| Moonlight and Magnolias | | Print | |
| Written by Jeremiah Albers | |||
| Wednesday, 21 November 2007 | |||
Just a couple of weeks ago, The Jazz Singer was released on DVD. I was very excited however, I noticed something strange about the DVD packaging: the iconic image of Al Jolson performing "Mammy" is shown, but in silhouette. This isn't so hard to believe, considering that Al Jolson was best known as a blackface minstrel performer. It's a misfortune peculiar to American culture that so many of our important cultural milestones grow more distasteful with age because they are mired in Jim Crow-era racial politics. It's sad, I know. Even an enduring classic like Gone With the Wind is controversial today for its racist caricaturing and pro-Confederacy political slant. This is, for better or worse, largely the substance of Ron Hutchinson's play Moonlight and Magnolias which opened Friday night at Generic Theatre.
Not that Hutchinson's script is necessarily bad. The dialogue is well written, and the script may be funny. It's difficult to tell from Generic's production of Moonlight and Magnolias because director Carol Wright does not seem to have a handle on how the evening should be paced, and many times the actors play quiet and somber in scenes that want to be yelled excitedly in rapid machine gun-like fashion. The show would be much funnier if it just moved faster. As it stands now,
There are some solid performances in the play. Fran Peterson is wonderful as Hecht. He performs the role with just the right combination of nebbish and revolutionary, and manages to get through Hutchinson's sermons without ever pushing them too far over the line. He is thoroughly believable without ever becoming caricaturish, and sermonizes without ever becoming cloying. Casey Malone delivers a solid performance as Victor Fleming, although he seems too young to play the part. The fact he is costumed in an oversized suit doesn't help his cause. His performance is just fine. However, he seems restlessly stifled by the direction and slow-motion pacing.
Mark Haynie is saddled with the thankless task of doing his best despite the fact he is terribly miscast in the role of David O. Selznick. He tries admirably, with tremendous conviction. However, Haynie does not have the right look, and is a few years too old to play the role of Selznick, who was a powerful and wealthy movie mogul by the time he was thirty. He was thirty-six when he produced Gone With the Wind. I do not know how old Mr. Haynie actually is, but I daresay he looks a trifle older than thirty-six. Haynie's rendering of Selznick is doubtless one of the strangest of all time. Selznick was a notorious bulldog, a powerful business man who got what he wanted when and how he wanted it. The real-life Selznick's feuds with director Alfred Hitchcock are the stuff of Hollywood legend, and do not jive with the latently homosexual milquetoast currently embodied by Mr. Haynie in Moonlight and Magnolias. Haynie is funny in several moments, but by and large, just can't overcome the fact that he's simply the wrong person for the part. But then, there is a carelessness and lack of thought and research that is ostensible throughout. Repeatedly, characters refer to MGM studio head Louis B. Mayer as Louis (with the "s" pronounced, as in the city of St. Louis), as opposed to the way it was actually pronounced (Louis, like the kings of France and Louisville). This is sloppy, as is another moment when Selznick points to a diploma that apparently confers on him the title of producer. Mr. Selznick (like many of the early Hollywood impresarios) did not attend college, but learned his trade operating cameras on silent films. These kind of
Hank Sparks's set and lighting design are very effective. He has paid attention to period detail, and he makes interesting use of some rear-projection technology. The costumes by Celia Burnett are period accurate, but do not fit. Mr. Malone's suit is too large; Mr. Haynie's too small. The ideas are great, but the execution is not, and it's a shame, because the costumes could have, and should have been a high point of the production. I know it seems that I am harping on all of the things that are wrong with this production, and there are many things wrong with it. But even with these problems Moonlight and Magnolias is still an enjoyable evening. It's worth seeing. You see, the problem with Generic's production is not that it is a terrible evening at the theatre. It's just not as funny, entertaining, or thoughtful an evening as it could or should be. |
|||
|
While it is of little consequence that most reviewers about town could only play starving ethiopians if viewed merely by their stature, it is ludicrous to think that only the actors who physically 'fit' a part can play one - and that a part cannot be open to interpretation, but must be played in accordance with a set of hard and fast 'rules' - in which case there should have been cigarette smoke and pill bottles littering the stage as well - The 'diplomas' the reviewer thinks worthy of comment - upon close inspection appear to be certificates of award/appreciation from film academy and the like - - the costumer says it best, working with what was available and the actors who were willing to audition and be cast, the play has managed to fill the Generic to the rafters for over 3 weeks, which is a testament to those very few folks who toiled over 8 weeks to put it all together - Many Thanks to Mal, who 'gets it' and Kudos to the many supporters of Mark Haynie, who has single-handedly done more for live theater in this town than any reviewer could ever fit in one article! Eternal shame is on anyone who loves theater and has the nerve to belittle him! I enjoyed this production, though I did have many of the same reservations that the review did, such as the pedantic diatribes, pronunciaton of Mayer's first name and ill-fitting costumes. The pacing often slowed to a snail's pace, and emotions, especially of Selznick, were stifled. But I never once thought that Mr. Haynie was portraying Selznick as 'latently homosexual milquetoast' simply because he was not as forceful as he might have been. Besides, what does being milquetoast have anything to do with being a homosexual, except only in the most extreme of stereotypes? Mr. Albers must not know a lot of gay people. One line from the review that really struck me as unnecessarily hyperbolic is 'Haynie's rendering of Selznick is doubtless one of the strangest of all time.' Really? More so than Marlon Brando, Mickey Rooney and John Wayne playing Asian characters? Does it rank along side Edward G. Robinson in 'The Ten Commandments' or Harvey Keitel wearing a Bozo the Clown wig playing Judas with a Brooklyn accent in 'The Last Temptation of Christ'? Is it on par with Tony Curtis in 'The Prince Who Was a Thief' muttering the classic line, 'Yonda lies da castle of my fodda.'