All posts by THEFEMINISTSPECTATOR

Frances Ha

Greta Gerwig as Frances

Noah Baumbach’s films are typically quirky and off-beat.  Rather than detailing extensive narratives of modern life and relationships, he focuses on the smaller, episodic moments of interaction and reflection that become the essential stuff of our lives.  Baumbach delivers exposition by accretion, typically dropping the viewer into a situation and a set of relationships illustrated by dialogue, reactions, and interactions on to which he builds in a series of scenes that meander in various directions simultaneously.

The Squid and The Whale (2005) and Greenberg (2010) both offer portraits of families and relationships neither heroic nor exceptionally eccentric; Margot at the Wedding (2007) is darker and rougher in its treatment of family politics.  But in many ways, his goal as a filmmaker seems to engage us with stories about people who are in most ways ordinary—not exceedingly beautiful or handsome, not necessarily paradigms of morality or values, but people who skew intellectual and artistic and relatively class-privileged, who muddle along trying to do the least amount of damage to themselves and others.

In his latest, Frances Ha, co-written with Greta Gerwig, who stars, Baumbach offers a character study in black-and-white (and beautiful shades of detailed gray, which thematizes the film’s narrative of ambivalence and uncertainty).  Similar at first to Lena Dunham’s now iconic television series, Girls, Frances Ha focuses on the post-college graduation relationship of best friends Frances (Gerwig) and Sophie (Mickey Sumner) as they suffer through that indeterminate phase of their lives when possibilities loom large, while at the same time, prescribing a dose of reality and its limitations. 

Frances (Gerwig) and Sophie (Sumner)

Frances and Sophie, as they agree, are like a long-term lesbian couple that’s stopped having sex.  As roommates in a small apartment in Brooklyn, they’re physically intimate, sleeping together chastely and conveniently, sharing a bathroom and their ablutions, and talking about sex with men with the off-hand frank detail of women for whom heterosexuality seems given, but not necessarily interesting or compelling.  In fact, when Frances’s boyfriend, Dan (Michael Esper), invites her to move in with him (ostensibly to help raise the odd hairless cats he plans to adopt), Frances demurs, explaining that she’s more committed to Sophie and couldn’t possibly walk out on their lease together.  Dan and Frances break up shortly after.  With little fuss or bother, they agree that their relationship hasn’t been working for a while, and step back from the precipice of commitment to foreclose their future together.  This is how relationships play out for Millenials, I guess.

Likewise, despite Frances’s willingness to throw over a boyfriend to hang on to Sophie, Sophie has her eye on a Tribeca apartment that she’s willing to share with a woman she doesn’t even like, all for the geographic cachet.  She asks her parents for help with the brokers’ fees, and leaves Frances in the lurch, prompting her best friend’s peripatetic peregrinations parking with a host of other acquaintances until the film’s surprisingly redemptive ending.  Frances couch-surfs with Lev (Adam Driver, as quirky as ever but with his out-sized sexual appetites less graphically represented than with the character he plays on Girls) and Benji (Michael Zegen, sweet as the more benign, self-deprecating of the two male friends with whom Frances temporarily lives).

 

Frances and the boys (Gerwig, Zegen, and Driver)

She moves on to stay with Rachel (Grace Gummer, supercilious and aloof, whether as the character or as an actor, it’s difficult to discern), a fellow dancer in a local company who reluctantly and very temporarily lets Frances into her life.  Using a credit card she’s sent in the mail, Frances also takes a misbegotten trip to Paris for a weekend, sleeping through half of it in the cushy apartment of Rachel’s aunt and uncle, whom Frances has at once charmed, bemused, and repelled at a dinner party at which she’s clearly the odd girl out.  The awkward dinner table scene is a wonderful illustration of Frances’s erratic social skills; sometimes she’s engaged and articulate, but among these more established grown-ups, Frances seems incoherent and painfully unformed.

Rachel (Gummer) and Frances (Gerwig)

Gerwig plays Frances as a captivating mix of hopeful and abject, the perfect Baumbach heroic foil.  She wants to be an artist, but it’s clear her talents as a dancer, exuberant as they are, are small.  The dance company to which she apprentices, led by Colleen (Charlotte d’Amboise as the empathetic but straight-talking older woman who influences Frances’s choices), can’t make a place for Frances, but does save her in the end, pointing her life in a better-suited, more sensible and artistically plausible direction.  Frances’s sophistication is nascent, too.  In the way of many young women who graduate from prestigious liberal arts colleges (in this case, Vassar, obvious but unnamed until the credits), Frances thinks on her feet, sorting through the value of the great books she’s read and the expectation that’s been fed to her that she’s destined for greatness herself.

