was an important consideration for this play and the director saw this and cast the roles accordingly. He or she also cast people who could portray the intense emotions of the characters well. The director also had to make sure that the actors worked slowly enough so that the audience would understand the play but quickly enough to keep up the play's high level of energy. The director also blocked the characters and set well **(sets don't get blocked. they are designed to aid in the blocking)**. Nothing during the play ever looked out of place. The director did a great job turning this script into a beautiful theatrical experience.

Clybourne Park is an interesting play that deals with a very controversial topic. It requires actors who can play multiple characters in different time periods and that can work well with each other. It needs costumes that reflect the characters and the time period and a set that brings the house in the play to life. It needs a technical team that can bring in the proper lighting and sound to aid in the audience's experience. The University of Georgia's version of this play had all of these elements working together beautifully. For an amateur play, this piece was extremely well done and I cannot wait to see the play they do next.