muckefuck: (Default)
[personal profile] muckefuck
Here I go with my amateur criticism again. I'm not going to dwell too much on the positive aspects of I am my own wife, which we saw at the Goodman last night, such as Mays phenomenal performance or the cleverness of Wright's Pulitzer-winning script. Those have been covered in detail elsewhere. We weren't in the best position to appreciate them anyway, being one row away from the very back wall of the theatre. For those of you more accustomed to off-Loop venues, the size of the place comes as something of a shock (we were in row KK) and it doesn't some especially well suited to a one-woman play. Mays' lines were always intelligible, but not his facial expressions, and my companion properly likened focusing on him to trying to concentrate on a single candle across the room.

Given that, we were thankful for the fact that the blocking is opened up somewhat in the second act and even for the gimmicky device of having Mays' play about three dozen different characters. The conceit of writing the playwright into the play also paid off then as questions about Mahlsdorf's involvement with the Stasi and honesty about her past increasingly come to the fore, though my viewing companion found the sudden depiction of a media circus rather baffling.

I put the blame for this confusion squarely on the playwright, who could've led into it better. The action kicks off with a letter from Wright's childhood friend[*], Berlin bureau chief for US News and World Report in Berlin, telling Wright that he has "found" an real character who is too "out there" for his paper but "right up your alley". I can't remember the date on the letter and online reviews only make coy references to "after the Wall came down". Wright's ensuing interviews, which make up the bulk of Act 1, date only to the beginning of February, 1993.

But Mahlsdorf was profiled in taz as early as August 1989. Jürgen Lemke--a psychologist treated as a throwaway character within the play--had known her since the late 1970s and had interviewed for his 1989 book Ganz normal anders (translated into English only two years later as Gay voices from East Germany). By 1992, Mahlsdorf's autobiography (Ich bin meine eigene Frau, from which the title of the play is taken) had been published, German filmmaker Rosa von Praunheim had made an eponymous film of it, and both were covered in a September Spiegel article. (Incidentally, the first place I remember reading about her.) I'm not sure when in 1992 she was awarded the Bundesverdienstkreuz by the German government, but Wright places this about a third of the way into Act 2--even though, as I've pointed out, almost all of Act 1 takes place in early 1993.

In short, although Wright never claims to be the first to discover his subject, it is easy to see how someone who wasn't following the German press in the early 90s could get that impression. In fact, that's just what happened to my viewing companion. This also made Act 2 somewhat less interesting for me than for him, since it covered events I already knew about rather than delving more into Mahlsdorf's recollections of her past, with which I was only fleetingly acquainted, or the changes wrought on her by sudden celebrity, which don't come out in the play at all but are widely reported by people who knew her personally. With his aforementioned dismissive treatment of Lemke, Wright misses some chances to underscore the ambiguities he wishes to explore, since incidents related in his interviews--such as Mahlsdorf's supposed murder of her father--were absent from those conducted by Lemke only a few years earlier.

This is another things which makes the second act frustrating: Many German characters are introduced, but more as figures of fun than opportunities to comment intelligently on the contradictions of Mahlsdorf's character. The decision to give them all German accents contributes to this. The low point is a sequence depicting Mahlsdorf's appearance on a German talk show. The satiric contrast between Mahlsdorf's prim demeanour and the host's flippant attitude is rich--particularly when the former goes on to relate in detail the neo-Nazi attack on her garden party--but it goes on too long and then Wright squanders its impact with a cheap joke, the host's reference to the next guest as "American zinging zenzation David Hasselhoff!"

I appreciate Wright's challenge--he has to depict Germans speaking English, Germans speaking German, Americans speaking English, and Americans speaking German all in such a way that the audience can follow without the use of visual crutches, like supertitles or Doonesbury's inventive use of parentheses. His solutions is to have:
  1. Germans speak English with a German accent and some German words or phrases, regardless of whether they are supposed to be speaking English or German
  2. Americans speak English
  3. Americans speak German (generally with strong accents but surprisingly good grammar)
It's a problematic strategy that yields diminishing returns, particularly when the focus moves away from Wright and Mahlsdorf. I can see some sense to keeping Mahlsdorf's distinctive voice consistent, but it strikes me as ridiculous (and even ridiculing) to have the announcer of a German-language news programme and all his interviewees speak like characters off the set of Hogan's Heroes.

(On a side note, Mays' accents, although generally good, are somewhat overdone. In particular, he overuses [z]. Standard German has [z] for all initial s's, but Mays often inappropriately uses it word-internally. He has Mahlsdorf say "Weisensee" (lit. "sea of sages") for Weissensee ("White Lake", a neighbourhood in East Berlin) and "a[z]ociation", even though (1) German has the word Assoziation, pronounced [a%sotsja"tsjo:n] and (2) this contrasts with asozial ([azo"tsjal]) meaning "asocial, antisocial"). She also pronounces the name of another neighbourhood, Prenzlauer Berg, with a [z] even though German has [ts] here, as it does for virtually every case of orthographic z.)

Or am I just being too sensitive to American caricatures of German culture? Wright's not writing a thesis, after all. There's nothing wrong with injecting some comedy and Wright doesn't spare his alter ego from looking foolish and comic at times. I just feel that, overall, it distracts more than it entertains. And distraction runs the risk both of diminishing the impact of the play and trivialising the events it portrays--such as when reference to Stasi atrocities produced guffaws from some members of the audience.

Overall, I was surprised how removed I felt from the proceedings. I'm not sure how much to attribute that to physical distance (although the sightlines were excellent), to the shortcomings of Wright's script, or to the nature of Mahlsdorf herself, who is so dispassionate in her relations of events that Lemke diagnosed her autistic. Even the most provocative questions don't seem to rile her, which makes it hard for them to have a deep impact on the audience either.

[*] Note for [livejournal.com profile] niemandsrose: It strikes me that Marks and Wright have not only different intonation patterns and such but different Southern accents as well, which seems bizarre for two "childhood friends". I'd be curious if anyone in your biz has heard Mays' performance and what they thought of it on this score.
Date: 2005-02-18 08:26 pm (UTC)

lots of subtopics

From: [identity profile] niemandsrose.livejournal.com
People who are childhood friends won't necessarily speak the same way, partly because some people have better ears than others, and some are more interested in adapting to their environments, too. Marx and Wright had divergent life paths (Wright=South+gay+NYC+playwright) vs. (Marx=South+journalist) which could easily lead to different sounds. Also, childhood friends aren't always born&bred in the same place. Lots of kids transfer in and out over long distances...especially army brats...

Plus, yo, acting. Lots of audience members haven't got a fine-tuned ear and need broader distictions made for them, and it's a big house, as you say. Using the vocal equivalent of painting broad strokes with primary colors is a valid and useful technique here, since no amount of authenticity would be worth even a moment of the audience wondering "wait...who is he being again now?"

There's no real average audience member for this kind of show. I've (seen it twice and) heard from people who dug it based on their knowledge of German culture, gay culture, fascist psychology, architectural preservation, Weimar culture, acting, lighting design, and presentational aesthetics/contemporary performance.