That Frances could be in fact ordinary is the horror that passes over her face frequently in Baumbach’s close examination, tempered only by the equally terrifying notion that she could also be lonely and alone.  Sophie’s blithe rejection devastates Frances.  And that Sophie leaves her for a man who’s beneath Frances’s contempt makes her friend’s departure that much harder to bear.

As Sophie, Sumner is all gawky elbows and knees, the sharp planes of her long face contrasting beautifully with Gerwig’s more ample features.  Sophie wears over-sized round glasses that only emphasize her face’s length and angularity, giving her a look both pseudo-sophisticated and strangely like a 10-year-old trying on her older sister’s accessories.  Sumner nicely plays Sophie’s mercurial temperament, her unintentional cruelty to her best friend presented not as emotional but only logistical.

Though she seems the one who has-it-all (that horrible, once again topical yardstick of success for some American women), Sophie’s unhappiness slowly dawns on Frances.  Sophie leaves her job at Random House to follow her fiancée, Patch (Patrick Heusinger), to Japan, where he’s been appointed to a powerful job with Goldman Sachs.  She’s bored and dissatisfied, but can’t seem to shake the obligatory marriage to the successful WASP-y man that comes with her pedigree, despite the fact that she’s Jewish.  When Frances realizes that Sophie won’t revise her fatal choices, Frances goes about saving herself instead. 

Couch surfing

Frances Ha is a sweet and often sad investigation of young female friendships, a coming-of-age story in which Frances accepts the compromises necessary to accommodate the unpredictability of those you love and the disappointments you find in yourself.  Frances isn’t particularly flawed—that is, she comes from a secure and loving family, though they can’t provide the financial safety net that her Bohemian friends seem to expect and accept.   She’s smart and talented enough, if often socially awkward in the self-centered way of those who’ve drunk the Kool-Aid of undergraduate experiences that spoon-feed them their own exceptionalism.  But watching her find her own agency and become the artistic and emotional heroine of her own very reasonable life is a real pleasure.

Gerwig herself is an unconventional and appealing leading lady.  She’s not wraith-like or svelte in the way of typical 20-something white romantic-lead actresses (even comic ones), and her face is pretty in an off-center, much more interesting way.  One of the film’s most exhilarating moments comes when Gerwig as Frances is filmed in a long, high tracking shot running and dancing down the streets of New York, pirouetting through crosswalks and artfully avoiding other pedestrians as she moves to her own drummer. 

Dancing through New York

Those moments of happy unselfconsciousness and revealing grace predict where Frances ends up in Frances Ha.  Bathed in the warm, white light of confidence and hope, she becomes an unusual and lovely heroine.  And as Feminist Spectator 2 notes, Frances Ha is also a wonderful New York City film—it’s almost as though it switches the focus from Woody Allen’s typical New York schlemiel to the young, impressionable, non-Jewish girlfriends he always dated in those movies, and sees the city from her perspective.  Thanks to Baumbach and Gerwig’s empathetic, sweet script, that’s a real gift.

The Feminist Spectator

New on The Feminist Spectator

Hello Friends, I’m finally returning to this blog, after too many months of other obligations that took me too far away.

As I begin posting again, I also want to call your attention to a few new additions on the rest of the site.

Under “books,” you’ll find the link to The Feminist Spectator in Action:  Feminist Criticism for the Stage and Screen, which will be out in July 2013 from Palgrave Macmillan.

Under “articles,” you’ll find my recent Theatre Topics piece on teaching and mentoring, as well as my Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism essay on women’s music and affect.

Under “lectures,” you’ll (soon) find the keynote I presented with Stacy Wolf at the Mid-America Theatre Conference in St. Louis in March 2013.

Under “interviews,” you’ll find a discussion I moderated at the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in May 2013 with Holly Hughes, Erin Markey, and Joseph Keckler on queer institutionalization, and an interview with Prof. Anne Basting at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee on Jewish identity and performance, also from May 2013.

Under teaching, you’ll (soon) find syllabi from my most recent classes, including Fall 2012’s “Women in American Theatre” and “Theatre and Society,” and Spring 2013’s “For Your Viewing Pleasure:  Gender, Sexuality, and Popular Culture.”

I hope all these are useful to you one way or another as resources.

Good to be back, all best,

The Feminist Spectator

Picnic

Sitting on the porch where life takes place . . .

