
I'd also like to think that I'm able to perceive the difference between strong shows about women (In the Continuum) and weak ones (Martha Mitchell Calling) based on their artistic rather than political attributes. And indeed, the political content of Streamers ranked high in the Boston reviewers' remarks - in that they felt its politics were passé. Louise Kennedy wrote: "What struck an earlier audience as stark and powerful drama may leave us shaking our heads at its stereotypes and melodrama - just as, no doubt, some acclaimed works of our own time will come to seem like risible cliches . . . this play, in this production, at this time, simply does not work." I'm laughing as I re-read that; did Kennedy really imply that Streamers was a "risible cliché"? Apparently gay men and military men don't think so (and maybe certain married couples in California wouldn't think so, either).
Of course there is an argument against Streamers (which, to be fair, Marx half-made in his usual pissy way); it's structured poorly, its speeches are sometimes overwritten, and its coda needs editing. But a lot of durable plays have their technical weaknesses (even Hamlet is among them, and don't get me started on Tennessee Williams). Let's hope New York can perceive what Boston's reviewers could not, and gives Streamers the attention it deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment