Lanford Wilson the Family Continues Expresses
STAGE VIEW
STAGE VIEW; LANFORD WILSON'S LATEST REVIVAL PLUMBS LEVELS BENEATH LEVELS
See the article in its original context from
February 9, 1986
,
Section 2 , Page
5Buy Reprints
TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.
About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times's print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.
''Vanished without a trace'' - those words echo through ''The Mound Builders,'' Lanford Wilson's dramatic exploration of the world of archeology and its relevance to contemporary life. In the course of this probing drama (currently being revived by the Circle Repertory Company), the author contemplates the varying ways in which we can learn about the past; he asks what constitutes ''a trace'' - artifacts or collective memory? The play also deals with the environmental battle between conservationists and land developers. At the heart is the question of signs of life: what we know about our ancestors and what our descendants will learn about us. ''The Mound Builders'' is a moving, richly charactered play about people united in, and separated by, a shared activity.
As societies - and, by inference, species - become extinct, we search for our inheritance. What we know is what we read in history or in myth. If there is tangible evidence of antiquity, one must be able to assess its validity in order to determine the nature of the mind behind the dead civilization. At one point in ''The Mound Builders,'' an archeologist describes a bone awl that survived from the time of the Indian chief, Cochise. It is, he says, ''one of the finest-crafted utilitarian tools discovered in North America,'' and proof that ''Cochise did not disappear without a trace.'' His older colleague comments, ''We have no clear idea what the bone awl was used for, but it was undoubtedly used for something.'' A third character, a burnt-out novelist, says, in a line that is reminiscent of E. E. Cummings's cynical observation about Buffalo Bill, ''Well, that's a real keen bone awl, Cochise, but what have you done recently?''
In the play, a team of archeologists is encamped for a summer in a dig in southern Illinois, excavating a series of ''mounds'' left by ancient tribes. A deadline hangs over their heads. A nearby lake is about to flood the valley and the site will be taken over by a real estate entrepreneur. Mr. Wilson is fair-minded in his assessment. The archeologists are as dismissive of the needs of local citizens as they are protective of the prerogatives of their profession. The developer is a descendant of Lopakhin in ''The Cherry Orchard.'' He craves the respect of the more educated outsiders, but for him, land development means progress as well as income.
Reflecting its subject matter, the play has an archeological texture. By the end of the evening, we have learned about the substrata impulses of the diggers and also have at least a theoretical history of the mound builders themselves. To some extent, the author wears his symbolism on his sleeve, as exemplified by his character names. The head of the expedition is August Howe. An academic, he is devoted to the mechanics of exploration. His sister, the disillusioned novelist, is D. K. Eriksen, and her initials are a sign of her psychological erosion. The land developer is Chad Jasker, whose name is as harsh as all the upstart Jukes and Snopes of fiction. The labels are not intrusive; the play comfortably wears the cloak of metaphor. Mr. Wilson has always dealt at least glancingly with ethical and social matters, but never more so than in ''The Mound Builders.'' In this play, a family of characters arms itself against the encroachment of philistines, who, from an alternate point of view, could be seen as social progressives. Serious doubts are raised about the methods of preservationists; one could regard them as plunderers - as grave-robbers.
The author has made minor revisions in his play since it was first done in 1975, eliminating the inessential role of Dr. Howe's teen-age daughter and giving the work a double frame. Dr. Howe sits in his office and tells the story in flashback as he screens slides of the expedition. In the background, we occasionally hear the voice of his novelist-sister putting the summer in imaginative perspective. The text is sharper - and so are the performances. Emphasizing the ensemble nature of the company, the Circle Repertory has double-cast ''The Mound Builders.'' The actors in the performance that I attended were persuasively in character - Jake Dengel as Dr. Howe, Stephanie Gordon as his wife, Ken Marshall and Sharon Schlarth as a younger couple and Bruce McCarty a volatile presence as the land developer. Repeating her original role (and appearing in both casts) is Tanya Berezin. She plays the novelist as someone who is overdrawn on her artistic and emotional bank accounts and who is fearful of the return of inspiration. Miss Berezin is the sensitive center of a mutually responsive acting team.
As directed by Marshall W. Mason, the play seems more at home on the Triplex stage at Manhattan Community College than it was in the first production at the Circle Repertory's own theater. As designer, John Lee Beatty anchors the house at the side of the lake. Slides add to the enrichment of the atmosphere. ''The Mound Builders'' thoughtfully plays with ideas while never sacrificing the identity of its individual characters. A play to ponder, it is one of Mr. Wilson's most deeply speculative ventures. Coming after the revised version of ''Talley & Son'' and recent revivals of ''Serenading Louie,'' ''Balm in Gilead'' and ''Lemon Sky,'' it further reminds us of the visionary breadth of the playwright's body of work.
Mr. Wilson certainly owes a great measure of his continuing success to his symbiotic relationship with the Circle Repertory actors and with Mr. Mason as director -and the creative debt is reciprocal. The principal purpose of the company is the generation of new plays as exemplified by those of Mr. Wilson. Sporadically, the theater has tried to demonstrate its ability with classics, but a combination of factors has worked against fulfilling that goal. The latest instance of the company at its most incongruous is its approach to Albert Camus's ''Caligula,'' alternating in repertory with ''The Mound Builders.''
As he states in his preface, Camus was aware of the difficulty of presenting his Roman epic on stage, preferring to categorize it as ''an actor's and director's play.'' In collaboration with Harry Newman, Mr. Mason has freely - and frivolously - adapted Stuart Gilbert's translation to modern times. The actors are in modern dress and the environment has a hi-tech gloss. The text careens from Camus to music video. In the circumstances, the actors are not the primary perpetrators, but the performances will not add to their or to Camus's credit.
There is, however, an odd, antic thread through the misconception. Forced to contribute alms to Caligula's coffers, one aide offers his American Express gold card. When the receipt is returned, the involuntary contributor suspiciously asks for his carbons as well. Later, Caligula's poetry contest on the subject of death becomes an amusing open-audition jamboree for rap, country and western. Beneath this ''Caligula'' may be an undiscovered Ridiculous comedy, or, perhaps, the participants were so burdened by the unbearable heaviness of the evening they decided to have some fun. It does not alleviate the tedium. The Circle Repertory succeeds in burying ''Caligula.'' In quest of plays to revive, the company perhaps should concentrate on subjects that are more harmonious with its strength in naturalism.
malonehuntudigh1981.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/02/09/theater/stage-view-lanford-wilson-s-latest-revival-plumbs-levels-beneath-levels.html
0 Response to "Lanford Wilson the Family Continues Expresses"
Enregistrer un commentaire