Luke+Lujan+Clybourne+Park


 * Your review has some awkward moments. We can talk about this. It's in the writing but it also starts with the observations you've made. You might take your work to the writing center for review before turning it in. That might help. I suspect this isn't your best work. Let's talk. I haven't graded it yet. I will after we talk. FR **

Luke Lujan 10/7/14

Critique of Clybourne Park
 In the play Clybourne Park, by Bruce Norris, performed by the University of Georgia Department of Theatre and Film Studies the idea of racism is portrayed through two time periods that although 50 years apart are seemingly very similar. Seven main characters and the roles that they play in a white middle class suburban neighborhood display many political and social issues.

 The set in the first Act brings a late 1950’s feel, with its classic american style furniture and decor. The walls of the house and the wood are all neutral shades of tan and brown. The house is in the process of being packed for a big move and has many large brown boxes around the set creating a sense of emptiness where seemingly a warm home once stood. The lighting plays a role in the set by almost displaying a frame, that we can looking through into the home of a resident on Clybourne Park. The old style radio that plays the opening music is in the center of the stage and acts as almost a time machine setting the time period and the mood of the play itself. For example slow old show tunes play as the lights come up and Russ is displayed sitting alone in a chair. The actor portraying Russ does a good job displaying his anger over the loss of his son. The actor porting Russ used his ton of voice to portray this hurt and anger and while putting a strong connotation into the lines of the play. For example many times in the play Russ raises his voice when upset that at other times would be dull and monotone. His wife Bev and Jim become worried about how Russ is handing the loss of his son. The actress who plays Bev does a great job of creating a caring but almost naive character with her accent and the way she delivers the lines. This is displayed throughout the play especially in the opening scene when she is trying to find out where the name “neapolitan” ice-cream comes from. Her costume ties in well with the time period and her role as a worried housewife. The actor playing Jim portrays a happy go lucky minister. This is displayed through the way that he moves around the house and the tone of his voice, adding in many jokes in the attempt to open Russ up to further discussion. The body movements created by the actor portraying Jim show how over the top the character is and really help to sell the character to the audience. For example every time Bev brings up the task of moving the trunk down the stairs Jim says “I would help but oh no doctor’s orders,” while holding his back. After being assaulting by Russ, Jim displays great pain in his back by using sharp noises and movements, winching and moving around the stage gingerly. Other than the small cross pin that Jim wears on his suite, it is difficult to tell that he is a minister until it is said by Karl after Russ assaults Jim. The character of Karl is first introduced as a nosy obnoxious character after he calls the house. Russ says, “with Karl if its not one thing then its another”. The actor who portrays Karl displays this very well by being over the top intruding and not showing a lot of concern or filter towards Russ or Francine; the colored housemaid that works for Russ and Bev. Karl and Jim ultimately only add to the commotion of a house that is being packed up for departure. This leads to Russ being angered and throwing everyone out of his house. In this scene the actor displays Russ’s disappointment in society and the way his son was treated after returning from Korea. The actor who plays Russ shows this discontent by beginning to read from the suicide note that his son left behind. He then becomes very preoccupied with the importance of burying the trunk in which holds the letter. Not till after the end did I see how large a role play that the director wanted this portion of the play to have on the overall impact of the performance. At the end of Act II the lights are dim and two spotlights are shown, to the left once again the radio takes us back to the late 1950’s. The son in full uniform comes down from the stairs and sits by the window seal. To the right, is the early 2000’s construction worker who sits down on the trunk in which he just pulled from the ground underneath the tree in the backyard. To the left the son begins to write his suicide note as to the right the construction worker begins to read it. The play then ends. I felt as if this was an extremely strong way to end the play and the production team worked hard to envision and create such a strong scene in order to bring the two time period together.

 During the intermission is when you see how dynamic the stage and scenery are. The stage team works quickly to transform the house into a run down establishment, complete with a disarray of chairs. They remove a door and using it as a table, atop two wooden benches. In the background the couch has been made dirty and cushions with holes in them are added to the scene. A random sink was place in stage left. In a short period of time the 1950’s home that contains the shell of a household that is in the process of being moved, is transformed into a work in profess fixer-up in the early 2000’s. I think the director used this sort of disarray from the stage and scenery to almost set a tone for the type of disarray that was going to take place in Act II. The lighting still creates that frame like prospective; remanning fairly the same. The neutral brown colors have been roughened up a bit by removing much of the wall panels to show a work in progress. The play displayed realism by using a real restaurant (Panera) in the scenery. The play showed an element of naturalism when the actors actually ate the food that was on stage (bagels and creme cheese). This decision was very interesting to me, making the play even more realistic. Out of all the characters that carried over from Act I, I found two most intriguing. First was the construction worker, after playing such a large role as Russ in act one the construction worker, although important to the plot, was not a main character. His costume was very well put together including real mud on his boots and pants. He also used the same gloves that Russ used in Act I to barry the trunk, to dig it up. The other character that interested me most was Lena. After playing a respectful and somewhat quiet Francine in Act I, Lena was an out spoken, proud and feisty character. Even her afro style hair seemed to play on the style of almost radical intentions. Both Lena and Francine were very prideful characters. Francine showing it in a more sublet way. For example in the way she handled her husband at the house and in the refusal of the chafing dish. Lena is more radical in standing up for what she believes in with strong words and actions. The second Act II brought forth many of the same idea of discrimination (mostly racial) as did the first but in much more modern and crude way. This made the idea that racial discrimination is alive today, much more prominent. The language in the second act also brought into racial discrimination from both the African American and Caucasian sides. The language also made the discrimination more prominent through discrimination of the sexes (male and female) and gays. Although differing greatly, Act I and Act II effectively brought forth the same main ideas.

 Act I set in the late 1950’s deals with the belief that an African American family should not live in a white neighborhood. This was followed with many uneducated reasonings. The people become so preoccupied with these believes that they missed actual pressing issues. In this case Karl missed a man’s grief over the loss of his son. The community missed the opportunity to assist a veterans rather than bring him down. These missed cues ultimately led to the son taking his own life. Act II set in the early 2000’s was much more crude brought up the color barrier, difference in ideals and culture. These people get so wrapped in their man made issues, that they do not accomplish anything at the meeting of the home owners association. Throughout each play, references are made to the other Act. In Act I it is said by a white man (Karl) that black children do not ski. In Act II this is turned around when the black man brings up that the white man does not ski. These subtle references between the two periods made for an interesting foreshadowing of the connection between the two. This lead to the large reveal of the trunk in the backyard by the tree.

 I greatly enjoyed Clybourne Park as put on by the University of Georgia Department of Theatre and Film Studies. Each major occurrence in an Act had connections to other parts of the play. The ending drew the two very different time periods together and had a lasting impact on me. I felt as if it was a very strong finish to a play that had a lot to say about strong political and social issues. Although I may not have seen all the issues at play, the production team got me to buy into both Acts and some of the main ideas that were brought to life on stage. I would greatly recommend this play to other theater goers.