Watching this William Inge play, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1953, through the lens of 21st century America offers some interesting frisson between past and present.  All the sexual repressions of the 1950s radiate palpably from the stage, but the overlay of a 2013 sensibility lets you see how gender performances and roles have become a bit more elastic for men and for women.  Looking back on the 50s through Inge’s story allows for almost Brechtian historicization, a reminder that social relations do change, even if the pathos of the constrained options Inge outlined continue to resonate, if differently, in a contemporary landscape.

In a small Kansas town, a community of yearning women and inadequate men muddle through their lives, trying to make the most of the few raw materials they can marshal as middle-class white people with stunted dreams.

Into their midst walks the charismatic Hal Carter, a drifter with a questionable past and a dubious future who boasts a stunning set of tanned and oiled six-pack abs.  His sexual heat undoes the women and the men with whom he comes in contact, highlighting all their thwarted desires and their narrow, prosaic lives.  Although a few things change after Carter breezes into and out of town, Inge underlines how most things stay the same for his characters, as most of them return to the drudging conventionality of the lives they live rather than the ones of which they dream.

One of the production’s early pleasures is how director Sam Gold instructs his female cast members to stare nearly dumbfounded at the brawny newcomer’s bared torso, turning Sebastian Stan’s Carter into the beefcake object of our collective gaze.  In the subdued mid-West of the 1950s, a man who paraded around the yard with his shirt off was cause for some scandal.

Hal and his abs turning the women's heads

But in Gold’s sensitive and even humorous interpretation, Carter’s flaunted body becomes the nexus for the women’s frustrated longings, the physical manifestation of all they haven’t been able to achieve and every disappointment they’ve suffered instead.  It’s also just fun to see a man made so blatantly the object to be looked at.  With his shirt either opened to his waist or off completely, Stan’s abs and biceps are lit and displayed for maximum effect.

Which is a good thing, because Stan’s performance never clicks as the magnetic drifter to whom every other character compares him or herself and comes up lacking.  With his broad shoulders and tall stature, Stan gets some of Carter’s physical presence right.  But he’s not enough in control of his performance to really generate the brute force of sexuality that turns the women’s heads and tugs at their hearts, or that makes men feel jealous and intimidated.  Stan constantly runs his fingers through his lank, slightly long hair, and looks dark and handsome.

Sebastian Stan as Hal

But his portrait never develops Carter into someone with whom you can sympathize as he struggles to throw off his white-trash, Arkansas past and achieve his own version of the American Dream.  He can’t become more than his body.  His erotic power doesn’t get him the jobs he wants, and his big talk can’t secure him a real place in a stable community. Instead, he’s a pretty, negligent boy, whose hold on the neighborhood’s imagination only makes sense as a fantasy of freedom and flight.

When Mrs. Helen Potts (Ellen Burstyn) hires Hal to do odd jobs around her house, she’s delighted to have the attention of a man filling the empty spaces in a life otherwise spent tending to her querulous, aging mother (played as a whining, shouting, off-stage presence by Lizbeth Mackay).  Helen had a quick and disastrous marriage as a young woman, which her mother quickly had annulled.  But Helen holds on to her would-be husband’s name, never again trying to escape from the help-mate role to which her mother keeps her chained.  Played by the venerable Burstyn as a forcefully cheerful if a bit ditzy elderly woman, Mrs. Potts manages to generate some sympathy as she enjoys Hal’s happy disruption of her dull household routine.

Her close neighbor, Flo Owens (Mare Winningham), has her own history of unlucky love, referring to a ne’er-do-well and now absent husband who turned to other women and to drink soon after her two daughters were born.  But the stoic Flo (beautifully performed by Winningham) determines that her daughters will redeem her by marrying up and distinguishing the family.  Her eldest, the beautiful, willowy Madge (Maggie Grace, of Lost television fame), has been dating Alan Seymour (Ben Rappaport), son of a local business scion whose inherited wealth and place in his father’s empire makes him a worthy catch.  But it’s immediately clear that Madge feels little for Alan, an ambivalence clarified when she first sets eyes on Hal and their initial hello carries all the weight of their instant, searing attraction.

Hopeful attraction, Hal and Madge

Or at least it’s supposed to.  Grace is lovely as Madge, sweet and ingenuous, her dissatisfaction with a life that’s already threatening to entrap her inchoate but palpable.  In Hal, she recognizes an answer to the nagging question of her dawning desire, as well as a way out of a town that objectifies her without really seeing her.  Madge is confined by everyone’s gaze and their projections, since in this town at this time, being a pretty girl is the best commodity to be and to have.  In Hal’s embrace, she finally feels seen for herself instead of as the local prize.  But because Stan’s Hal is emotionally stiff, their great attraction doesn’t register.  Their lack of chemistry hampers Grace’s ability to soar.

