It is hard to talk about Caroline, or Change—Tony Kushner’s frustrating, engrossing musical, currently in production at the Gonda Theater—without talking about writing. The play, which is described as “semi-autobiographical,” is about a quiet Jewish boy, Noah Gellman (played by Sean Silvia, from Chevy Chase Elementary School), growing up in Louisiana in 1963—Kushner’s own backstory—and his relationship with his black maid, Caroline, who mirrors a maid Kushner himself had. The play uses their relationship, and the people around them, to try and shed light on the historical moment they inhabit, and on the idea of change—both societal and personal. But, it doesn’t quite all add up.
Writers are always told to “murder your darlings.” Usually the ideas you are fondest and most reluctant to get rid of are the ones that need to be cut—they might mean a lot to you but probably won’t translate to the audience. The maid Caroline (Nile Marshall, MSB ‘10) seems to be one of these darlings. The whole play hinges on her, but, ultimately, for the audience, she just isn’t that interesting of a character. An angry, conflicted woman, Caroline works hard at a degrading job in order to support her children. And that’s about it. She is the focal point of the show, and yet, ultimately, never deserves too much of our focus. Caroline, like other parts of the play—a personified, singing moon, an oft-mentioned statue—is a symbol, but for what, exactly, remains unexplored.
The play feels like a series of ideas, of sketches and concepts and questions that never quite congeal. The play tries to be so much but it ends up seeming rather slight. Nothing is really necessary, as many of the characters, aside from Noah and Caroline, seem like concepts rather than full-fledged people. Rather than a clear arc, the play continues in fits and starts, with plot points that sort of accumulate but never go anywhere.
The music as well, never quite propels. Caroline is a through-composed play—it has musical accompaniment but few recurring melodies—with almost no spoken dialogue. The music, by Jeanine Tesori, is a clever combination of klezmer music, jazz, blues, and 60s girl groups, but there are very few clear, catchy melodies. You won’t walk out of the play with a song in your head. When phrases are repeated, it’s the words that you recognize before the tune. There are some nice uses of musical moments: Noah says that “my father is a clarinet” and it’s true—his father and instrument are inseparable and nearly interchangeable. Similarly, Caroline has a radio in the basement where she does laundry, played by three girls as a Supremes-like group, singing Phil Spector-style melodies about Caroline’s life and choices. The radio is wonderful, a device that is both entertaining and enlightening, complete with flashy costumes.
In fact, all of the costumes are spot on, and the actors acquit themselves well with characters that may or may not deserve their abilities. On a huge set full of unused space, everyone is crowded into corners, clustered in their little groups and stories. All of the actors have microphones, making it difficult to listen as sound levels change and squawk, ultimately leading to things getting louder and louder and louder, which paradoxically makes it more difficult to hear the words. For any play that’s a problem, but for one that is all about details—and questionably small details at that—it’s a dealbreaker.
Hecht summarizes and critiques the play itself with little mention of the actual production. Someone teach this girl how to do a review, or should we just count our blessings that she’s graduating this year?
I enjoyed the two sentences at the end of the article discussing the production, but other than that Hecht has utterly failed at her single job: to tell the reader whether or not Georgetown’s production of this musical successfully brings the material to life, regardless of the writer’s feelings about the play itself.
Please Ms. Hecht, tell me you are not considering this career for your future; if so, please try and take a Journalism class before leaving Georgetown, because it is quite obvious you do not know the first thing about the field.
Thank you, Ms. Hecht! This is one of the best theater reviews I have read in quite a long time. You gave a brief, though accurate, summary of the action, delved into the theatrical merit of the production, and provided detailed critiques of the actors’ performances.
…Oh wait, I’m thinking of Mairead Reilly’s article in The Hoya…
Dear Ms. Hecht,
Stick to research papers. Theater critiques just aren’t your thing, honey.
Dear Reviewers,
Let us, being as intelligent as we obviously are, never forget the example of Halle Berry. Ms. Berry (as we seem so fond of this bastardized American honorific) is a very talented actress, a pioneer for black women in the field, and an Academy Award winner. She has appeared in several films and established herself as a woman of unquestionable acting skill. And yet, there is Catwoman.
Often regarded as one of the worst films of the decade, Catwoman was pretty much offensive to all sensibilities. Catwoman makes it into Roger Ebert’s list of the worst films of all time, and he has seen plenty to judge. One critic suggested Berry should be forced to return her Oscar because of it.
This is just it–good actors appear in bad productions, and they appear by choice. More often than not, good acting, even good directing, can’t save bad writing. One bad apple in the pie of theater spoils the whole thing.
When I open a newspaper, even a useless rag like the Voice, and look for a review of a play I plan on seeing, I want to know if it’s going to be an enjoyable experience. If, like Caroline, it’s by a playwright I know and love, I have high hopes. So when I read a review like this, and I’m told that despite an able cast and an impressive literary pedigree, the experience isn’t enjoyable, I’m satisfied. I’m sorry your theater friends weren’t patted on the back like you wished, but at least I’m saved $10 and three hours of misery.
I agree that critique of the text itself is necessary. Despite the best efforts of the cast and crew, if the play itself sucks, it’s possible I’ll have a miserable time. But, regardless of the quality of the text, a great deal of time in a review must be spent on the production itself. If I go see a production of Kushner’s best known work, “Angels in America”, I want to know what the production is like, because I know the text is quality. I want to be told the actors are terrible or any other production aspect negatively affects the experience of watching an otherwise excellent show.
With that said, I did not hear of “Caroline, or Change” before it began to be produced at Georgetown. Because of that, it is useful to speak of the text a little more than usual because it isn’t as well known as “Angels”. That doesn’t mean we can ignore the necessity of speaking of the production itself, however.
I appreciate that writers for papers like this may have word limits or deadlines or any number of other factors that prevent one from writing all they want to, but a good writer should be able to say what they need to say in the space and time given.
A theater review should strike a good balance between critique of the text and the production, and speak to how one effects and informs the other. Either Ms. Hecht doesn’t understand this, or isn’t a good writer. This isn’t about making sure “theater friends get patted on the back”–if a show isn’t good, then it isn’t good. The critique loses punch, however, if it isn’t good either.
If this was the first time Ms. Hecht had done this, I would have let it go. It is not, however, and attention must be brought to it. The theater community relies greatly on reviews to inform the student body at large of what is going on in the theater spaces all across campus. We want the greater student body to be well educated about what it is we do, and reviews like this simply don’t help. A book report on a play that is being produced isn’t indicative of the work being done, good or bad.
A student newspaper has a duty to inform its readers about what is happening on their campus. If the paper chooses to cover it, it should be looked at as an opportunity to shed light on maybe an otherwise overlooked topic. In a position such as this, one would think Ms. Hecht would be more responsible.
I don’t understand why this reporter is not assigned to book reviews and book reviews only. Each review that she writes ends up becoming precisely that. I am consistently disappointed by these unhelpful accounts of Ms. Hecht delving into the libretto of the play without writing a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the sights and sounds onstage. One wonders why she even attends the theater if she goes in each time anticipating an unenjoyable experience? This is a template we’ve seen far too many times now. Find a new reviewer!
We dont need someone to review the writing for a musical that was nominated for a Best Musical Tony. We want to know about the Georgetown production. I thought that this was an excellent show. The cast, crew, production staff, and musicians all did a great job and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. I would not count myself out of seeing it just because Ms. Hecht thinks she knows something about musicals.
Miss Hecht: you missed it.
The appliances aren’t supposed to be people, they’re manifestations; hence, their not having dynamic human roles.
If you don’t understand the role of Caroline (which was very obvious to me) perhaps you need not apply. She is a multilayered character – the focal point of the text. Did you miss the entire conflict here?
The proof is in the details. You’re still on the periphery. Lucky for you, ignorance is bliss and stupidity isn’t a crime.
Ms. Hecht,
While I do not live in Washington DC nor have I ever seen a production at Georgetown University, the appalling misrepresentation of a stunning theatrical work has compelled me to send my admonitions from more than two-hundred miles away.
