Cromer's Streetcar

David Cromer has gained a huge amount of attention lately, and much of it is deserved. He takes mid-twentieth century plays and turns them into some of the most relevant and naturalistic plays I have ever seen. He infuses new elements but makes the meaning of play clearer than it ever was. A good example of this is his production of Our Town that I saw in New York. Throughout the play all the characters wear modern clothes and pantomime everything and use very little to no scenery. But in the third act when Emily implores the stage manager to relive her 12th birthday the stage manager pulls back a curtain at the back of the stage and reveals an incredibly detailed set. At one point Emily's mother starts cooking bacon and you can actually smell it wafting across the theatre. By the time they are pulling back the curtain you don't want them to because there's just so much to look at. He truelly puts you in Emily's shoes and shows you how much of life we take for granted. That production is one of the best I've even experienced.
But now Cromer has stage a production of Tennesse Williams A Streetcar Named Desire, and while not as innovative it's still beautifully done. Cromer has actually knocked out the first several rows of seating in the theatre and filled the space to the brim with the set. You feel almost as if you are actually in the apartment. You really feel that this is an apartment meant for two people, and after Blanche moves in you can palpably feel the tension rise as these dichotomous personalities clash. One scene of the play that really stood out to me was the scene between Blanche and Mitch after they returned from their date. It's done in almost pitch black and you can really feel the intimacy of the moment. Natasha Lowe delivers a brilliant Blanche, one that's a little more agressive than you might be used to but because of that it delivers the play much greater passion and fire than what Vivian Leigh gave us. Everything in the show is so wonderfully underplayed that moments such as Stantly screaming "Stellaaa!!!" become startling and exciting, which is only magnified by your proximity to the action. I strongly advize everyone to go see Streetcar down at Writers Theatre.

Taming of the Shrew (CST 2010)

So a week ago I saw a production of Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew at the Chicago Shakespeare Theatre. This was of particular interest to me because I had been in a production of Taming in the fall, so I had actually brought a couple members of the cast with me. What is interesting about this particular production is that Neil Labute (Reasons to Be Pretty is one of my favorites) wrote a framing for the play in lieu of the Christofer Sly stuff. The introduction is effectivly Kiss Me Kate except with the focus on the actual Shakespeare. It follows the drama between the director and the actress playing Kate (who are in a lesbian relationship), and Kate is constantly flirting with the actress playing Bianca. Many critics have HATED the introduction (Chris Jones of the Tribune was one of them, "You can hear the painful screeches of uncertainty and artifice") and I attempted to go in with an open mind, but in the end it just dosn't work. Though I suppose it's attempting to comment on gender issues, it seems irrelevant and unneccesary. But what's really tragic about this is how great the Shakespeare is. It's hillarious, acted perfectly, and the tricky message of the play is handled very well. Josie Rourke can direct a mean Shakespeare (she directed a Twelfth Night last year that I loved) but as soon as it shifts into the Labute material things become slow moving and ultimatly kind of boring. It's like one half of the show is apoligizing for the other. I suppose this was added in order to bring people into the theatre by doing something different with the material, which has become a trend (a pool onstage in Twelfth Night, Macbeth set in modern times). But as interesting as these are, it makes me wonder why they don't think that the material can stand for itself. If you love Shakespeare set it free, and don't trap it with gimmicks.

Tuesday Night (AKA Lost + Glee)

Lost:

This episode was called "What They Died For" yet Cuse and Lindelof continue to tell us very little, and reveal what we already knew. Jack's transformation into a man of faith was finally cemented tonight by officially becoming Jacob, we found out that Desmond wanted to fix Locke, and we finally found out that Desmond was a last resort (very specific guys). Though it seemed that the purpose of this episode was to set up for the finale. But in the scale of things this is probably the best set up episode for Lost ever, so take what you can get. But what really anchors down the show is the characters and the acting and it seems that Michael Emmerson and Terry O'Quinn are really bringing their A-game and giving their best work ever on this show. But What I think everyone really cares about is the 2 and a half hours of Lost goodness on Sunday, so get you're Dharma notebooks out and write down my predictions.

-Everyone is going to die except for Jack, and everyone else passes over into the sideways universe. What this does is it redeems Jack's decision to blow up the bomb because it gets everyone into a universe where they're not destined to be on the island.

-The final scene is going to be a reenactment of the scene on the beach with Jack and FLocke ("Do you know how badly I want to kill you?" LOST). Chills right?

Glee:

Better than last week's abysmal episode but still not great. It feels as if the show is just stuck in place, because at the end of each episode it seems like nothing changes. Wheelchair kid thinks he can dance! Oh never mind back to normal... Neil Patrick Harris causing trouble! Oh never mind he's taken care of...Even the Rachel/Idina Menzel storyline didn't progress that much. Glee isn't a sitcom, it's allowed to change from episode to episode. Although I do award greatness to NPH and The Safety Dance, in the end just a mediocre episode for me.