All that said, I loved the show, but you know, I did have one such moment as you had where I found something distracting, but I knew it was me and my ear, and that it didn't matter a whit to anyone else in the audience: during the presentation of the Medal of Honor, the "croud applause and cheering" sound cue was clearly a stock sound from a sound effects library, and the cheering was very very American-sounding.
Date: 2005-02-18 08:28 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] niemandsrose.livejournal.com
Ooh, plus, did you read the playwright's note in the program? It detailed his exercise of what he called the "playwright's standard liberties" with regard to place, time, and person, so please don't diss him on that score, unless you think they play would have been a better *play* had it been written by Ken Burns!
Date: 2005-02-18 09:04 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] muckefuck.livejournal.com
You wouldn't know it from my incessant nitpicking, but I do understand the concept of "poetic license". Whenever I see a writer (or director or lighting designer or whomever) make a decision that could be considered odd or, in light of the source material, "inaccurate", I ask myself, What purpose does that choice serve? I thought I was pretty clear about how I thought Wright's choices helped or hindered his play. I'm not dissing him for playing with the chronology, for instance, except insofar as it confuses spectators who aren't already well-acquainted with the sequence of events.
Date: 2005-02-18 09:09 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] niemandsrose.livejournal.com
...Perhaps this is like the way you and I think of things like incorrect spelling and puctuation as "confusing", only to realize to our dismay what a high tolerance for confusion most people seem to have?
Date: 2005-02-18 09:19 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] muckefuck.livejournal.com
Not quite. If you remember, I didn't find the transition confusing; only my companion's reaction made me realise that it would be for someone without the background I had. It's always tricky to try to imagine what your response to something would be if you didn't have the knowledge that you did. For instance, although I found it ultimately problematic, the macaronic use of German didn't phase me in the least, but what would the reaction be from someone who literally doesn't understand a word of it? Would they feel an even greater remove from the action on stage? Would they assume that comprehending it was important to understanding the play and be sore that no one had warned them? I really can't say.
Date: 2005-02-18 09:24 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] niemandsrose.livejournal.com
Ah, I see. You handled that section becuase of your background in the historical facts; I handled it because I'm familiar with those kind of performance devices.
Date: 2005-02-18 08:49 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] ignaczy.livejournal.com
I had mentioned to [livejournal.com profile] niemandsrose that the "David Hasselhoff" reference bothered me too. It was the only instance in the play that I thought detracted from the larger piece because it was just there for a cheap laugh.
Date: 2005-02-18 09:00 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] niemandsrose.livejournal.com
Yeah, I don't get people who, you know, laugh at cheap laughs. But from a playwriting perspective, do you suppose it's there to provide relief to people for whom the play's material is heavier than we think it is?
Date: 2005-02-18 09:11 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] ignaczy.livejournal.com
Part of me wonders whether Wright put in the cheap laugh as a nice way to end that particular scene by displaying the shallowness of the real audience (us) as opposed to the canned audience we hard on stage. In the end, "we" don't "want" to hear Charlotte's story of the neo-Nazi attack on her garden party. "We" "want" to hear funny pop culture references. I'm not sure if that was the aim. Just a guess.
Date: 2005-02-18 09:14 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] muckefuck.livejournal.com
If that was his motive, then I wonder if he wasn't being a mite too clever for his own good. I don't think one theatregoer in 100 would step back from their reaction and evaluate it in that way.
Date: 2005-02-18 09:14 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] niemandsrose.livejournal.com
You mean, as if to demonstrate that we're no better than they are? I don't know, that moment had no bite to it, except the reflexive embarassment we're all talking about. So maybe Doug Wright has a silly side, then.
Date: 2005-02-18 09:20 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] ignaczy.livejournal.com
Well, I'm not sure. I didn't think the moment had any bite to it either. Despite my guess as to his intentions, I just don't think the moment worked. And even if Wright has a silly side, it was very, very jarring for me.
Date: 2005-02-18 09:20 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] muckefuck.livejournal.com
I think anyone whose credits include a work named Buzzsaw Berkeley must.
Date: 2005-02-18 08:57 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] hypersimulation.livejournal.com
Thanks for this, it's an articulate and unique perspective.

I didn't care for the play either, I had the same problem which this I did with Quills...you remember, the Disney film about Marquis DeSade? I don't need my sexual revolutionaries desexualized!
Date: 2005-02-18 08:57 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] niemandsrose.livejournal.com
...same author, you know...
Date: 2005-02-18 08:59 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] hypersimulation.livejournal.com
Yep... next up: Caligula Does The Dishes and talks about a nice sunset and some pretty flowers he saw once.
Date: 2005-02-18 09:01 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] niemandsrose.livejournal.com
Hm...what kind of play would you like to see?
Date: 2005-02-18 09:07 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] muckefuck.livejournal.com
Do you think Mahlsdorf was really "desexualised"? What I get from reading about her is that sex just wasn't that important to her. The hierarchy of priorities she spells out in the play--Musik, Möbel, Männer--strikes me as true to how she lived her life.
Date: 2005-02-18 09:15 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] niemandsrose.livejournal.com
"Museum, Mobel, Manner."
Date: 2005-02-18 09:21 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] muckefuck.livejournal.com
Thanks--I thought I had the first word wrong, but I wasn't sure. You are my muse!

Profile

muckefuck: (Default)
muckefuck

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
121314 15161718
192021 22232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 30th, 2025 04:17 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios