Abra Goes

Finally made it to the Access Theatre to see Matthew Freeman’s When is a Clock., and I wasn’t disappointed. How could anyone be. The show is good theatre, and provoked a long conversation after- both on the production and story.

You can read a real review at NYtimes.com

My response to the show is below, not intended as a review. Feel free to skip this post and tisk tisk me for indulgence, but I’m using this blog to help me organize my thoughts. But do come back!

-SPOILER ALERT BELOW-

My thoughts on the production of When is a Clock are positive. I’d recommend it to almost anyone, along with a strong cup of coffee prior. This is a good play that’s only running another week at the Access Theatre. Go see it!

A minimal set and strong direction give the audience a sense of being in the hands of the characters; however they may choose to tell their story. The play, non-linear in structure and laced with repetitive scenes, takes liberties with time, space & physiology without losing the audience. I always knew what was happening.

The script is well written, and the story’s playful irrelevance gets under your skin.

The beauty of a show without an intermission is you get to bypass intermission jabber with a stranger while your date’s in line for the bathroom. You don’t have to pretend you’re having an awesome time just in case said stranger is related to anyone in the cast, as they often are. And best of all, you don’t have to pre-maturely detach in order to assess – that doesn’t come until you pull up a stool for your spirit of choice after the show.

This production’s intermissionless-ness also gives the director an opportunity to build relentlessly and take complete control of the audience- again, because the audience never detaches mentally or physically. But while I’m a big big fan of the ‘intermission-less show’, I wanted some kind of break or rather a release from the rhythm, a bridge, a place where everything gets really messy and energetic.

This is the sort of feedback that’s maddening, but I honestly wanted the ends to not be so well tied & the tics to be less surface-level. What does that have to do with intermissions? For me, just because I don’t like small talk and lights up for 15 minutes, doesn’t mean I don’t need a break from the characters’ problems. These were my first thoughts while rubbing my head after this otherwise wonderful show.

**side note on fun sans intermissions** Laboratory Theatre handles this really well. A few years ago they did a play, E.R. Renezvous, based on a similar story about a man who wakes up in the middle of the night; his wife disappeared in an ambulance. The man, as we come to note and not have it noted for us, is more interested in the meta story of the characters in the hospital- pseudo Clooney’s ER- than he is in finding his wife. He’s content carrying around her framed picture, unchanged by her disappearance, and this realization is so satisfying, however sad and terrifying. It gets messy and you don’t want it to end.

I hope When is a Clock gets another production. There are large chunks of description that I believe would have been better brought to life through media. If Freeman were to ask me my two cents, my feedback would include:

- more media…Descriptions of the woman becoming a clock, what would this look like shown repeatedly as an image, slowly revealed for what it is? The wife’s descriptive had no physicality. I wasn’t confused, just not interested in the tell. Full disclosure: I always favor full out physicality when there’s the opportunity for it (like a character becoming and choosing to stay a clock!). I also find well-used media irresistibly exciting when used for story elements and character, not just setting. (Though I loved the video that was used.)

- I did have a few unanswered questions. Like what were they (wife and book guy) up to? What was their evil plan? Why didn’t we get to partake, see more, learn more about the bookstore guy’s motivation? This is the one character that felt weird for weird’s sake. I wanted to know why he was weird, or if he was the bad guy, I guess I needed him to be badder. But then again as far as hero/ villain’s go, both were equally mild and that balance is right on. But where was his edge? Was he dangerous or just a jerk? Did he have a point of view? I never doubted the husband would get his wife back.

While I’m on hero/ villain, perhaps this is why I missed the break of intermission, the confrontation between the soft husband and the man who turned his wife into an expensive clock left much to be desired in terms of anger, frustration, jealousy, and confusion. Made me like the husband less, if at all. If someone turned me into a clock, even if I wanted to be a clock, my boyfriend better strangle him until he’s blue in the face and changes me back. But that’s just me. The husband is someone who can’t cry when something sad happens, but I felt cheated of confrontation and emotion. Was the husband a sociopath? What’s the equivalent of two sociopaths’ confrontation?

Finally, there’s a wonderful moment on the beginning of the motion picture as spawned by the curiosity of man to capture movement. I thought this was going to tie in, go deeper, maybe into symbolism or th*m*, given that projections are used in the show. Either I missed this or it never happened. In any case, I recommend The Invention of Hugo Cabret as a point of interest.

An excellent, imaginative play with sharp, clean dialogue. Personally, this makes me want to ‘figure it out’ and I couldn’t help but continue thinking about it days after. Great job.