deeindiana (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} deeindiana) wrote,@ 2006-05-12 00:13:00 |
|
Finally! My review of "My Name is Rachel Corrie"
In Hebrew, 'Rachel' means 'ewe'
I'm embarrassed to confess that when I booked my ticket for My Name is Rachel Corrie and Q&A at the Playhouse, I didn't know much about the play. The truth is… *at least having the decency to blush* ... I hoped to see Alan Rickman in person. (NOTE: Rickman quotes that are taken totally out of context, but seem to slightly relate, are printed in red) "Who I am gets in the way of the parts I play".
I feel badly about that now. The theater is a powerful vehicle for social and political change. It's possible that MNiRC may spark changes of its own. Plus, the man pours his soul into creating an incredibly original production, and I go into it with the mentality of a hormonal 13-year-old: "Squeeee! I wonder if Alan wears briefs or boxers?" *cringe* "I don't think it's right that everybody knows everything about me."
So, the fact that MNiRC completely distracted me from the whole underpants issue is praise indeed.
I did some research before attending the play, but it quickly became obvious that centuries of conflict couldn’t be crammed into a few weeks of study. I had to find a way to relate to Rachel -- a point of reference.
Unfortunately, it didn’t come from my own college experience. In 1978, I wasn't interested in saving the world unless there was free pizza and really cute boys. (Cut me some slack! Jimmy Carter was president and all was right in the world! *snort*) No...I had to look at Rachel from the view point of a concerned mother.
At the Q&A, I wanted to ask Alan to share his point of reference – how he related to Rachel. He had explained early in the Q&A that his 'antenna' for recognizing a good story is finely tuned. I don't doubt that one bit. But, for most people, a story touches them because they relate to it with their head or their heart. Did Rachel's writings remind Alan of his youth? Did her political views reflect his? I wanted to ask, but...sitting in the first row sketching his portrait (no photos allowed), I was too shy to raise my hand. Unbelievable...an articulate woman suddenly speechless at the feet of a man. Yes, a handsome fellow, but still...just a man who puts his pants on one leg at a time. *cough – obviously having trouble letting go of the briefs or boxers issue*
Alan said the play is not about politics – it's about Rachel: her dreams, her thoughts, her choices. Was he trying to create a non-political play about a politically saturated person? Was he surprised at the public reaction on both sides of 'the pond'? Did the project take on a life of its own and grow beyond his original vision? "I find myself becoming less and less enamored of public statement - I'd rather see it in action."
ON TO MY UNPROFESSIONAL REVIEW, UNEDUCATED ANALYSIS AND UNIMPORTANT OPINIONS
The play started lightly with Rachel making humorous observations about her life. She analyzed her every action and had a wonderful grasp of how imperfect and ridiculous we all are, and wasn't above laughing at herself (she would’ve made an excellent Cerebral Hen).
It was easy to like the bright, smiling Rachel on stage. Even though the "end of the story" loomed painfully on the horizon, it was possible to forget it for awhile and laugh. The play showed how she threw herself passionately into every projects -- whether it was her obsession for making lists, hours spent gluing things to her walls, or joining a pro-Palestine group.
It was amazing that the entire play runs without an intermission. Dodds seemed to "become" Rachel. I can't imagine the concentration and stamina she has to pull that off. There is an emotional speech at the end that actually brought Dodds to tears. At the Q&A, I wanted to ask her if she cries at that exact moment during every performance. Would that have been a rude question? I was just curious and meant no harm, but I didn’t want to offend.
At the end, they show a clip of the real Rachel, age of 10, reading her award-winning essay on world hunger. The clip is shown on a small TV immediately after Rachel walks out to face the bulldozers. It was a powerful way to bring the story around full circle. The audience was silent and seemed reluctant to break the stillness with applause at the finish.
AFTER THOUGHTS
One thing that struck me: when Dodds came out to take her bow, she seemed shaken. It's been a long time since my college acting days, but I remember that certain roles were hard to shake off. You didn't slip into some characters -- they slipped into you. I wanted to ask Dodds during the Q&A, but that man sitting in front of me...! (NOTE: Does Alan know he is daunting? Polite, charming — and intimidating! But, that’s my own insecurities showing. I remembered being told that when you feel uncomfortable with someone, you should picture them wearing silly underwear to relieve the stress. But, since the briefs/boxer issue was still lingering in my mind, it just didn't seem like a good idea…*snort*)
"We were never going to paint Rachel as a saint or sentimentalize her, but we also needed to face the fact that she'd been demonized. We wanted to present a balanced portrait. The activist part of her life is absolutely matched by the imaginative part of her life. I've no doubt at all that had she lived there would have been novels and plays pouring out of her."
I'm not sure I agree with this prediction. Yes, Rachel's journal was intelligent -- but there are journals on our network equally smart. Yes, her emails were thoughtful – but no more than the ones that arrive in my email box daily.