Despite a rather hollow central performance, the production still carries the sting of Inge’s critique of masculinity and conventional heterosexuality.  As a gay man in the 1950s, he funneled his desire through the emotions of his female characters, turning them into a collection of repressed and yearning middle-aged women approaching a resigned spinsterhood.  The supporting cast here rises way past the occasions that Inge establishes for them, particularizing each of their personalities and the sexuality they’ve subdued into other preoccupations.

Marvel as Rosemary and Birney as Howard, courting

Elizabeth Marvel, as Rosemary, the Owen’s reluctant, unmarried boarder, gives a heart-breaking but often funny performance as a woman who can’t stand her life as a reputable school-teacher one minute longer.  She chafes at the propriety that’s long hampered her, and rails at Howard (Reid Birney), the ambivalent, rather happy bachelor who courts her on the weekends with a healthy dose of moonshine under his belt but would rather not marry her.  That Rosemary gets her way in the end, much to Howard’s dismay, moving out of Flo’s house into his, is a Pyrrhic victory.  It’s already clear that this marriage won’t be a full-hearted partnership, but a union of convenience that will allow Rosemary to say that she hasn’t wasted her life.

That’s the saddest note Picnic sounds.  In this cosmology, all of these women need a man to save them from single lives of what for women here can only be seen as desolation.  The youngest are determined to get out, Madge by running off with the dissolute Hal, and her younger sister, Millie, the “smart” one, by imagining New York City as her escape.  Millie, played with verve and heart by Madeleine Martin, sees herself into a future in which she can have a career, alone in the city, peddling her brain instead of her body; it’s easy to imagine her becoming Peggy Olson in Mad Men.  Millie’s intelligence, of course, has to be signaled by her masculinity, but in this world, only a kid who looked like a tomboy could imagine a life outside the proper performances of femininity that channeled girls into heterosexual, home-bound futures.

Hal (Stan) and Alan (Rappaport)

The men in Picnic are unhappy too, which makes Inge’s play and its gender implications so resonant.  Even the Adonis-like Hal isn’t really a god; he’s a man who can’t whip himself into shape well enough to pull off the pretense that he’s who he wants to be.  Howard is something of a flibbertigibbet, going on about his store and his responsibilities, creating noise around himself so that he can enjoy having illicit sex with Rosemary but not saddle himself with domestic responsibilities he clearly abhors.  Alan Seymour, whose wealth can buy him any girl he’d like—Madge is a prize for an ordinary physical specimen like him—is jealous of the physical prowess Hal displays so casually.  Alan might be smarter, privileged by class and position, but in Rappaport’s empathetic performance, you can tell he’d trade places with Hal instantly, if he could adopt his easy manner and sexual charisma.  Though Howard and Alan have more social power than the irresponsible Hal, they measure themselves against his erotic power and his physical ease and find themselves woefully lacking.

Flo (Winningham) and Madge (Grace) on the household porch

What does it mean, then, to be a man in a world so firmly delimited by class, gender, and sexual expectation?  What does it mean to be a woman?  Gold uses the occasion of Inge’s play to pose these questions, letting us take the measure of Inge’s moment and ours through his elegant production.  Ably realized by set designer Andrew Lieberman, lighting designer Jane Cox, and costume designer David Zinn, Gold places the homestead nearly center stage, as a corner of the Owen’s kitchen looms out into the central playing space.  Characters go in and out the front door onto a porch, slamming the screen door, and we see them working at the sink or the stove in the kitchen beyond.  They move around the interior space, gliding in and out of sight, in ways that made FS2 think about how the fourth-wall realism from which Picnic is made always promises more access to its characters than it actually gives.

While the scenic choice creates some difficult sight lines and some awkward moments for actors forced to say their lines out over window sills, the design makes an agile metaphorical point.  The house confines all of them.  When Madge climbs to her room on the third floor to prepare for her date, she dreamily leaves her curtains open, letting the audience and Howard and Hal outside in the yard watch her brush her hair and ritualistically apply her make-up.  Gold invites us to watch the men watching Madge watch herself in the mirror, establishing a circuit of gazes that exemplify the yearning not just for sexual contact but for the unsullied, still-expectant life that Madge represents.  The moment is piercing and poignant, demonstrating as it does that no one in this little neighborhood will get what they want, that they’ve all missed out on a happiness that was chimerical to begin with.

