Death of a Salesman

The Mike Nichols production of Death of a Salesman is the best Broadway play I expect to see during my time in law school. After waiting for two hours, I successfully rushed a pair of thirty dollar student tickets this past Friday.

I had heard good things about the production, but didn't expect to connect to the material in a very meaningful way since I am a Miller novice. After seeing the terribly staged mid-century play, Look Back Jin Anger, a couple days ago, I was worried that I was in store for athree our snoozefest. sitting down in a partial view box seat with my friend as the curtain went up, I was also skeptical of the casting. Though I love Philip Seymour Hoffman, isnt he a bit too young to play Willy Loman, the sixty year old salesman drifting into senility? His sons, Biff and Happy, the inheritors of his hopes and dreams, are portrayed by the too-young looking Andrew Garfield and Finn Wittrock.

But ten minutes on, I was hooked. Philip Seymour Hoffman carries his heft around convincingly as a man who has eaten unhealthily for thirty five years as a traveling salesman. He first enters the stage, muttering "boy oh boy" quietly, after returning early from a failed sales trip. There's no sense that he's aware of an audience, but rather is just inside his own head. When his wife, Linda (Linda Emond) hears him shuffling around, she comes and persuades him to go to bed in the manner of the lifelong partner who just wants to make things easier for her husband near the end.

As a first time viewer of any production of the play, I was also drawn in by the writing and the plot. set in the 1940s, Miller's story is eerily resonant today. People of Willy Loman's age were the most susceptible to losing their jobs during the recent recession, no matter how loyal they were to the firm for the past thirty five years. I know many Biffs today--though generally from more affluent families--whom, having been raised by the school of self esteem, now find themselves unable to do anything. But the story is both general and specific.

Despite the global issues it addresses, Death of Salesman focuses on one specific family. Though everyone can relate to Willy's tendency to ask what could have been had he taken a different road, his plight is unique. We see Willy's life and motives through the hallucinated conversations he has with his brother (John Glover), a man who had gone to Alaska to make his fortune off the land. Now Willy, overweight and tied to the trappings of a middle class existence--- nice house in Brooklyn, a refrigerator, and other appliances--he wonders if should have gone the way of the other Loman and inhabited a new frontier.

The play's success must ultimately be attributed to the Mike Nichols, the director. Though I'm new to Miller, there were several scenes that were conducive to melodrama. Many scenes where people could be yelling at each other are toned down to reveal several notes of both disappointment and anger. The only person who overacts at times is Andrew Garfield, who shakes his head in anger a few too many times in the final twenty minutes of the play.

Death of a Salesman is a must see show. My only regret is that I hadn't seen other productions to compare it to.

Why is Everyone Mad at Mike Daisey?

Mike Daisey has been pilloried in the press lately for making false statements on This American Life recently. Daisy, a monologist, wrote and starred in the immensely popular The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs, which debuted at the Woolly Mammoth in DC last year and went on to achieve great success at the Public Theater in New York. The Agony and Ecstasy is a one-man show about the factory workers at the Chinese Apple supplier, Foxconn. Daisey tells his story in the first person relaying things that he supposedly saw first hand when he went to ShenZhen, China. Some of this show was excerpted in This American Life in January.

But last week, This American Life aired an hour-long retraction of Mike Daisey's segment. Apparently, Daisey hadn't experienced many of the things he said he had, including meeting many under aged workers, workers who had been poisoned by n-hexane, nearly driving off an incomplete bridge with his translator, and even going into the factory dorms with his translator.

When This American's Life retraction episode went live, the mainstream media's judgment came swiftly and harshly. Far too harsh, in my opinion. Most of the criticism focuses on Daisey's representation that he was telling the literal truth both onstage and off. Ira Glass really hands it to Daisy in the retraction episode, asking him why he "lied." The New York Times' theater critic, Charles Isherwood wrote "I certainly believed that the stories Mr. Daisey told — of seeing guards with guns at the Foxconn factory, of interviewing a 13-year-old girl who worked at the factory, of talking to an elderly former Foxconn worker whose hand had been destroyed — were true."