To quote John Lahr’s review for the New Yorker, “There are moments in the history of theatre when stagecraft takes a new turn. I like to think that this happened for the American musical last week, when Tony Kushner’s ‘Caroline, or Change’… bushwhacked a path beyond the narrative dead end of the deconstructed, overfreighted musicals of the past thirty years.” And though Mr. Lahr’s opinion is hardly gospel, let’s agree that his theatrical tastebuds are at least as evolved as an undergraduate’s. And while this college production may or may not have lived up to the original, to critique the writing and dismiss the deft subtlety of the storytelling as “slight” is to miss the delicately crafted mark.
No, we find no battalion of French students at a barricade or a soprano kidnapped by a masked murderer in an Opera house. Instead, we see an angry woman with no options doing laundry in a Louisiana basement. While the president is murdered and the civil rights movement gears up for its climactic battles, she listens to the radio to pass the time until she can come home and cook her children “meat flavored bread,” all she can afford. Since when are a mother’s death, the trudge toward equality, a vain longing for something more, and the never-ending spinning of the Earth “questionably small details”?
Perhaps as we delve into the experiences of a group of individuals (and appliances) whose depth demands a new sort of musical, one whose emotional ins and outs are punctuated by a heart-breaking pause while the character searches for recompense or a note sung low until the breath breaks, we ought to forgive or even champion a lack of “clear, catchy melodies.” This play uses lyric and melody to craft emotion and a response in the audience. Not to provide toe tapping on the Subway (or in this case, Metro) ride home.
If you’d like a catchy melody, let me know and I’ll buy you a Fung Wah ticket to New York where Bye Bye Birdie anxiously awaits your honed taste and critical aptitudes. For anyone else, I suggest you see Caroline, and Change, because even a mediocre production of this musical deserves your attention more than any other work created in the genre in the last three decades.
And I hear the costumes are spot on.
Dear Ms. Hecht,
I too was at last night’s performance. I will safely say it was the most artistic, challenging, skillful and enjoyable show I’ve experienced in years. And in response to your review – which fails to review the show or understand it, I found this in the program from last night….apparently you didn’t read it:
“Set in Lake Charles, Louisiana, November/December, 1963, the scaffolding for Caroline or Change comes from playwright Tony Kushner’s own childhood. The Jewish son of a clarinetist and bassoonist, Kushner was raised in Lake Charles and dedicated this play to the inspiration for Caroline, Maudie Lee Davis, his family maid. Beyond this semi-autobiographical premise, however, Caroline, Or Change is a complicated fiction embedded in the transformative era of 1960s America. Told by a chorus of storytellers, the script weaves various perspectives into a complex tapestry that denies reductionist moral takeaways. Instead, the play exists in the dynamic tension within and between the characters as national struggles parallel and disrupt lives already shaped by personal loss, death and perseverance.
National conversations particularly resonate with the relationship between Caroline and Noah. In a decade when Black activists worked to re-define the discourse on and images of Black Americans, eight-year old Noah romanticizes Caroline as a powerful maternal guardian, subconsciously reacting to the loss of his mother and the cultural image of a ‘mammy.’ In response, Caroline distances herself from Noah’s fantastical adoration, defining herself for herself and thwarting attempts to pigeonhole her. Further complicating their relationship are the strong currents of Jewish liberalism manifested by Rose, Mr. Stopnick, Stuart and memories of Betty, each of whom challenge Noah’s fantasy while offering conflicting leftist views on Caroline’s position in the family and society.
The culture of post-WWII and Cold War America crucially define the larger context of race relations for the Thibodeaux and the Gellmans. The critical lyric Pain is white is a blunt and bitter commentary summarizing post-war race relations and its impact on Black families, as well as describing Caroline’s physical experience of being hit by her husband. Holocaust imagery further elaborates the post-war context, filling the Gellman’s cultural consciousness and fueling the cruel climatic conflict of the play. Finally, the Vietnam War subtly weaves its way into the story through the absence of Caroline’s son, Larry, an absence that is charged with the political implications of the draft and the Army’s repeated use of young Black men on the front lines.
Undeniably, the sociopolitical context of 1963 shapes the lives in Caroline, Or Change, most noticeably as the assassination of President Kennedy changes the course of history. But the play focuses more intensely on the personal stories; on the characters’ responses to burdens and conflicts that cut them to the core. In the aftermath of Betty Gellman’s death, the story is most significantly about personal attitudes, responses and morality in the face of change and challenge. The result is a script that remains relevant and necessary today. The characters’ nuanced experiences challenge us to consider our own responses to change: to the choice between between need and want, survival and pride, coping and avoidance, and loneliness and agency.
