RGClybourne

__Play Critique: Clybourne Park __ Clybourne Park is an interesting and clever play. Though at times I felt that the story line and the dialogue dragged on longer than needed, mostly I understood and appreciated the reality of the conversation and social etiquette portrayed. Overall, I think it was a simple play with a complex message that caused the audience to think more thoughtfully about certain social niceties and stereotypes that we usually take for granted. In my opinion, the most notable part of the play was the realism of the language and dialogue. The first act took place in the late 50’s and the dialogue reflected the time period. This could be seen in a variety of instances including: the way the husbands spoke to their wives in bit more of a commanding manner, the way Bev spoke to Francine, how Russ and Karl spoke to Francine and Albert in a sort of demeaning way, and how Bev and Betsy spoke to each other. The difference in the language between act one and act two differentiated in that the couples interacted with each other differently, a reflection on the progression of time. However, the topic of conversation remained similar in each act. In both act one and act two there was discussion about the heat outside, geography, disputing geographic knowledge, and argument over names and their origins – perhaps a commentary on the fact that no matter how much time passes our conversations have remained trivial and seemingly empty. The progression of the conversation in both acts was similar as well, in each the conversation began as unimportant and escalated to eventually covering more politically incorrect and “inappropriate” topics such as race and societal deviance. I think the pattern of the dialogue, though seemingly unintentional, was quite the opposite and deftly shed light on a truth about how society has trained us to approach certain topics. **(Good observation and an important matter to be considered when reviewing any production.)** In both acts the dialogue eventually escalated to a conversation that directly addressed the issue of race, and in both cases was prompted by the Albert/Steve character. His character seemed to remain the source of conflict throughout the play, while his wife also seemed to remain a source of peace or appeasement. Though she was deaf in the first act – I think this may been have more of a commentary on the silence of women in the 1950’s versus the voice women have today. **( Interesting possibility)** In addition, these two character largely remained similar from act one to act two, and the couple of Francine/Lena and Albert/Kevin also remained similar, however I was a little distracted by the character changes from act one to act two. I found myself concentrating more on finding the connection between who that actor had been in the first act and how that connected to who they were playing in the second act, than on the play as a whole. For instance Jim in the first act was very much a source of comic relief while in the second act Tom was less so. In addition, in the first act Russ was the center of attention whereas he was much less significant as Dan in the second, this was slightly confusing and I have yet to see a connection in this character changes.**(Good point)** The set of the play was very minimal. In act one it was simply a 50’s style living room, there were small details such as books and little decorations to make it feel real, but I felt as if the set played a marginal role in the play. **(OR it might have been better used to further the meaning of the play but you are potentially correct in your evaluation.)** The focus fell really only on the dialogue and the characters. The most important thing about the set was that it was the inside of the house which was the main topic of discussion throughout the play. In addition, there was lighting outside the windows of the house to show the change in the time of day and this allowed for the inside of the house to look as it would as the day changed. The set in the second act was only a little different from that of the first, as it showed the house as it would look 50 years later and under construction. Again there were some realistic details such as the bagels being available to eat during the meeting, but again I felt that nothing else really mattered except for the dialogue. I was most impressed with the characters Russ and Lena. Russ remained quiet and depressing for most of the first act until he finally exploded from anger and frustration at the end. His performance as an older man who was both physically and emotionally suffering was very convincing, and I was moved by the passion and loyalty he ended up displaying at the end of act one for his son, as well as his discontent for the community his family had lived in for so long. He was the only character who eventually had the courage to say exactly what he was thinking and how he felt – something none of the other characters were able to do. Likewise, Lena played a similar role in act two. She was the only character really concerned with getting something out of the conversation they had met at the house to have, and was the only character able to say exactly how she felt about the situation. Seeing this actor go from playing the quiet and un-intruding Francine in act one, to the strong and outspoken Lena in act two was quite a transformation. Her portrayal of a strong African-American woman concerned about preserving her heritage and her roots was very realistic, and was done in such a way that I left the play absolutely rooting for her and her husband over the white couple.**(Good observation)** Overall I felt that the progression of the play and the story portrayed was relatively clear. The dialogue did move slowly at times, causing me to wonder where exactly the play was going, but in both acts the climax clarified any confusion I may have had prior. However, I was left uncertain what role the son and his suicide played in the more obvious take away from the play being a message about stereotypes and race. At the end of the play when the trunk is found and we see the son writing his suicide letter, I was a little confused. This seemed be an unnatural ending for the play and felt a little random. Otherwise, I thought the play was smart from the standpoint that it made evident how silly our interactions and conversations can often be as we attempt to go without saying things that may end up needing to be said. Many people, including myself, do not even realize when they are stereotyping or falling back on the opinions of society. Clybourne Park portrayed real life conversations and interactions from two different time periods. This juxtaposition made evident how little progress we have made as a society when it comes to addressing “politically incorrect” issues such as race. This play took relatively insignificant aspect of everyday life, conversation, and revealed just how significant it can actually be.
 * Your review is well considered. I wish you had spent more time on sorting thru the acting choices. You might have said more about the elements of realism that were attempted and the symbolic nature of the costumes and use of the props. But on the whole you were heading in the right direction. **