I'm not surprised that the media has been so critical. After all, they are all journalists and editors. The part former (current?) aspiring journalist part of me does think what Daisey did failed to meet journalistic standards. I couldn't imagine telling an editor "Yes, I saw this," or "Yes, he said this," if I indeed hadn't seen those things first hand. I also agree with the Slate Culture Gabfest that it's pretty reprehensible of Daisey to "play fast and loose" with the lives of Chinese workers--the exact people he says he's trying to help.

But is what Mike Daisey did so bad when seen from the audience's perspective? I don't think so. As Isherwood admits himself, we don't expect documentarians with an agenda to take an evenhanded approach. I saw Daisey's monologue in the same way. He clearly has an agenda to criticize Apple's standards for factory conditions. The monologue also starts with a guilt-tripping segment about him being the world's biggest Apple fan. Who in Twenty-First Century America can't relate to that? Indeed, whenever I turn on This American Life and they have people like Mike Birbiglia telling stories based on their own lives, I assume some of the dialogue to be made up or exaggerated. Even when reading John Jeremiah Sullivan's recent collection, Pulphead, I took some if his exact quotes from interesting characters he meets in his essays with a grain of salt. The point is to get at a larger truth rather than retain the accuracy of specific details. As consumers, we also rely on the marketplace of ideas for different views. For a Chinese perspective on factory workers, see the documentary, Last Train Home.

What makes this issue particular interesting to me right now is that I'm also seeing it from a legal perspective. My media law class has me thinking about what the WBEZ/This American Life legal counsel must think about Mike Daisey's misrepresentations. In general, media outlets are liable for defamation in American courts only if the statement is defamatory, false and done with malice for a public figure. For a private figure, the plaintiff must show that the statement is false and defamatory only. In this case, we certainly have a public figure in both Foxconn and Apple. The representations about the factory workers are hardly facts directly about Apple. In other words, despite being riddled with lies, it would be difficult for someone to bring a defamation suit here. (This does highlight an interesting question of whether journalistic standards are higher than legal standards, and whether they should be, but we'll save that for another time.)

If it makes a good story for the audience, and doesn't really seem to be that damaging from a legal perspective, why is everyone so mad at Mike Daisey? Because Daisey hits two nerves at once. First, he seems incredibly lazy, and ended up hurting his cause. Second, he raises the question of what our standards for creative non fiction in an age where many journalists have a tendency to bring themselves into their stories. Daisey is lazy because he wanted a good story, but didn't dig around enough for the story. He probably could have found some underage workers if he tried to. And now his controversy is overshadowing the original story.

But what is really irking people, I suspect, is that it highlights the agony and ecstasy of creative non fiction. What exactly is "truth" when it comes to creative non fiction? Should we even care? This is a huge issue now when more writers are inserting themselves in their works, blurring the line between opinion and fact. The other anxiety-causing thing is that anyone these days can practice "journalism" on a blog. They aren't investing millions of dollars into fact checking everything. The large media companies are the ones who have the most to lose if the floodgates open to allow everyone to exaggerate facts. They would rather readers not expose themselves to ideas in the marketplace, and instead just go to them for having a monopoly on "the truth."

This whole debacle hasn't really changed my mind about Mike Daisey, This American Life, or theater. But I'll worry about artists sacrificing truth for fact in the future.

The Milk Train Should Stop Sooner

The first production of Tennessee Williams' The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here closed after 69 performances. The second closed after five. Though I admire the Roundabout Theatre Company's audacity in reviving this maligned play, I really wish they had chosen any other Williams instead.

On the surface, the synopsis is promising: the elderly Flora Goforth (Olympia Dukakis) is living out her last days on an Italian mountaintop while "writing a memoir" to avoid the inevitable. Trapped on the mountain with her is her assistant and ghost writer, Frances Black, whom Flora calls "Blackie" (Maggie Lacey). Their lives are suddenly interrupted by a tall, dark and handsome stranger, Christopher Flanders (Darren Pettie). All the elements of a genuine exploration into death and dying are there.

