Circle X’s Premiere of Sheila Callaghan’s “Lascivious Something” in LA (Review)

12 thoughts on “Circle X’s Premiere of Sheila Callaghan’s “Lascivious Something” in LA (Review)”

  1. Allow me to suggest skipping plays that wax anything on subjects that tire you. Also, reviewing plays in previews feels quite unfair (as you almost admit).

    1. Hi Juniper,

      I appreciate your comment. I honestly had no idea what the play was about until the performance began; it was my fondness for Callaghan’s play Crumble that led me to elect to see Lascivious Something while I was still in LA. I saw it on Friday, before its official opening on Saturday, because it was my only option since I was heading back to the other coast. I actually disagree that it’s good to avoid works of art on topics that don’t interest you; instead, I think it’s entirely possible that a new work may make you rethink your sedimented position. This simply didn’t turn out to be the case in this instance for me personally.

      My review of the show, obviously, is informal; it’s on my personal blog. I purposely note that I saw the show in preview because I know how sensitive it can be to be on the other side–the side of the creative team. Andrew Lloyd Webber has just expressed his problem with bloggers reviewing his new musical in previews. And I may experience this exact scenario myself in a few weeks when a show I’m directing opens in previews. Blog theatre criticism isn’t going to go away, many are still adjusting to this new form of criticism, and one of my primary concerns is that those like myself, who write about theatre in this forum, approach it with the same professionalism, integrity, honesty as they would a formal and/or paid reviewing position. I do believe I have done that here. My review isn’t scathing; it’s constructive criticism, at least that was and always is my goal. I’m by no means discouraging anyone from seeing this production; and in fact, I look forward to reading reviews by LA reviewers and I hope a conversation will unfold that does the play and production justice.

      Nicole

  2. I can’t wait to see it at Women’s Project, especially since Topol and Callaghan have a good working relationship (Dead City). Even when I’m not totally in love with her writing, I’m always bowled over by her risk-taking, from “Crawl, Fade to White” to “Crumble,” and even to “That Pretty Pretty.” Looking forward to following up with you then. And don’t listen to people telling you not to write about a show during previews–if you bought the ticket (i.e., no strings attached), then go right ahead. See this thread for more: http://gratuitousviolins.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-should-i-wait-until-opening-night.html

  3. Aaron,
    Thanks for the comment and for pointing me to Esther’s latest post. I hope to see “LS” when it’s in New York also, and if I can’t make it, I’ll be looking for your review to see how the different creative teams treat the work.

    Nicole

  4. Regarding the ethics of blogging about a preview performance, I believe your forthright, full-disclosure caveat adequately settled any “unfairness” issue.

    That said, I saw the following evening’s performance and found both the production and the performances very tight and kink-free. This includes Mitchell’s unkempt appearance, which IS called for by the script since his character has been in the vineyards harvesting his grape crop.

    I also believe your beef about the play taking on a subject exhausted by recent films is somewhat off-base; Callaghan is using the whole wine-fetish aspect of August’s character (and the films you cite) as a criticism. Her dialectic is between the personal and the political; her quarry is boomer-activists like August who betrayed their own progressive ideals for a decadent materialism that ironically helped usher in the age of Reagan-Bush-Cheney.

    As far as your sidebar gripe about “non-normative” sexual identity, gimme a break! The bisexuality and drunkenness of the boy character were both central to Callaghan’s Dionysian conceit. Anyway, I’d like to know what you consider “normative” sexual identity — Ozzie & Harriet?

    1. Hi Fletch,

      Thanks for the comment.

      I am glad to hear you enjoyed the opening night performance. While I didn’t LOVE it, I certainly didn’t NOT LIKE it. And I most definitely recognize that the production, on the whole, is high caliber.

      After seeing the play, I took the time to read the excerpt of the script that is available on Callaghan’s website, so I realize that August’s appearance is supposed to be ‘unkempt.’ And Silas Weir Mitchell’s talent as an actor is without question; beyond his stage presence, his impressive credentials speak clearly to this fact. In my personal viewing experience, however, I had difficulty accepting him as a love match to Olivia Henry’s Daphne.

      As far as Callaghan’s exploration of ‘wine-fetishism,’ I do note that her doing so by way of a character like August, “an American ex-patriot and Marxist thinker,” and within the context of “the residual effects of Reagan era politics represents a thoughtful departure” from the films I mention. I think that Callaghan’s play is complex—far richer and more interesting than these films, and for this reason, I think I would appreciate the play more if I read it in its entirety. I can’t speak for anyone else who cares about and writes about theatre, but I recognize that for me personally, there are limits to what I can take away from a denser drama (which I believe this play is) when I am unfamiliar with the script and am only seeing it in performance for the first time.

      And, finally, to be clear, I have no “sidebar gripe” about “non-normative” sexual identity on stage. My own approach to/position on gender and sexual identity is, in fact, a Queer one. I’ve not ever seen an episode of Ozzie and Harriet, so I can’t speak to whether or not they represent ‘normative’ sexual identity (which, for what it’s worth, I take to be the division and enforcement of gender and sexual roles according to the heterosexual imperative that has prevailed to this day, in spite of historical pockets of gender and sexual fluidity, progressiveness—Ancient Greece (fittingly), the English Restoration, the roaring 20’s, etc. being among the few exceptional periods). My comment was not a criticism; it was a comment, a note, a ‘by the way.’ I pointed readers unfamiliar with my blog to previous posts where I have been chronicling LGBTQ references and representations in shows I’ve seen in the past year. My ongoing concern/question has been whether or not more depictions of LGBTQ life on stage is a sign of true progress, equality, etc. or a token gesture and, therefore, a more mixed bag, and one that LGBTQ folks and advocates should be cautious about celebrating. I noted it in Callaghan’s play because it’s there, and the play is a new play; thus, it fits generally within this line of inquiry I’ve been considering. Obviously, the fact that Dionysian mythology underlies Callaghan’s depiction of a young girl called “Boy” who is sexually involved with a woman (Daphne) in 1980’s Greece makes evaluating it alongside other contemporary plays that depict LGBTQ characters a trickier matter, and one I did not delve into.

