Heartbreak House (2013 Unadilla Theater, VT)

Heartfelt House

I went to see a production of “Heartbreak House” in a rural theater in the middle of the Vermont countryside.  Topical social satire rarely stands the test of time. George Bernard Shaw’s 90 year old indictment of the English ruling class surprises in that it still has currency. Shaw captured the dissonance of a mannered old world slipping into the tumult of a ruling class aristocracy without manners and boundaries.   Shaw’s original audience, suffering the new horror of WW I’s mechanized warfare, would have recognized the young ingenue’s metamorphosis into a callus operator.  No doubt even the most priggish blue-blood must have felt the blinders slipping away into a brave new world.  Henry James and Edith Wharton spent entire tombs in which the denouement reveals a woman’s honor has been compromised. Shaw speeds the plow and the young woman is undone, so to speak, half way through the first act. Whereas earlier writers might have had the wounded leading lady crawl into the shadows, Shaw’s heroine charges towards the limelight.  The supporting cast is equally novel in their approach to social grace: all three of the established couples have open relations and the patriarch is married to someone of a different race. In fact  the only character who has a conventional matrimonial union schemes to have his only daughter married off to one of his contemporaries. In fact he makes no bones about the fact that his friend is a scoundrel.  When confronted with the darkness of his actions his answer is simple: my friend has a great deal of money.  Such brazen honesty would have been a ticket out of polite society in the Gilded Age.... but not in the upcoming Jazz age. This post WW I era is similar to our own time in terms of the shift of social norms.  I was born when blacks and women were officially sanctioned second class citizens; homosexuals were criminals, telephone answering machines did not exist and copying machines were a new invention. Someone who was 30 in 1919, when “Heartbreak House” opened, would have grown up witnessing the following ‘new‘ inventions: the electric grid, the telephone and the automobile.  The effects on society were equally dramatic: women, in most Western Democracies, were granted the vote and the ‘Downton Abbey’ set was feeling the ever-present push of the merchant class. In this paradigm shifting moment Shaw had something to say... and it still has resonance for the internet age.

Shaw had an unconventional personal life: born of modest means he married an heiress who shared his passion for socialism and women’s rights.  His wife refused to have sex which led Shaw to have a number of affairs with married women but it is unclear if any of his relationships were consummated. In addition to being a playwright he was an author and a formidable music and theater critic.  “Heartbreak House” was actually written before the war but he held off production until after hostilities had ceased. This was not someone too concerned with offending popular sensibilities so one might attribute the delay to a difficulty in finding a producer.  The original title of the play was ‘A Fantasia in the Russian Manner on English Themes’.  It would have been an mouthful but it does deliver the timbre of the piece: if Oscar Wilde had been touched with Chekov’s sense of irony. The result forces the audience into wry smiles and brief laughter rather than guffaws. The characters are equally repulsive and likable. The challenge for the cast is that there are no real heroes or villains which demands an intense level of focus in order to create the lifeblood of all good theater: empathy. The Unadilla cast did an admirable job of embodying the strange melange of brimstone and treacle. This arts organization operates on shoestring budget and utilizes some non-professional performers.  Even amidst these constraints the result is admirable. It is not easy to mix actors with varying degrees of experience especially in an intricate ensemble production. Kudos to the people on the front lines but it is also important to acknowledge the visionaries behind the scenes.  In a world obsessed with money and liability there exists a maverick with the grit and determination to build two theaters in the middle of nowhere. I have lived in the neighboring town for years and became completely lost in the dense forest occasionally punctuated with open pasture.  It is 5 miles from the nearest paved road. Audience members, even with packed houses, are outnumbered by the sheep and highland cattle in the surrounding fields. No doubt G. B. Shaw would have found a kindred spirit with such pioneers. This was a man who abhorred conventionality and the pursuit of money in equal measure.  His head-strong lack of regard for accepted wisdom has, at times, diminished his legacy. His embrace of Stalin combined with his fondness for eugenics is problematic for the contemporary reader. Nevertheless his fierce advocacy for women’s rights and his unending dedication to helping the underclass, are extraordinary for a man of his time.  Inevitably one must draw comparisons to the other Anglo-Irish playwright/breaker of societal norms: Oscar Wilde. They were two years apart in age.

If there is anyone who seems ‘heroic’ in Heartbreak House it is the old sea-captain. This character embodies Shaw’s own hardscrabble musings.  His harsh truism come with a tinge of  resignation. This isn’t Henry V. This is Richard II with Richard III’s swagger.  It should be noted that author possess the modern sense of irony by saddling his ‘superman’ with a serious drinking problem and the name “Shotover”; in addition he has such blind narcism that he fails to even acknowledge his opponents. Actually the adversaries are created out of whole-cloth with the actual person in front of him transforming into a bemused stand-in.  His daughter is not his daughter - until she is. The singer’s father is always a complete stranger with a similar name. Note that Capt. Shotover, in allegiance to the modern day survivalists, has his dynamite... just in case. He understands the world and knows he has lost... but he isn’t defeated. At this point it is interesting to compare his witticisms with Oscar Wilde’s:

G. B. Shaw: Old men are dangerous: it doesn't matter to them what is going to happen to the world.
-Capt. Shotover, Heartbreak House

Oscar Wilde: Men become old, but they never become good.
 -Duchess of Berwick, “Lady Windermere's Fan”

