Critique+of+Clybourne+Park

Soundarya Kanthimathinathan Dr. Richmond Theatre Appreciation 7 October 2014 //Clybourne Park// Review //Clybourne Park// is a play portrayed with the concept of realism where items hold significant meaning and the visual and verbal details are as true to life as possible. It is a play written in 2010 centered on the concept of racism. In the first act, a set of characters: Karl, Betsy, Bev, Russ, Jim, and two African-American workers are interacting in 1959. In the next act, the same set of actors play different characters with parallel lives yet the time is fifty years later (2009). In this play, there are multiple conflicts, both specific to each act and present in both acts (as I will describe in detail in this review) which narrate this story and make it unique.

**(The following two paragraphs are mostly a description of plot and character. From time to time you have taken for granted that the actors have treated the material correctly, but you don't indicate how successful they were or not at this effort. Indeed, it's not until the last paragraph that you deal with the interpretation of the show. Actually the interpretation should be the heart of your critique. Look over the suggestions about writing a Performance Critique I have linked you to on the left of this screen. Note that you are NOT to repeat the plot unnecessarily. You are to comment on how the actors interpreted their characters, the set, costumes, props, music, etc. that further that aim. So when you are writing about Hedda Gabler and submit your next critique you will focus on these issues. OK? Thanks. FR)** The story begins in Bev and Russ’s home. Bev and Russ are married, although they are not married happily. Bev is an ever-optimistic and cheerful character while Russ shows grouchy hermit-like behavior. In the opening scene, they are discussing country capitals (while their worker woman Francine, an African-American, asks about what to do with a candle) when Jim, a ditzy and energetic community member (most likely intended as a comic relief) pops in. He tries to contribute to the conversation, and he eventually touches on the topic of Russ’s son. Up until that point, Russ’s anger was slowly building since he wanted to be alone but instead was bombarded with questions. However, with this question the exposition leads into the rising action of the play. Russ is thoroughly offended by this question, and it is later revealed that this is why he is so upset. Next in the storyline, Francine’s husband comes in to offer help with their moving, and while Russ refuses at first he later gives in. I believe the next part in the plot is the intrusion where Karl and Betsy come in to inform Russ and Bev that a “colored family” is expected to move into their home, quite a dramatic moment in the play. While thus far, the conflict was about Russ’s anger over the loss of his son, the story shifts into its “bigger picture” conflict which is racism. Thus, I think the dramatic question which must be answered is: Is racism defined by its time or rather is there just simply a standard of decency which people should follow regardless? It is interesting to observe how Bev, despite being surrounded by people who believe “colored people” are lesser than white folks, she takes a humanistic approach, and she is accepting of different races. However, everybody else is startled when Karl mentions that a colored family will take up their house upon their moving. The next theatrical moment comes when Jim and Karl ask Francine how she would feel about living in the community. Here, yet another conflict ensues which is individual versus community (is Russ doing an injustice when he sells his home to “colored people” since this might offend the entire community?). Soon afterwards, a fight erupts in Russ’s home, and the first act finishes on the inconclusive multiple perspectives on the African-American family moving in. The next act involves a Caucasian family attempting to buy a house (the same house from 1959) from an African-American family. There is a busy real estate agent (previously Jim in Act 1), a construction worker who comes in from time to time (Russ in the previous act), and a cautious lawyer (Bev prior to this act) who are also in the scene. In many details, this act parallels the previous act. For example, the actress who played Betsy in the previous act is also pregnant in this act. In this part of the play, the families at first review the legal ownership of property rules, and Steve (the white family’s man) tries to understand the small details of the rules. The conversation between everybody is much more casual, and the legal documents seem to symbolize a sort of “justice defined” that was not present in the prior act. Then, Lena (the African-American lady) attempts to make a speech when the construction worker (who is acting as comic relief in this scene) continually interrupts them with questions (such as what to do with a tree he found or a new chest he later finds). At last, when Lena is able to make the speech, she describes how her home had a rich cultural background, so she believes it should be treated with utmost respect. Lindsey (the Caucasian lady), responds very empathetically, but Steve tries to make a “racist joke” (this could also show how women are more careful when it comes to racial issues than men, at least in front of other races). This engenders a “battle of the races” through exchanges of “racist jokes.” Lindsey is also upset that somebody died in the house, and she consequently does not want to buy it; however, in the end everybody apologizes, and the real estate agent’s time constraint causes everybody to leave. In the very end, the construction worker opens up the chest he brought in, and he reads the letter the soldier (Russ’s son) writes before committing suicide. This is another very dramatic moment. In the background, the son is writing the letter while Bev comes to check up on him. I feel that this represents how battles against nations (which is the larger form of racism) is lethal, and while different people are hurt from it both emotionally in everyday circumstances and through extreme cases like this soldier’s death. In UGA’s rendition of the play, there was certainly a huge attention to detail and great execution of the play itself which (in my opinion) caused “Clybourne Park” to be such a huge success. **(How does one measure success?)** For instance, in the first act of the play, there were curtains in the background. The chairs were wooden and roughed up. The attire was indicative of the time in that Betsy and Bev wore dresses and Jim and Karl wore suits of different sorts. In contrast, for the second act, the scene crew had to exchange the curtains in for blinds, the lawyer and the real estate agent wore formal clothing while the two families wore jeans and shirts. These details helped maintain a reality to the play; it made it believable that the two acts were really occurring in their time periods. Throughout the play, the director chose to maintain an intimate setting in this proscenium stage (as the scene created an enclosed area to view and the audience are lined up behind this area) where the action occurred only in one main area. This caused the play to be focused most on the concept and less about aesthetics, the latter which only served to enhance the reality of the time periods. The lighting in this play was mostly consistent in that the area was well-lit; however, in the last scene the lighting was manipulated and stylized more so that the lighting focused only on the soldier and Bev while the construction worker was barely visible while he was reading the letter. This was a choice which could have been made both to show the difference in time (as if showing a flashback) and the dramatic nature of the letter itself (as it was leading up to a suicide).**(What you have to say in the paragraph above is fine and appropriate but you need more of it to flesh out a critique of the production. ie. more specifics.)** All in all, I truly enjoyed the play because of its lively actors and interesting portrayal of the issue of racism. I felt that the production, directing, acting, the costume and set design were all brilliant. What appealed to me most about this play is the way that the first and second acts paralleled one another and the way racism was shown in fit with the time. In the first act, it is much more common that people would be outright about racial differences while in modern day, racial issues are underlying factors in society. I would definitely recommend watching this play to anybody interested in political issues or simply just a lively, dramatic story.