? I think not. Mr. Haynie might not bear a physical resemblance to Selznick, and may have been directed to rant less, but since the events of the play are all speculation anyway, what real difference does it make? As the costumer for the Generic's 'Moonlight and Magnolias' I would just like to let Mr. Albers know that I agree with him completely; Mr. Haynie's suit is too small, Mr. Malone's is too big. And the Generic is perilously low on funds and I have to work with what I've got. I'm not sure if a reviewer should take into account a theatre's financial situation or not. On the one hand, as an audience member, need you consider the resources available to the artisits at all? Does that interfere with or sully the experiance? On the other hand, surely we all realize that nothing exists in a vacuum and all experiences are effected and caused by other experiences. I think my goal in writing is to let Mr. Albers know that is wasn't as if I didn't notice what he pointed out. But, unfortunately, I had to accept less than my ideal in order to meet the practical demands involved. Whether I am easily offended or not isn't the issue, is it? There is a precise distinction between DIRECT and INDIRECT characterization (I am a former English teacher and well versed in characterization, thanks....)- the reviewer distinguishes neither type. He uses the word 'embody' (The real-life Selznick's feuds with director Alfred Hitchcock are the stuff of Hollywood legend, and do not jive with the latently homosexual milquetoast currently embodied by Mr. Haynie in Moonlight and Magnolias.) and does not address characterization at all. If a reviewer is going to throw out such comments, he needs to be extremely careful in how it is phrased. I asked the question - is he implying the performance was calculatedly this way, and so inappropriate? I don't argue with someone's opinion on a characterization. And I don't assume that is what they mean when they start throwing around loaded phrases. Not to mention that I saw the performance and disagree with his interpretation completely. But I am not a reviewer. Reviewers have their place and it is up to me to read it and agree or not. I don't mind if anyone thinks I'm easily offended - the fact is I was, and I gave a DIRECT reason why. My goodness, you're quick to offend. I am extremely pro-gay rights, but I was certainly not offended by Mr. Alber's comment. In my opinion, it was *definitely* a critique of the acting. If the character is not supposed to be gay, then he shouldn't *seem* gay, which apparently he did. If the actor is gay or not, he at least needs to be able to act straight in a straight role. Honestly, noone in theatre these days really gives a crap if an actor is gay or not. The character however, needs to have an appropriate sexuality. The reviewer's comment wasn't a personal attack, it was professional. And it was just as valid as any comment about pacing and direction because this comment was about something called 'characterization'. Sir, I have read many reviews, on this site and others, where I felt the reviewer made unwarranted PERSONAL attacks on the hard-toiling performers, but have never felt compelled to comment. Until now. I usually ignore reviewers, because as a former performer, frequent audience member, and sometimes volunteer, I know that reviews can be tilted to benefit either the reviewer or house. I take extreme exception to an extreme passive aggressive comment you slid into your review - your 'latent homosexual milquetoast' comment directed toward Mr. Haynie. Who exactly do you think you are? Are you implying that this effect was intentional, and part of his performance, and so inappropriate, or are you making an obvious stab? Say what you want about the pacing, the direction, or the other VALID components of a production. But please, don't write another review if you believe you have a right to make slanted personal attacks on performers. You don't critique, you offend. Have to agree with the reviewer on this take of the play (a rarity, to anyone who really knows me!). Just a gosh-awful production. Really, this is supposed to be the Generic Theatre, known for sharper work as a rule. The play itself was fine and could be hilarious if it was directed in any matter. O well, sorry if I offend. |






Just a couple of weeks ago, The Jazz Singer was released on DVD. I was very excited however, I noticed something strange about the DVD packaging: the iconic image of Al Jolson performing "Mammy" is shown, but in silhouette. This isn't so hard to believe, considering that Al Jolson was best known as a blackface minstrel performer. It's a misfortune peculiar to American culture that so many of our important cultural milestones grow more distasteful with age because they are mired in Jim Crow-era racial politics. It's sad, I know. Even an enduring classic like Gone With the Wind is controversial today for its racist caricaturing and pro-Confederacy political slant. This is, for better or worse, largely the substance of Ron Hutchinson's play Moonlight and Magnolias which opened Friday night at
many scenes play like reruns of Three's Company that have been extensively rewritten by Anton Chekhov. 
Kathy Hinson is a welcome breath of fresh air every time she enters as Miss Poppenghul, Selznick's harried secretary. She brings an energy to the play that is severely lacking. Her performance is charming (even if it is a trifle caricaturish). If only the whole show had the same breezy efficacy as those brief moments where Ms. Hinson is featured, it could be wonderful as opposed to just okay.