Because after all, there’s no redemption in Madge’s fast and no doubt fatal connection with Hal.  After her public hook-up with Hal, Bomber (Chris Perfetti), the young paperboy who openly lusts after Madge, taunts her about her suddenly “bad” reputation, suggesting he wants to be next.  One small step away from sexual decorum means that Madge is already risking a fall from the grace of an upright middle-class life, however deadening.  But Inge suggests that staying within those bounds predicts a straitened life of homosociality, of living in groups of single, divorced, or otherwise abandoned women entertaining one another over cards at downtown hotels, showing off new dresses that adorn the untouched bodies on which they hang, making nervous jokes and laughing to stave off their own loneliness.

Madge follows Hal out of town, hoping she can write a new story from a very old tale.  But on her mother’s face, worn so ably by Winningham, Flo’s wrenching disappointment, concern, and deep knowledge of how history inevitably repeats itself signals everything she knows about what the end is going to be.  And that, of course, is no picnic.

The Feminist Spectator

Picnic, Roundabout Theatre Company at the American Airlines Theatre.

Bethany

Tobias Segal and America Ferrera

Laura Marks’ incisive new play, given a lovely, spare production by the Women’s Project, in residence at City Center, considers the stakes in a faltering economy for those middle-class workers who never imagined they’d somehow lose everything.  Set in 2009, in the darkest days of the recent recession, Bethany tracks the failing fortunes of a woman who’s lost her home, and through a quirk of administrative fascism, temporarily lost custody of her daughter, whose name also names the play.

Played by the talented America Ferrera as intelligent, wily, and deeply humane, Crystal works at a Saturn dealer selling cars that boast their American manufacturing pedigree and foist a cheerily forced sense of industrial family on prospective buyers.  Through carefully structured, cross-cut scenes, we see Crystal attempting to close a sale with Charlie, an oily motivational speaker who visits the dealership multiple times to consider the appropriate model.  The stakes for Crystal are high—she needs her seven percent commission to furnish a foreclosed home in which she’s squatting, so that she can persuade her social worker that she’s reestablished a secure domestic environment for her five-year-old, Bethany.

Marks forgoes conventional exposition, dropping us into Crystal’s plight as the play opens and we see her using a credit card to break into a house she presumes is empty.  After she leafs through mail that’s clearly not her own and looks in empty cabinets, trying the electricity to see if the refrigerator works, she’s startled by the appearance of Gary, a scruffy, bare-foot, slow-talking homeless man who’s already laid claim to the house.  The two circle warily, until they’ve reassured themselves and one another that they can make common cause by sharing the space.

[Spoiler alert!]

In one of Marks’s best moves, however, the play charts how Gary quickly becomes less of an ally, finally aligning with the other ideological forces against which Crystal has to struggle alone.  The economy threatens her already precarious livelihood; the state has taken her daughter and requires her to jump through ever-higher hoops to get the child back; and Charlie, the potential Saturn buyer, sees Crystal only through gender presumptions that allow him to expect sexual favors in return for a deposit on his car.

Gary, whose hold on reality is tenuous at best, fast presumes that Crystal will be part of his paranoid, anti-government scheme to live off the land and re-engineer DNA so that only the best specimens will be left to procreate and recreate the world.  When, in a bargain with the devil, Crystal succumbs to Charlie’s insistence that she have sex with him before he hands over his check, Gary is infuriated.  He destroys the kitchen, writes “whore” across the freezer door in his own excrement, and leaves a dead squirrel in the refrigerator for Crystal to find.  His conservative notions of gender become as oppressive to Crystal as the economic and social environment in which she’s forced to operate.

Gary really isn’t any worse than the other difficult personalities Crystal confronts as she tries to survive.  Charlie might be a snake, but we learn that he, too, is out of a job, and tries to rely on the magical realism of too-optimistic motivational pabulum to convince himself and others that people can get what they want just by willing it to be true.

Ferrera and Emily Ackerman, as Shannon

Shannon, Crystal’s boss at the dealership, is equally squeezed by corporate offices who suddenly announce that they’re closing this franchise.  Her sardonic, hard-shelled personality hides a basic resignation and doubt over whether she can pull herself through her life.  And when Patricia, Charlie’s unexpected wife, tracks Crystal down, only her insistent denial holds her together.  She confronts Crystal about her affair with Charlie, but pretends that her husband remains the hero she wants him to be, instead of a serial philanderer who can’t keep a job.

