Glengarry Glen Ross – Seriousboys
Glengarry Glen Ross won a Pulitzer, a Tony (for actor Joe Mantegna), and the ultimate prize in our Hollywood-driven culture: a film.
The play is sort of an economic parable with a twist, a comedy that is, at its core, deeply tragic. It’s a story that should feel as fresh in 2013 as it did in 1984. Unfortunately, Marcus Graham’s production, currently playing out the Theatre 19 season at the Darlinghurst Theatre, doesn’t feel much of anything.
Barely over sixty minutes in length, the play is rushed and it feels rushed; more specifically, it feels like the actors are racing through words to show they’ve memorised them nimbly and in full. On opening night, an actor finished his monologue, raced up the stairs of the theatre to make his exit, and as he passed, let out a long, low exhalation. Of relief? Regret? Whatever it was, it seemed to say “thank god that experience is over.”
That feeling was all through the play. Actors listened and waited for their colleagues to finish; the acting on stage was extremely limited. There was a lot of shouting, and shouting isn’t acting: it’s just loud. No matter how aggressive Mamet’s original script is (and it is aggressive, these Chicago realtors make a living in the sphere of aggression), it has always been shaded with an inexorable, deeply downtrodden sense of defeat. There is no light or shade in this production. There is just yelling, rote recitation, and no discernible sense of inflection, emphasis, or character evolution.
The uncomfortable result is that it feels like this play was chosen solely to demonstrate that the company could master ‘Mamet Speak’, the nomenclature for David Mamet’s distinctive dialogue that is peppered with interjection, overlapping speech, and careless turns of phrase that sound realistic in their incompletion. And Graham’s company knows every word. It just feels like they’ve forgotten to act.
There’s nothing to give you a break from this monotone assault from the company, either. The walls are painted grey and there are a couple of doors. Later in the play, a chair appears. There are no set pieces or props (excepting a newspaper and a brochure for the Glengarry property), and this is a problem because it doesn’t give the actors anything but words – and maybe they needed to have something to ground them and introduce silence, pacing, tone and decision in the action.
The play also could have benefited from removing the inflammatory, racist dialogue from the script, as was done before last year’s Broadway revival.
It’s impossible to care about any of these characters, even as one of their lives completely destructs before our eyes. There’s a flicker of emotion for James Lingk (Nick Hunter, giving the best performance of the night), a potential buyer taken in by fast-talking Roma (Joe Addabbo), because he actually injects humanity into his lines and seems to believe in a truth beyond his words, but unfortunately that’s the only connection we bother to make.
Mamet says the play is about what happens to people when they become defined by their work. In his director’s notes, Graham agrees. However, in this production, the play only seems to be about actors who learned their lines. It’s too self-congratulatory and empty to be representative of any part of the human condition, and that is deeply disappointing.
Wow, that was a very negative little speech. I saw GlenGarry Glen Ross on opening night also, and thought it was absolutely fantastic. From what I have seen, your expertise lie majorly in musical theatre, where it should probably stay. In this review, it does not seem as though you captured the essence of the production, but simply analysed petty annoyances, which to a reader, portrays a lack of understanding in this type of theatre. I believe the simple set only added to the captivating intensity of the play. And although they knew their script very well, they performed it with conviction and a vast knowledge of the story in itself.
The ‘inflammatory’ racist dialogue, is part of the script. Suggesting they rearrange the dialogue, however showing ‘deep disappointment’ in their interpretation of the Mamet classic, is a little contradictory.
This review seem bias, and is written with little professionalism.
I highly recommend this play to anyone who sees beyond this review, the Serious Boys are a group of hard working, talented actors who never fail to deliver a phenomenal performance.
Hi Laura,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! My experience in theatre is actually more split towards plays than musical theatre (I saw just under a hundred shows last year for example, and less than 20 were musical theatre), and I’m pretty well-read. I generally agree about minimalist set pieces, but I thought more elements of stagecraft to grab onto might have better grounded the piece, given it more pacing and a sense of timing, which I thought it lacked. I am all for removing one or two lines when they cause more distress than literary impact, particularly since it doesn’t harm the overall vision of the show, but of course there are many schools of thought about that. I’m glad this show worked for you; quite simply, it didn’t for me.
Laura, one thing Cassie’s review was not was nasty. Your comment however was. It’s great you like the play and that you’re passionate about it. That doesn’t excuse you from basic human courtesies. I think you owe Cassie an apology.
Seems like the review did “capture the essence” of the production – that it was lacking in a few areas. That was my experience on opening night as well.
Its not biased to not like a show…
Kevin Jackson must be biased too then: http://www.kjtheatrediary.com/2013/04/glengarry-glen-ross.html
Approved
—
Spot on Cassie. I was so looking forward to this show – Glengarry is probably my favorite Mamet play and I was left feeling empty too. The humor was completely sucked out of it IMO, and it felt as if intention and nuance had been sacrificed for speed.
I don’t mind a bare set if the acting is great but I was disappointed on that front. Hopefully the actors were having an off night and it will pick up as the season continues.
I don’t believe it was nasty. I’m merely expressing my opinion like us all. Constructive criticism is always better to see rather than reviews that seem subjective and insulting to the actors and director.
Laura, it’s always fantastic to know that our readers are engaging with what we’re saying and as critics we respect differences of opinion. However, there’s a difference between disagreeing with a review and accusing the critic of bias and saying that they should stick to musicals because they lack knowledge or understanding. I’m unsure as to what, in this review, struck you as being not ‘constructive’ criticism or what struck you as being ‘insulting’. I tend to believe that accusing somebody of bias falls under that category though. Like Cassie, I’m passionate about theatre and love when people connect with a show like you obviously have. There is just a way of disagreeing respectfully.
im glad someone said cause i agree. I honestly thought there was going to be a joke about two minutes in when they opened the piece like a bull at a gate. but then they went on with it for another 75 mins and i didn’t understand why speed was so important. i still dont. the worst part is i dont know if these guys can act or not because it was so fast it left my head spinning. spare set whatever im not fussed either way if the show is good. but it wasnt. ps looked like there were a few massive pacino fans in the audience as well as the cast the night i saw it.
I must say, whilst I’m in no position to comment on the production, as I haven’t seen the it yet (though I intend to, as I love the play and am a big fan of many of the creatives involved) Laura, your response does seem a bit much, Very personal to the reviewer’s credibilty, which is completely unnecessary. Not sure who you are (perhaps we know each other!) but I’d go as far as to say, if this is your reaction to a review, toughen up! It’s just a review of a piece of art. People will make their own decisions anyway. I’ve been in plenty of shows where the odd reviewer wasn’t a fan. Doesn’t mean I feel the need for a character assassination.
Hmmm interesting I saw this play last nite. How wrong you are. I guess it’s all down to personal preference. A fast show is a good show mi not one who enjoys actors indulging on stage and having and I quote “actors moments”, I saw what these guys were trying to do. I also believe in sticking to what the writer wrote! Who are we to question what a great writer like David Mamet wrote? Take out what he wrote, I don’t think so. I also think in broadway they were “forced o take it out ” why? Because of critics who will never understand actors process. For me and the people I went with it was a relief to see a ballsy production, yes it wasn’t brilliant but I thought these guys are really giving it a go and are on to something. Why critics are so negative I will never know and I’m not an actor nor would I want to be one. But I read an article written by a great director which said, ” critics need actors to survive, actors do not need critics “.