A tightly woven tapestry of perspectives on change, death, personal conflict and struggle, Caroline, Or Change finishes with a moment that strongly suggests Kushner’s characterization of the times. In the epilogue, Emmie describes two statues: the fallen statue of the confederate soldier, the South’s defender, and the still-standing pillar of salt, Caroline enduring the harsh winds alone for the sake of her children. As segregation begins to fall in the South, Caroline embodies, in her own way, the spirit of perseverance at the heart of the Civil Rights Movement. Fulfilling the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “if physical death is the price that some must pay to free their children from a permanent life of psychological death, then nothing could be more Christian,” Caroline accepts emotional death in order to support her children, the flag-bearers of hope and change.”
While this summarizes the essence of Kushner’s work contextually, it isn’t necessary to read the dramaturg’s note to pull out these messages. They are expressed in the well-defined moments on the stage. In fact, this note doesn’t even begin to explore the elements of history, pain and humanity in this performance. I experienced very different moments and insight and talking to my neighboring audience members, we each had a unique individual connection with the show.
If you insist on continuing to review theatre, open you’re eyes and ears, Mrs. Hecht…you may learn something.
WORST. THEATER. REVIEW. EVER.
you should stop writing these
WORST. THEATER. REVIEW. EVER.
you should stop writing these
Was this just for effect? To get a rise out of people?
Leave it to Georgetown writers to write something “trying to be edgy” and fail miserably in a muck of unrelated, ill-delivered thoughts.
Keep your ideas on the show, that’s en pointe. But as we saw last spring, some writing should not make the morning paper.
Congratulations…perhaps we can tack this up on the wall of non-academic writing that “falls too short.”
First, I would like to point out that despite Miss Hecht’s perhaps misguided focus on the script, her final paragraph, which was actually spent in reviewing the production itself rather than the play, contained some correct and astute observations. This production had accomplished musicians, beautiful costumes, and a potentially explosive script, but it was not perfect. The space WAS under-used. The characters WERE clustered and crowded into corners at times and there WERE problems with the microphones: not all of Mr. Kushner’s Tony-nominated words were audible. Second, I would like to point out that a number of people making comments on this article seem to feel that Mr. Kushner’s script is above and beyond the scope or criticism of a humble student theater reviewer because “Caroline or Change” was nominated for a Tony, or because Kushner is also the author of “Angels in America”, possibly the greatest American play that will appear on the scene in our lifetimes. But Tony-nomination or no, we are doing a disservice both to Kushner and to “Caroline or Change” if we make the piece “holy” and “above reproach” because it was written by a famous, acclaimed playwright and because it won some awards. If we don’t question and criticize art, it becomes stagnant: it rots and it makes no progress. I respect that Miss Hecht wasn’t afraid to have her own unique and independent opinion on how effective this play was FOR HER. Too many of you seem to have formed an opinion of “Caroline or Change” based on an awards ceremony or someone else’s praise of Kushner’s writing instead of thinking about the meaning of the work and judging its effectiveness for yourselves. As for the accusation that Miss Hecht is writing a “book review” and knows nothing about the theater, I think that most of the people going to see “Caroline or Change”, at Georgetown or on a professional stage, are not Theater Majors or theater experts: they are ordinary people who want to be moved. Perhaps Miss Hecht’s “uneducated” opinion of “Caroline or Change” is all the more valuable because it is a better representation of what an ordinary person would think and feel in reaction to the production.
Anonymous – Your comment that most theater-goers would relate to Ms. Hecht’s writing is insulting to the Georgetown community. Her article is poorly written and without focus. Just because she may be approaching this review from the viewpoint of a non-Theatre major does not give her an excuse for being a poor writer.
Shira Hecht is a waste of a reviewer and has been for the past 4 years. She has absolutely no future in the world of journalism, and has never once written a valid review of a piece of theater at Georgetown. Don’t get me wrong – she’s a nice girl, but a terrible writer.
Miss Hecht, on behalf of REAL theater-goers everywhere, do us all a favor and stop reviewing plays. Thanks.
To all previous commenters:
Grow up