Unfortunately, Williams makes his point early on, and then just repeats it again and again for a whole two hours and twenty minutes. We get a sense of Flora's former life and her current insecurities about death through the rambling stories she dictates to Blackie. Flora was a debutante type with many suitors, but alas there was one who got away. Now we watch her struggle against loneliness armed with only two servants and Blackie. Dukakis channels Flora well, acting like a diva who is doing anything to distract herself from death. So when Christopher first shows up, he seems like a possibly fun distraction. Pettie, who also plays the closeted Lee Garner Jr. on Mad Men, knows how to use his body to his advantage. A mobile artist, Chris goes around Europe crashing with wealthy patrons who appreciate his company in their twilight days. Indeed, many such patrons have died in This has earned him the nickname "The Angel of Death."

While some attempt at a profound conversation about death ensues, it's hard to look past the web of cliches. For instance, no sooner does Christopher arrive then he starts seducing Blackie. Flora, naturally, gets jealous, and tries to shoo the Angel of Death off her property. Williams tries to make this segue into a heated exchange where the characters let their masks down and show the audience their views on death. To Chris, death is nothing to be afraid of. His job is to ease his patrons to comfortably let go. But to Flora, death is something to be ignored. However, the characters are too thinly drawn to let us buy in to any of their emotions. While Flora says she has loved and lost, she doesn't reveal what she is truly afraid of. We certainly do not sympathize with a wealthy lady who has appeared to lived a rich life. Either Williams or the director, Michael Wilson, has given Flora too much bravada and not enough vulnerability. Similarly, it's a mystery why Chris is there in the first place. Should we trust his message because he looks so good without a shirt and is an artist, or should we be suspicious of him because he admits to bumming off old folks? I blame the director for having failed to ask Pettie to pick one side. The most annoying character of all is Blackie. She seems to have no purpose except to show how stifling life on the mountain has become.

Halfway through the play, it becomes quite obvious how it will end - with death--what else? But even this is dragged on for an eternity. Wilson should have eliminated some of the long glances between the characters. Or better yet, he probably could have adapted the play to end it at any one of several good options before Williams' chosen ending.

Written in 1963, twenty years before Williams' death, I can't forgive him for being an old man contemplating death. Perhaps we can just write off The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore as what happens when starts resting on the laurels of past achievement.

A Small Fire Ignites

A very obvious metaphor lies at the center of Adam Bock's new play A Small Fire playing this month at Playwrights Horizons. Emily Bridges (Michelle Pawk), a middle aged woman who owns a successful construction company--and acts like she owns everyone in it--suddenly loses her sense of smell. She begins a quick decline that leads to blindness and other lost senses as well. At first brush, Emily's strange illness is only a tool to render her helpless, forcing her and her husband to reverse roles. Whereas Emily is used to being the breadwinning woman who speaks her mind, John Bridges (Reed Birney), who works in HR, must now be the strong one and care for his wife.

Despite this gimmicky proposition, Bock successfully shows the depth of an entire marriage over the course of Emily's decline. Emily and John's grown daughter, Jenny (Celia Keenan-Boger), plays the role of an outsider whom the marriage must be explained to. As Jenny changes her mind about her parents and their marriage, so do we. Early on, we see Emily berate Jenny about her upcoming marriage. Emily thinks Jenny's fiance is basically a joker who isn't good enough for her. Keenan-Bolger betrays a lifetime of resentment in each look she throws at her mother. Clearly the good cop, John explains why he has stuck with Emily through all these years of abuse when he is confronted by his daughter. "You should have left her," she implores. "I can't be alone," is his simple answer. Birney's delivery of this line is perfect. He seems to have thought about Jenny's question before, and now only briefly hesitates to tell her or not. He finally does get the words out, clearly and definitely.

Emily struggles with her own loneliness as she loses each sense that put her in touch with the rest of the world. It's understandably difficult for a seeing person to act like she's blind, and Pawk does not master the task. However, her body does show the growing inwardness of her mind. Vibrant and wholly present on stage in early scenes, she takes on a ghostlike presence in later ones as she seems to shrink into her baggier clothing. But when visitors come, Emily shouts as if to reassert her presence. Bock's dreamlike sequences for Emily are supposed to reveal her more to us, but are unnecessary. Emily stands downstage with her narration in voice over. Though blocked in a dreamlike way, we simply learn that Emily feels trapped, which is not really a surprise.

The most controversial scene in the play is a lengthy sex scene at the play's literal climax between Emily and John. John is completely naked, with careful blocking the only thing between us and his junk. Lasting several minutes, I sense that we are supposed to see Emily and John getting closer in this scene. Perhaps Bock wants to make us uncomfortable as a contrast to the couple's lack of inhibitions. But it probably could have been said with more clothes.

Eventually, we see why John cannot be alone, and why Emily and John may be a good match. In one scene, Emily admonishes Jenny to take care of her father because he does not know how to be strong on his own. Yet John also seems to be the best person to take care of Emily. He devises a mechanism by which to communicate with her once she is in deeper decline. The two have grown into each other over the years.

Time Stands Still is Far from Static

Two restless souls--he a foreign correspondent, she a photojournalist--come back to their Brooklyn apartment after she gets hurt on the job in Donald Margulies' new play Time Stands Still. After a successful Broadway run through Manhattan Theater Company in the 2008-2009 season, it is now back after a summer hiatus. Sarah Goodwin (Laura Linney) has just woken from a coma after a roadside bomb flung her from her car, simultaneously killing her translator, Tariq. Wearing a leg brace and facial scabs, she limps around the apartment while her partner Jamie attends to her. But Sarah is also quick to shrug off special treatment, allowing her editor Richard (Eric Bogosian), and his new girlfriend Mandy (Christina Ricci). When they ask about the explosion, Sarah replies, "Occupational hazard," in a typically practical manner.

After the first two scenes, we may feel that we have all four of these characters figured out. Sarah is a cerebral world-saving workaholic; Jamie is her perfect counterpart as a romantic journalist; Richard is suffering from a midlife crisis, which involves getting together with Mandy, an unintellectual event planner.

Slowly, through incremental, well-paced steps, Donald Margulies reveals the back story behind Sarah's stoicism and Jamie's obsequiousness. Margulies peels back the layers of their personalities to reveal that things aren't as simple as they first appear. Margulies has mastered the art of exposition through convincing dialogue. It's not surprising that Time Stands Still earned him a Tony nomination for best play last year. Just like how a real couple might not dive into everything that they did while apart for work, it takes Sarah and Jamie some time to warm up to each other here.

When they do, things they want to say to each other seem to explode out of their mouths. Jamie proposes they get married after eight years of living together. He claims it's a good idea for hospital visitation rights while giving off the hint there's something lingering beneath the surface. Perhaps it's Sarah's affair with her translator, Tariq, which she reveals in the next line. Perhaps it's Jamie's own breakdown after seeing children explode in front of him, causing him to leave Sarah with Tariq in the first place. Is Jamie trying to redeem himself? Is he just insecure? And where does Sarah's hesitancy come from?

Margulies provides the answers to these questions in the second act without hitting the audience over the head with the characters' motivations. There are no sudden epiphanies or revelations. Rather, the characters figure themselves out at the same time as the audience. Sarah and Jamie realize that their real problem may be that they simply want different things. Jamie, to settle down, but Sarah to keep traveling. At the same time, Sarah's starting to question her own motives for her profession.

In one of the most moving monologues in the play, Sarah tells Jamie how she kept shooting film despite a woman's protests after an explosion in Mosul. "What I did was so wrong it was indecent...They didn't want me taking pictures. That was a sacred place to them...I live off the suffering of strangers." Meanwhile, Mandy is the perfect counterpoint to Sarah's worldviews. Looking at Sarah's pictures, Mandy starts to get upset. "Why didn't you help them?" she wants to know. Indeed, why don't we help the millions of poor people in the world, is one of the questions Time Stands Still asks us to consider. But the more important one is how does our answer to that question effect our relationships?