I don’t want to say much about Don’t
Go Gentle by Stephen
Belber because I think it’s very nearly
sensational and the plot is too brief and too slender to summarize without
giant spoilers. Which is to say, the 90 minute, intermissionless drama is very
character driven and the plot turn at the center is essentially a development
that affects all the relationships; even to anticipate the development is to
deprive you of the surprise of the development itself.
So
to the extent that I’ll allow myself to say the play is about anything, it’s
about Lawrence (Michael Cristofer) a
retired judge working now out of his Buffalo home as a pro bono lawyer to
rectify what system injustices he can—in part because a bout with so-far
benign cancer has made him very aware of his mortality. Currently he’s taken on
the case of a young African American mother, Tanya (Angela Lewis), charged with a greater crime than that for which
she is guilty (the mere technicality offends Lawrence’s sense of the
law)—and being convicted will make it impossible for her to care for her
teenage son, Rasheed (Max Brawer). Lawrence himself is a (widowed) father
with two adult children: an accomplished, secure school teacher Amelia (Jennifer
Mudge) and a son who has led a somewhat
less stable existence, Ben (David Wilson Barnes). The familial relationship is thus…complicated. In
Don’t Go Gentle, the line between Lawrence’s altruism and his
family responsibility blurs.
The
dialogue is wonderful, avoiding all clichés and expected tropes even though
there’s a certain amount of archetype in the general character profiles. How
does he do it? By giving each character a limited and unique self-awareness and
irony. These are all informed folks very much living in the New Millennium, and
to that extent they’re analytically minded enough to understand a few things about the difference
between intent and perception. This makes the exchanges and characterization
very rich.
The
direction by Lucie Tiberghien is both
powerful and nuanced and, except for transitional effects, almost completely
invisible, save that she has cast her play brilliantly and guided her actors to
bring their most vibrant A-game. There are none who aren’t remarkable, but it
is perhaps Michael Cristofer at the heart who is the most notable among equals
because he carries more levels of complexity. Periodically one modern role or
other will be compared to an iconic Shakespeare role, often glibly, but in a
number of ways, the character of Lawrence really is a kind of Lear for 21st
Century America. For a play so compact, the part leaves a massive impression.
At least it did on me.
At
the top of this review I said that the play was “very nearly” sensational and
that degree of separation has to do with a sense of deliberate ambiguity that
informs both the end of the play and the audience reaction to it. But my
significant other and I debated the meaning of the ambiguity—and what
each of us fely about the play—spiritedly all the way home.
And
how many new American dramas have the substance and artistry to trigger that…?
Go to David Spencer's Profile
Return to Home Page