      Nicole

  5. I just saw the first half of the play in NYC. I was completely bored with all the yap-yap-yapping about things that happened elsewhere some other time, so I got the hell out of there at intermission. Riding the N train home to Astoria to hang out with Greek expatriates was far more interesting.

    And all the characters were annoying and I don’t care if they all had a big Dionysian orgy and Zeus came down in the form of a swan and fucked them all. Well actually, that would have been interesting. I would have stayed if there was a chance of that happening.

    More pretentious shallow crap for highbrow wanna-bes.

    1. Hi Nancy,

      Can you say more specifically what it is about the play/and or the production that repelled you so?

      I’ll grant you it’s a talk-heavy play, but lots of new-ish plays are talk, talk, talk about distant (both in terms of time and location) things. I’m thinking of works like Sarah Ruhl’s “In the Next Room,” or even works by other contemporary women playwrights that riff, as Callaghan’s does, on greek tragedy, such as Ruhl’s “Eurydice,” Marina Carr’s “By the Bog of Cats,” Sarah Kane’s “Phaedra’s Love,” and so on…how do these or similar style works strike you by comparison to Callaghan’s?

      The use or reworking of classical tragedy has long been something each generation of playwrights feels compelled to grapple with, at least once in their careers it seems. For those not familiar with the Greek myth or work being appropriated, this kind of contemporary play can be very offputting… Is it this aspect of the work you found ‘shallow,’ ‘highbrow,’ or the ex-patriot Marxist angle?

      I’m sorry to hear you left at intermission. I can’t say I’ve ever been so turned off by a show that I left. By leaving early, you left before you could see one of the more dramatically interesting and memorable moments in Callaghan’s play–when Boy plays a young August, writing and editing aloud for the audience, his last letter to his mother.

  6. Just saw the NY production and I’ll be writing about it for the opening tomorrow. I have yet to revisit the script, so I’m still left with a few questions about the role Boy plays, and the purpose of the Legend about Zeus that opens the second act was perhaps too Significant to sink in dramatically. But to me, the repeated scenes worked well–little flashbulbs as directed by Daniella Topol that actually used the potential of what could have happened to fuel what actually DOES happen. They also fit the final context of the show, the idea of Cowardice (particularly coupled with the failure to combat Reagan, and where that backsliding has led us–and Greece–30 years down the line); in each scene, we see what a brave man would do–be honest, even at the cost of bloodshed on par with Greek tragedies–only to be thwarted, time and time again, by his inability to be the Man both women think he is. (And perhaps that’s why Boy–who shows no fear, and is in fact a woman–is in the play.)

    I haven’t fully thought this out (I almost wish I could interject those scribbles and illegibles of that brilliant monologue into this comment), but I remembered skimming over this post before, and wanted to revisit it. Cheers!

    1. Hi Aaron,

      I like your thoughts on Boy’s function…I actually had not considered the contrast of his bravery with August’s cowardice, but I find that reflection compelling. I’m with you regarding the legend that opens act 2; it came and went too quickly for it to register with me, left me frustrated.

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’ll be looking for your review…
      -N

  7. I’ll grant you it’s a talk-heavy play, but lots of new-ish plays are talk, talk, talk about distant (both in terms of time and location) things.

    Yes and that’s why I go to see so few newish plays. But apparently I’m in the minority about this since Callaghan and others are making a good living, and getting critical adoration for writing tiresome talky-talk plays – so why not keep doing it? Having people sitting around talking is easier than actually plotting out a story that unfolds in the now.

    When the play started with the dude doing his tiresome blood-is-wine metaphor monologue I knew there was trouble ahead.

    For those not familiar with the Greek myth or work being appropriated, this kind of contemporary play can be very offputting… Is it this aspect of the work you found ‘shallow,’ ‘highbrow,’ or the ex-patriot Marxist angle?

    Unless the second half of the play was very different from the first, the play has nothing to do with Greek myths, excepting whatever the PR copy that was used to promote the play said.

    Why should not knowing the myth or anything else being referenced be “off-putting”? Shakespeare appropriated all the time and millions have enjoyed HAMLET without having any information at all about either the Third Book of Gesta Danorum or Kyd’s Ur-Hamlet.

    No that’s just the standard blame-the-hoi-polloi for not being smart enough for the the playwright (and not incidentally the critics who CRAVE intellectual validatio) It’s not the audience – it’s the playwright.

    And the “Marxist” issue is a joke. Marx is name-dropped and that’s all the play had to do with Marxism or any other political philosophy. That’s one example of how the play is shallow. But I guess some people are impressed if you mention Marx at all. It seems all intellectual and shit.

    That’s what I mean by pretentious shallow crap.

    And I’m so glad I did miss the scene you described. It sounds insufferable.

Leave a reply to Juniper Cancel reply