And yes, Rachel had the courage to stand in front of bulldozers -- but, I think that it takes even more courage to realize that the “martyrs' call” isn't always the most effective way to make change. And it takes a certain level of maturity to recognize that fact of life. I'm not questioning Rachel's compassion, intelligence or her heart— but, the world is not black and white. It's not until you've made some bad choices, voted for someone stupid, slept with a loser, and played on the wrong team a few times that you realize gray is the predominate color. And, when you choose to support one thing, something else is condemned by your choice.
For my own selfish need-to-know, I wish the play would’ve explained more about the ISM (see the much-debated photos of Rachel). Information about the group is frighteningly extreme. Yes, I know these photos are used by opponents to "demonize" Rachel, but the ISM obviously posed this photo of her for some reason (that's not the camera angle of a casual bystander). Is she burning a handmade American flag? What did she hope to gain? I support our constitutional right to burn the flag in protest, but, I think it’s usually...ineffective. Did she think this image would bring political change? Who was she trying to reach? As a photographer, I KNOW that one powerful photo CAN change the world. But, this is not a powerful photograph.
When I heard Rachel's words on stage, they touched me: "I thought a lot about what you said on the phone about Palestinian violence not helping the situation...What is left for these people? Tell me if you can think of anything. I can't." During the performance, I was swept up in her despair.
But, after walking out of the Playhouse, my attitude changed. As a mother, I wanted to rush back to the theater and shout at Rachel - "Go home, child! You are in way over your head. YOU aren't responsible for fixing a situation that has been centuries in the making. It is arrogance to think that YOU have the right answers for these people. Go home before you get hurt!" But, of course, it was heartbreakingly too late for that.
So, what was Alan's trying to accomplish by creating this play?: Alan seems to like projects that set up highly emotional situations -- and then makes us figure it out for ourselves. I say that with grumbling affection and respect. He seems to be a smart man and likes people who think for themselves. But, when the project is his own creation, it would be nice if he'd say, "Okay...this is what I meant..." I feel like pleading, “Please Alan, I'm not so gullible that hearing your views would negate my own opinion. It would just broaden my understanding of the point that YOU are trying to make too.” But then...I was the woman who booked a ticket while wrestling with the whole underpants issue...so...who the hell am I?
MNiRC reminded me of a time in my life when I thought I had an unlimited reserve of energy, compassion, intelligence — and luck. But, standing in front of a bulldozer with no protection but the color of my skin and my US citizenship would never have seemed like an effective way to accomplish anything. I came away from the play with a sense of sad futility. And while I’m glad this play acknowledges that a girl named Rachel Corrie lived passionately on this planet for two decades, I'm saddened that she ran out of luck. "You don't always look ahead, but you turn equally to the past. I think of that more and more.”
</lj=cut>
In Hebrew, 'Rachel' means 'ewe'
I'm embarrassed to confess that when I booked my ticket for My Name is Rachel Corrie and Q&A at the Playhouse, I didn't know much about the play. The truth is… *at least having the decency to blush* ... I hoped to see Alan Rickman in person. (NOTE: Rickman quotes that are taken totally out of context, but seem to slightly relate, are printed in red) "Who I am gets in the way of the parts I play".
I feel badly about that now. The theater is a powerful vehicle for social and political change. It's possible that MNiRC may spark changes of its own. Plus, the man pours his soul into creating an incredibly original production, and I go into it with the mentality of a hormonal 13-year-old: "Squeeee! I wonder if Alan wears briefs or boxers?" *cringe* "I don't think it's right that everybody knows everything about me."
So, the fact that MNiRC completely distracted me from the whole underpants issue is praise indeed.
I did some research before attending the play, but it quickly became obvious that centuries of conflict couldn’t be crammed into a few weeks of study. I had to find a way to relate to Rachel -- a point of reference.
Unfortunately, it didn’t come from my own college experience. In 1978, I wasn't interested in saving the world unless there was free pizza and really cute boys. (Cut me some slack! Jimmy Carter was president and all was right in the world! *snort*) No...I had to look at Rachel from the view point of a concerned mother.
At the Q&A, I wanted to ask Alan to share his point of reference – how he related to Rachel. He had explained early in the Q&A that his 'antenna' for recognizing a good story is finely tuned. I don't doubt that one bit. But, for most people, a story touches them because they relate to it with their head or their heart. Did Rachel's writings remind Alan of his youth? Did her political views reflect his? I wanted to ask, but...sitting in the first row sketching his portrait (no photos allowed), I was too shy to raise my hand. Unbelievable...an articulate woman suddenly speechless at the feet of a man. Yes, a handsome fellow, but still...just a man who puts his pants on one leg at a time. *cough – obviously having trouble letting go of the briefs or boxers issue*
Alan said the play is not about politics – it's about Rachel: her dreams, her thoughts, her choices. Was he trying to create a non-political play about a politically saturated person? Was he surprised at the public reaction on both sides of 'the pond'? Did the project take on a life of its own and grow beyond his original vision? "I find myself becoming less and less enamored of public statement - I'd rather see it in action."