Taylor and Ferrera, as Crystal navigates the laws that Toni enforces

Toni, the supercilious, insidiously threatening social worker who wields the state-derived power to return Bethany to Crystal’s custody, enjoys her power over her client and has no problem holding Crystal to the letter of the law.  Crystal’s economic circumstances caused her to lose Bethany in the first place; when Crystal tried to find a place for them in a shelter, the authorities took Bethany away from her mother because they were sleeping in their car.  But despite her knowledge of Crystal’s straitened circumstances, Toni insists that Crystal pay to buy Bethany her own bed and to install expensive window guards, as the law requires.  Marks draws keenly the cruel absurdity of social systems supposedly established to advocate for poor people.  The unctuous, self-satisfied Toni becomes the perfect agent of the state, happy to exercise its power over people below her.

Bethany takes a surprising turn three-quarters of the way through that I won’t reveal here.  But although Crystal’s actions are shocking, they remain believable for a woman determined to hold on to the little she has.  Crystal becomes an admirable if melancholy heroine, whose quick thinking, physical daring, and willingness to compromise morals that are only a luxury, given her circumstances, help her survive.  She becomes a model of shrewd self-reliance, determined and courageous given the unresolvable conflict between an economy that makes subsistence nearly impossible and a social system that refuses to offer a safety net, instead only making it harder to keep families together and do what needs to be done.

The kitchen set is backed by a Levittown-like backdrop, evoking the "exurbs" of the small, unnamed American city in which the play takes place

Designer Lauren Helpern’s set evokes the sterile, echoing hollowness of an abandoned home as well as the absent presence of the elderly man whose house was foreclosed and is left empty for Crystal and Gary to squat in.  The production somehow signals that there’s always a third party present whose own loss enables Crystal and Gary to survive in the shelter of his shadow until the power company gets around to turning off the electricity.

Gaye Taylor Upchurch directs Bethany with swift assurance, keeping the short play moving and lean.  Ferrera’s focused, raw performance is complemented by a superb supporting cast.  Tobias Segal is convincing and strangely sweet (until he’s not) as Gary, finding various truths in a character who could be played as a caricature of a paranoid schizophrenic.  With his arrhythmic diction and his odd physical stance, Segal plays the man’s oddities but refuses to let the audience or the other characters to write Gary off as a maniac. His strangeness becomes increasingly unsettling instead of comic.

Ken Marks, too, as the would-be motivational speaker, Charlie, offers a character whose flawed masculinity seems social rather than personal.  That is, Charlie is a fake and a snake, but Marks clarifies that he’s also grasping to retain what he thinks should be his birthright as a man—to have sexual and social power that he can exercise at his whim.  That Charlie isn’t entirely successful makes the character pathetic but also reveals a social system in which economic strife upends gender as well as class presumptions.

Ackerman, Ferrera, and Griffith

The three supporting women are also superb.  Myra Lucretia Taylor, as Toni, the oppressive social worker, hits all the right notes, with the fake cheerfulness and fabricated warmth typical of a social system functionary who does her job for all the wrong reasons.  Emily Ackerman, as Shannon, Crystal’s boss, is comic but poignant as a woman who sees the end coming and can’t do a thing to save herself or her employees.  And Kristin Griffith, as Charlie’s deluded wife, Patricia, captures the fragility of a woman trying to pretend that her life isn’t falling apart at the seams.

Marks has a written a play that reminds me of Caryl Churchill’s ability to intertwine issues of gender and class and the economy.  Marks uses a stylized realism, while Churchill’s strategies tend to be Brechtian.  Bethany also reminds me of Suzan-Lori Parks’s Fucking A and In the Blood, in which her heroine, too (based on Hawthorne’s Hester Prynne), is prey to faceless ideological systems over which she can’t triumph.  Crystal seems her way through a desperate situation but Marks implies that another will surely follow. Her critique is vital and insightful, theatrical and resonant.

The Feminist Spectator

Bethany, New York City Center Stage II, February 2, 2013.

On Women Directors . . .

The status of women directors has received relatively less airtime and press space compared to the perennial woe expressed over the paucity of women playwrights represented on Broadway (or Off, for that matter) and in regional theatre seasons.

Patrick Healy’s recent New York Times article, “Staging a Sisterhood” (2/3/11 issue, print edition), draws important notice to a crop of women now working more frequently on higher profile productions.  Wonderful artists like Leigh Silverman (Chinglish and the upcoming The Madrid, with Edie Falco), Anne Kauffman (Detroit), Pam MacKinnon (Clybourne Park and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf), Anna D. Shapiro (August: Osage County), Rebecca Taichman (Luck of the Irish), and many more seem to be finding their way into broader public consciousness, often by collaborating with the host of talented women playwrights now populating the American theatre scene.  Annie Baker, Amy Herzog, Kirsten Greenidge, Bathsheba Doran, Madeline George, Katori Hall, Lisa D’Amour, Lisa Kron, Lydia Diamond, Tanya Barfield, and many more women writers are galvanizing audiences with their stories and widening our sense of how theatrical narrative works and the people on whom it can focus.

But when Roundabout Theatre’s Artistic Director Todd Haimes tells Healy, “I don’t feel an old boy’s club exists any more,” I fear he’s being disingenuous, even though he admits, “but statistics might disagree.”  While the women interviewed for Healy’s article paint a generally hopeful picture of their career prospects (only Tina Landau, who most recently directed Paula Vogel’s Civil War Christmas at New York Theatre Workshop, calls directing a “male-dominated tradition”), let’s admit it:  the glass ceiling persists.

“’Can we call it growth when we say the 2011-12 season saw three women directing plays on Broadway as opposed to one woman in 2001-02?’ asked Laura Penn, executive director of the union representing stage directors and choreographers.”  (Healy, NYT, 2/3/13)

No, we frankly can’t call it growth.  Is the current “trend” a happy bubble that will burst at the next sign of recession, when producers worry about declining profits and fear they can’t entrust women with their budgets?  And if women directors’ fortunes are tied to those of the talented women playwrights with whom they collaborate, can we ignore the statistics that continue to track these playwrights’ compromised, constrained successes, which rarely happen on Broadway?  Theresa Rebeck remains the only woman playwright able to open a play on Broadway without years of development workshops and productions that move from Off-Off to Off- to maybe London to, on the rare occasion for playwrights who aren’t Rebeck (or Wendy Wasserstein before her), Broadway.

The New York Times also reports that stars like Al Pacino and Scarlett Johansson increasingly wield the real power to bring shows to Broadway, but are mostly interested in revivals that allow them to attempt the roles they’ve long wanted to play.  Pacino felt he was ready to take on Shelly Levene in David Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross and Johansson, too, said “now felt like the right time for me” to play Maggie in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof; both are now starring in Broadway revivals.  Because Pacino got a hankering to do Mamet, producer Jeffrey Richards bumped his planned Broadway production of Lisa D’Amour’s Detroit, which was produced (beautifully) last fall at Playwrights Horizons instead.

What does this “star casting” trend mean for plays by women and their collaborating women directors?  Richards admitted it was much easier to raise the requisite money to do Mamet, with Pacino in the lead, than it was to finance Detroit.  And the Times article underlines how much power these stars accrue given how hungry producers are for hits in an economic environment in which only 25% of Broadway productions turn a profit.  Which producers will risk new plays without star casts–especially those written and directed by women?

Women directors who run theatres perhaps have a bit more sway.  Healy cites for example Lynn Meadow at Manhattan Theatre Club and Sarah Benson at Soho Rep.  Scanning the regional theatres, we could also mention Diane Paulus, who is interviewed in Healy’s article and directs on Broadway mostly by transferring productions from ART, the theatre she runs in Cambridge.  Emily Mann, the longtime artistic director at Princeton’s McCarter Theatre, transferred Having Our Say in 1995 (receiving three Tony nominations in the process) and recently directed Streetcar Named Desire with an African American cast on Broadway.  Garry Hynes and Mary Zimmerman, two of the handful of women who’ve ever won the Tony for Best Director, both transferred to Broadway productions they developed with their own companies (the Druid and the Lookingglass, respectively, for Beauty Queen of Leenane  and Metamorphosis).

Women directing new plays somehow seems a natural fit, but how often do we see women directing the canon, especially on Broadway?  Karin Coonrod has directed in the Public Theatre’s Shakespeare cycle and mounted classics at ART, but for Broadway, Daniel Sullivan gets the nod (Merchant of Venice).  Susan Stroman and Kathleen Marshall can successfully direct Broadway musicals, probably because they’re primarily known as choreographers, which is a more gender-neutral or even female-friendly field.  But they’ve never, to my knowledge, crossed over to direct straight plays (certainly not on Broadway).

The high profile Julie Taymor/Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark debacle haunts this scene, too.  I don’t think Taymor’s plight caused problems for women theatre directors, but it underlined the issues that already exist.  Taymor is enormously talented, a truly visionary theatre and film artist.  But the Spiderman producers got away with calling her “difficult” and “emotional” in ways that would never pertain to a male director, even if he was being stubborn and highhanded and running millions of dollars over budget.  Gender stereotypes continue to haunt women theatre artists of all stripes in ways that keep that glass ceiling hovering low.

