 |
 |
 |
|||||
|
|
READ REVIEWS GET IN ON THE TEEN SCENES TEEN REVIEWERS AND CRITICS LINKS TO OTHER COOL STUFF |
Nicole Bournas- Ney Nicole Reviews The Frogs at the Lincoln Center Theater  At moments this production, in a spirit true to Aristophanes's original, goes for camp, and hits just the right note. A giant, cheap Greek vase splits in half to reveal Nathan Lane; Pluto is introduced with gold lamŽ-clad show girls and a sign made of flaming letters. Unfortunately, the rest of the elements in the play do not live up to the pure comic potential of the Aristophanean, undiluted slapstick. Though I would never expect to say this about Sondheim songs, I believe that this show would have moved at a better pace and been more consistently engaging if the songs had been cut to a bare-bones minimum. The show, when it was originally staged in the Yale swimming pool and famously included in its cast Meryl Streep and Sigourney Weaver, was just an hour long. Now it is more than two-and-one-half hours long and the added songs often don't seem to add anything to the show. This may be because Sondheim's comic strength is in tricky word plays; you rarely see him tackle slapstick, and it seems that he really can't hit that kind of note. However, the opening number, which speaks directly to the audience about etiquette and candidly says "...The plot, which I admit there isn't an awful lot" is hysterically self- and audience-deprecating. It's a perfect springboard for the show, and the reprise of this song effectively wraps up the show. A handful of other songs seem to belong; they tend to be appropriately light, playful in a way -- this is why the clunky "Frogs" section just begs to be cut. Lane and Sondheim put in a major number to justify the name "Frogs." A least a dozen "frogs" cartwheel, backbend and leap across the stage during a very long, very unnecessary number. The original had nothing about frogs, save for the chorus emerging as frogs and repeating "Bre ke ke kex koax, koax" for one short scene. While I suppose that this leaves the reason for the title vague, it is very memorable and does not slow the pace down to a slog, which the new "frogs" number in this adaptation does. Since Aristophanes left the reason for the title unclear and only gave the frogs a brief entrance, why in this show should the frogs play such and huge but purposeless role? One of the most interesting difference between Lane's version and the original is that in the Aristophanes play, Dionysus goes to Hades looking for a "poet" -- either Aeschylus or Euripides. In the new version Dionysus goes down looking for George Bernard Shaw because he thinks that a critic would be the best person to help the fearful world that is full of "sheep." He ends up realizing, however, that what the living world needs is a poet, because poets tell us what is right with us as well as what is wrong. This is an interesting difference because it allows Lane to explore the very thought-provoking debate over what is the best kind of mind for a tumultuous world. Do we need a critic who will tell us what's wrong and how he thinks we should fix it? Or do we need the less cerebral, warm and all-embracing counsel of a poet? Besides changing the central conflict, this production also takes a more reverent view of the contest. Where Aristophanes mocked the two literary giants of his play mercilessly, Lane and Sondheim are willing to mock everything, from Broadway musicals to President Bush. Except, oddly, the two writers on stage who need to be mocked if the feeling of the original is be preserved. All the slapstick, which sticks to the spirit of Aristophanes and is successful, is very disjointed with the central, rather serious and thoughtful plot point -- the contest of two differing minds. The message, that Shakespeare the poet with his compassionate, wider view is the better choice, is beautiful. But I don't think it belongs in a play whose intent is pure comedy. This production is trying to convince you of something, trying to impart a moralistic message -- exactly what Aristophanes refuses to do. It's as if Sondheim and Lane can't decide whether they are embracing Aristophanes or creating a new work that is alien to the spirit of the original. |
|