ON TO MY UNPROFESSIONAL REVIEW, UNEDUCATED ANALYSIS AND UNIMPORTANT OPINIONS
The play started lightly with Rachel making humorous observations about her life. She analyzed her every action and had a wonderful grasp of how imperfect and ridiculous we all are, and wasn't above laughing at herself (she would’ve made an excellent Cerebral Hen).
It was easy to like the bright, smiling Rachel on stage. Even though the "end of the story" loomed painfully on the horizon, it was possible to forget it for awhile and laugh. The play showed how she threw herself passionately into every projects -- whether it was her obsession for making lists, hours spent gluing things to her walls, or joining a pro-Palestine group.
It was amazing that the entire play runs without an intermission. Dodds seemed to "become" Rachel. I can't imagine the concentration and stamina she has to pull that off. There is an emotional speech at the end that actually brought Dodds to tears. At the Q&A, I wanted to ask her if she cries at that exact moment during every performance. Would that have been a rude question? I was just curious and meant no harm, but I didn’t want to offend.
At the end, they show a clip of the real Rachel, age of 10, reading her award-winning essay on world hunger. The clip is shown on a small TV immediately after Rachel walks out to face the bulldozers. It was a powerful way to bring the story around full circle. The audience was silent and seemed reluctant to break the stillness with applause at the finish.
AFTER THOUGHTS
One thing that struck me: when Dodds came out to take her bow, she seemed shaken. It's been a long time since my college acting days, but I remember that certain roles were hard to shake off. You didn't slip into some characters -- they slipped into you. I wanted to ask Dodds during the Q&A, but that man sitting in front of me...! (NOTE: Does Alan know he is daunting? Polite, charming — and intimidating! But, that’s my own insecurities showing. I remembered being told that when you feel uncomfortable with someone, you should picture them wearing silly underwear to relieve the stress. But, since the briefs/boxer issue was still lingering in my mind, it just didn't seem like a good idea…*snort*)
"We were never going to paint Rachel as a saint or sentimentalize her, but we also needed to face the fact that she'd been demonized. We wanted to present a balanced portrait. The activist part of her life is absolutely matched by the imaginative part of her life. I've no doubt at all that had she lived there would have been novels and plays pouring out of her."
I'm not sure I agree with this prediction. Yes, Rachel's journal was intelligent -- but there are journals on our network equally smart. Yes, her emails were thoughtful – but no more than the ones that arrive in my email box daily.
And yes, Rachel had the courage to stand in front of bulldozers -- but, I think that it takes even more courage to realize that the “martyrs' call” isn't always the most effective way to make change. And it takes a certain level of maturity to recognize that fact of life. I'm not questioning Rachel's compassion, intelligence or her heart— but, the world is not black and white. It's not until you've made some bad choices, voted for someone stupid, slept with a loser, and played on the wrong team a few times that you realize gray is the predominate color. And, when you choose to support one thing, something else is condemned by your choice.
For my own selfish need-to-know, I wish the play would’ve explained more about the ISM (see the much-debated photos of Rachel). Information about the group is frighteningly extreme. Yes, I know these photos are used by opponents to "demonize" Rachel, but the ISM obviously posed this photo of her for some reason (that's not the camera angle of a casual bystander). Is she burning a handmade American flag? What did she hope to gain? I support our constitutional right to burn the flag in protest, but, I think it’s usually...ineffective. Did she think this image would bring political change? Who was she trying to reach? As a photographer, I KNOW that one powerful photo CAN change the world. But, this is not a powerful photograph.
When I heard Rachel's words on stage, they touched me: "I thought a lot about what you said on the phone about Palestinian violence not helping the situation...What is left for these people? Tell me if you can think of anything. I can't." During the performance, I was swept up in her despair.
But, after walking out of the Playhouse, my attitude changed. As a mother, I wanted to rush back to the theater and shout at Rachel - "Go home, child! You are in way over your head. YOU aren't responsible for fixing a situation that has been centuries in the making. It is arrogance to think that YOU have the right answers for these people. Go home before you get hurt!" But, of course, it was heartbreakingly too late for that.
So, what was Alan's trying to accomplish by creating this play?: Alan seems to like projects that set up highly emotional situations -- and then makes us figure it out for ourselves. I say that with grumbling affection and respect. He seems to be a smart man and likes people who think for themselves. But, when the project is his own creation, it would be nice if he'd say, "Okay...this is what I meant..." I feel like pleading, “Please Alan, I'm not so gullible that hearing your views would negate my own opinion. It would just broaden my understanding of the point that YOU are trying to make too.” But then...I was the woman who booked a ticket while wrestling with the whole underpants issue...so...who the hell am I?
MNiRC reminded me of a time in my life when I thought I had an unlimited reserve of energy, compassion, intelligence — and luck. But, standing in front of a bulldozer with no protection but the color of my skin and my US citizenship would never have seemed like an effective way to accomplish anything. I came away from the play with a sense of sad futility. And while I’m glad this play acknowledges that a girl named Rachel Corrie lived passionately on this planet for two decades, I'm saddened that she ran out of luck. "You don't always look ahead, but you turn equally to the past. I think of that more and more.”
</lj=cut>