For those of us interested in innovative theatre; in plays that tell new stories in new ways; in directors with a visual sense that makes something vivid and new out of the old proscenium stage, Broadway might not be the best place to expect the women artists we admire to succeed.  But the resources available on Broadway, not to mention the salaries, working conditions, benefits, and essential visibility, make it difficult for women directors, playwrights, and designers not to aspire to those mid-town stages.

Susie Sokol and Becca Blackwell in Tina Satter's Seagull adaptation

As Healy’s article demonstrates, women directors and playwrights are flourishing elsewhere, as they have for so long.  I loved writer/director Tina Satters’ Seagull (Thinking of you) at the New Ohio Theatre during January’s Coil Festival in New York. Satter created stunningly original stage pictures, and her colloquial, queer adaptation of Chekhov’s play sounded poignant and new, performed by a female and gender-ambiguous cast that she directed with warmth and empathy.  I’d be delighted to see Satter write and direct in a large, resource-rich forum like Broadway.

I also love the work created by Page 73, and the now-disbanded 13P, and the thriving, determined Clubbed Thumb, and the increasingly well-received, significant, venerable Women’s Project.  Their production of Laura Marks’s Bethany, directed by Gaye Taylor Upchurch at City Center, is a smart, beautifully executed production of a play with a razor sharp, feminist critique of the American economy.  The Women’s Project even makes its own bid for star casting in Bethany, with America Ferrera (of TV’s Ugly Betty fame) proving her stage chops in the leading role. Why doesn’t this production transfer to Broadway?

Like it or not, even in 2013, our stereotypes of “the theatre director” continue to be male.  Smash, the NBC TV series created by Theresa Rebeck, began its second season last night.  The preview press touted its new show runner, Josh Safran, fresh from Gossip Girl, and promised a new and improved run of episodes.  But all the old tired theatre stereotypes persist so far.  Derek (Jack Davenport), the mercurial director of Bombshell, the musical suffering development hell, gets called out for sexually harassing his cast members, after bedding one would-be leading lady and then almost seducing the other.  He’s “the director” writ large, the auteur whose vision won’t be tamed; the cruel taskmaster whose exacting standards “get” the requisite performances from his women, even after he makes them cry; and of course he’s white, male, and heterosexual.

This stereotype isn’t true–we know that all Broadway directors aren’t Derek.  But the point is that the stereotype persists.  When people think of a Broadway director, the image of someone like Derek is already there, intractable, resisting efforts to erase it or to remake it into something more diverse.  Those stereotypes can be very persuasive in the imaginations of people bankrolling risky, expensive projects.

It’s not that women directors don’t have the pedigree.  Of the directors profiled in Eric Grode’s sidebar, “Meet the Directors,” which accompanies Healy’s Times article, many refer to graduate degrees from Yale School of Drama or NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts.  These women have impeccable credentials and they’re impressively talented.  What else could explain their relative lack of power and Broadway exposure but the glass ceiling?

Don’t you wish we could retire that old metaphor?  Don’t you wish the glass ceiling would shatter like a trick stage prop, never to be reassembled?  Without that barrier, what kinds of stratospheric success might women directors and playwrights accomplish?  Wouldn’t it be great to know?

Imagine if women were employed regularly and visibly at all levels of American theatre.  Imagine if they were routinely trusted to share their talent, their vision, their methods, their dramaturgical skill, and their emotional, political, and intellectual acuity.  How might American theatre change?

Of course, many of us have been practicing that “what if” exercise for decades.  Are we still stuck here, excited about articles that feature women we’ve followed for years?  Wouldn’t it be something if we didn’t have to applaud simple attention to women, if their theatre work was expected, typical, unremarkable?  If we could just talk about the work, instead of about the fact that it’s been produced at all?  Years ago, I wrote a piece that took an ungenerous swipe at Julia Miles, the founder and then artistic director of the Women’s Project, because she imagined a time when her theatre’s advocacy for women would no longer be necessary.  Decades later, I have to say I know what she meant–and I agree.

Would that companies like the Women’s Project could persist not because they have to, but because they want to continue creating fertile space for women theatre artists to learn and grow.  Would that the glass ceiling could be smashed and replaced by a ladder on which successful women would help one another into positions of increased power and visibility and that they could all stay there and thrive.  Would that the persistently unequal demographics that describe the gender (let alone race and ethnicity) of those working in the theatre would finally balance out, so that we wouldn’t be so thankful for just a few women’s successes.  50/50 in 2020 indeed.

Call me liberal; call me utopian; call me, maybe.  Or call me a feminist critic on a life-long mission that’s not over, yet.

The Feminist Spectator