EMallmysons

Erin Miller Theatre Appreciation All My Sons Critique 11/14/11 All My Thoughts on __All My Sons__ __All My Sons __, directed by Ray Paolino and written by Arthur Miller, is a moving and powerful portrayal of a family torn apart by the events unfolding around them. Most of the actors were very convincing and actors like Brian Reddy, the veteran who played Joe Keller, were magnetic to watch. The performing in most cases was superb; the complexity of the character’s relationship could be seen through the actor’s movement and speech, without them telling the audience of their every emotion. Sometimes in theatre, the actor’s tend to tell, instead of show, how they feel and this was not the case during __All My Sons__. Even though some aspects of the piece were really outstanding, a few things were not entirely astonishing. There were many things about the set, as well as the overall idea the director tried to portray that did not represent a clear message. Things like the way the stage slanted, the place the actors sat when they were not involved in the action, and the tree design all distracted from the beautiful story that was being shown to the audience.

 Tears were falling down my face as the lights came on after the end of the play. I wasn’t sitting with anyone but I still felt weird openly crying in front of so many people, so I tried to walk out of the theatre quickly. The play’s raw emotion of the tragic ending took me by surprise; __All My Sons__ was twisted and emotional. I could see the ending coming for the last part of the play, but still I was not prepared for the way it hit me. War stories always make me cry and the combination of the family drama paired with the implications of war did not end well for me. As I walked home, I thought about what made this play so powerful, sure the story line was intense, but this play needed something more to be effective. The acting became the key to the play’s success. The plot is a strong story so too much acting can make the show seem overly dramatic and unrealistic, but the actors managed to create a perfect balance between theatricalism and realism. Marzena Bukowska, who played Kate Keller, needed to play an irrational, yet believable part. Even though the audience realistically realized that Larry was indeed dead, Marzena managed to keep a little part of the audience believing and hoping he may actually be alive. Other characters as well as the audience saw her as delusional. She could not describe why Larry was alive, but she refused to believe he was dead. She was in denial, stating the reason Larry was alive was because, “certain things have to be and certain things can’t be,”. The audience could see her logic was flawed yet Marzena brought such a true motherly aspect to the role, that I could see how she could convince herself of her own imagined truth. Her emotions felt raw and were not edited which is something that is essential to a convincing play. Another one of my favorite characters was Frank Lubey, played by Cole Earnest. The whimsical character brought life to the play and created a breath of fresh air from the heavy action that was going on all around him. Multiple times throughout the play, he reminded me of Leonardo DiCaprio in Titanic. His acting style was similar and both actors played carefree young men in the middle of a serious situation. As I was looking at the book about the actors after the show, I saw that Cole Earnest had played Romeo in Romeo and Juliet, which was a role that Leonardo DiCaprio had played also, so I guess I was not the only one who made the comparison. Frank Lubey seemed to have been picked up from a different, happy time and dropped into the play because of his quirky personality but that was what made him so special and appealing. The veteran actor, Brian Reddy, also was impressive. Throughout the play, I was able to see him as the victim, as well as the villain. He was versatile and was able to interpret many different sides of the character’s personality. The acting was one of the most memorable parts of the play, yet the actors only made it possible to appreciate the strong plot that was represented.

 The relationships in the play all were intertwined and the ability of the actors to show the audience the complexity, helped to create a world that resembled real life. Everyone was tangled between each other’s worlds and many times these connections stopped them from moving on with their own lives. Chris’s relationship with Ann was already frowned upon because of Ann and Larry’s past, but once the audience realizes that they are also connected through their fathers the audience begins to fully understand the adversity that the couple faces. Both of the actors did a remarkable job of showing their relationship as a forbidden affair, one that only a few people were aware of. They seemed to share a special bond, a bond that almost made it impossible to agree with anyone who did not want these two to be together. The audience wanted to see these two people happy and even though the cards were stacked against them, I found myself rooting for their relationship. As well as the interesting connections, the metaphor between Larry and the tree was very interesting. The conflict in the beginning of the play centered around the tree. Everyone tried to shield Kate away from seeing the broken tree because it represented Larry, her missing son. The fallen tree signified the eradication of last bit of hope for Larry’s safe return. The fact that the tree represented a person added another dimension to the play and I thought that this metaphor was really fascinating.

 Although I thought that everything the tree stood for was convincing, I did not like the way the tree was depicted in the play. The tree that much of the conflict centered around was made of a light colored metal. This contrasted sharply with the all wooden set that had been created on the stage. The material difference was obviously used because the director had a vision, but I could not quite figure the vision out. I knew that the different materials meant something but I had no idea what and the stark contrast held my attention for some time. I found the set distracting and instead of adding to the piece, I felt like it took away from the story. The slightly slanted stage made me nauseous, and I had to strain for some time to finally get used to the way it looked. The way the actors sat in the back of the stage was also distracting. I spent most of the first part of the play trying to figure out the significance of the way they entered and exited the “back stage seating” but eventually gave up as I could not figure it out. The way the stage was set up proved to be more confusing than anything else and I wish that the play could have relied more on the excellent acting and writing to hold the audiences interests. This strange stage designs was not one of my favorites. The play was too much a traditional play to have such an unusual stage design. Neither the tree nor the stage set up matched the tone of the play, and I feel this was the play’s main downfall.

 Although __All My Sons__ was strong in many aspects, the play’s imaginative set design distracted from the play’s main strengths, the plot and acting. I was confused by the director’s vision but the story line was so robust that I would still recommend this production to anyone looking to go see it. I really felt emotionally invested in the play and connecting to the audience is not something that is always easy to do. The actors did a great job of creating a plausible piece and I thoroughly enjoyed this dramatic tragedy. This play’s plot reminded me a Shakespearean drama because of all of the family connections, as well as the tragic ending and yet __All My Sons__ still held its own. This impressive comparison speaks volumes for the quality of the performance.