G. B. Shaw: When our relatives are at home, we have to think of all their good points or it would be impossible to endure them. But when they are away, we console ourselves for their absence by dwelling on their vices.
-Hesione Hushabye, Heartbreak House

Oscar Wilde: Relations are simply a tedious pack of people who haven't got the remotest knowledge of how to live, nor the smallest instinct about when to die.
- Algernon Moncrieff,  The Importance of Being Earnest

In short: Shaw is clever and funny;  Wilde is funny and clever. The difference in their writing reflects the mirror images of the men’s personal habits: Shaw was a teetotaling vegan while Wilde was, well, wild. Shaw died a celebrated figure in the 1950s, six years shy of his 100th birthday. Wilde died broke at the turn of the century after fleeing England due to a sex scandal. Shaw’s rage at the ruling class is studied and pointed. Wilde had a different approach: “if you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they’ll kill you”. Ironically they killed him despite his good humor.  And Shaw survived despite his more direct lines of attack. In the end “Heartbreak House” has resonance but lacks tenderness. The kind of work that comes from someone who can give wonderful lectures on humanity - but never consummates a passionate relationship. Perhaps a better title would have been “Brain-break House”. This is not to say Shaw is cold - he is a keen observer. Unfortunately he failed to be a ‘player’ in manner of Wilde. The latter’s ability to genuinely feel the heartbreak makes for a stronger connection with the audience. Fortunately the players at the Unadilla had strong enough feeling to carry the day. Their hearts were in the right place... it showed. Perhaps they should consider walking on the Wilde-side. 

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

To Professionally Go

Pity the director who must take on a ‘Star Trek’ movie. The suits want ‘box-office’ while Trekkies want a worshipful adherence to an established tradition. J.J. Abrams, the wunderkind scion of a screenwriting family, deferred to the suits - there is a reason it’s called showBUSINESS. The result is coolly professional film.  It won’t please conventioneers or people who know how to speak Kligon... but who really cares about them anyway..... Unfortunately this is exactly what is wrong with ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’.  It manages to be a solid piece of action Sci-Fi filmmaking; but technical prowess was never the thing... at least for those who climbed aboard the maiden voyage in the 1960s.

For the uninitiated : Star Trek began as a TV series in the late 1960s.  The network wanted to cancel the show after the second run. In the end a letter writing campaign by female viewers forced the studio agree to a third (and final) season.  This proved decisive as only shows with 3 years worth of work were syndicated.  It is ironic that women would come to the rescue as the original series has a ‘Mad Men’ misogynistic view of the fairer sex. There are a myriad of episodes where aliens in low cut dresses fall for the sexually insatiable Capt. Kirk.  However this isn’t a show merely about sailors on shore leave. The plots are really  idea driven narratives. This was a show about the wider world, not explosions and special effects. Whereas the husbands might be craving Steve McQueen tearing up the road in “Bullitt”, their spouses were taking in the larger lessons of this groundbreaking sci-fi TV show.  How groundbreaking?  Well the first interracial kiss on prime time television features Kirk and Lt. Uhura locking lips. Yes her outfit was Barbie-ish, but how many African American women were featured as high ranking officers of military/exploration organizations?  Answer: NONE.  We couldn’t even imagine such a thing in 1960s fiction with the exception of Star Trek. This show was special. It has garnered the type of pop culture devotion which borders on being a religious cult.  It’s not just dressing up for Star Trek conventions... Trekkies, metaphorically speaking, put pen to paper - there are thousands of pages of fan fiction dedicated to the original series alone. No doubt JJ knows all this and more.... and he gave a nod to the old guard of fanatical fans: this film touches on the very current topic of military overreach into civil society. The problem is that all this build-up is merely an excuse for the fx crews and pyro-techincal staff to have a field-day. JJ unknowingly seems to illustrate that when it comes to Star Trek - “the plays the thing” and not the phaser.

One of the odd things that ham-strings this film is the choice of Chris Pine as Capt. Kirk.  JJ reprises his coupling of Mr. Pine with Zachary Quinto as Spock to echo the original pairing of William Shatner as the Captain and Leonard Nimoy the first officer. He got it half right. Quinto can shape the taciturn half-vulcan to his own image whereas Pine is locked into mimicking the original item.  He is neither himself or William Shatner but rather himself aping Shatner. Unfortunately the end result is a talented actor play-acting a histrionic icon.  Whereas there was a professional wrestling bravado to Shatner’s sexual swagger,  Pine seems to be faking it.  He hits his marks but somehow it lacks the levity and camp-believability of the primogeniture.  There is also a dearth of chemistry between the new pair.  A fair amount of the original fan fiction focused on the buried eroticism between Kirk and Spock - as if they were a couple. It would be hard to believe anyone would day-dream about the new pair getting together. Without this elusive bond the events fall into fairly predictable set-pieces of victory being snatched from the jaws of defeat at the final moment. This motif was a Star Trek standby but once again it was the characters bonds which held the show together.  In a sense the whole series might be summed up by a moment in one of the original episodes where the pair return to Vulcan.  Spock and Kirk are forced to fight to the death in order to satisfy the sacred local customs. Spock is beamed back to the ship believing he has murdered his friend and captain. It turns out that McCoy has cleverly given a drug to Kirk in order to feign death.  The denouement occurs when Spock sees his beloved ALIVE.  He breaks his cool Vulcan demeanor and exclaims: “JIM!”  The women who wrote those letters to extend the series weren’t interested in explosions, costumes leading to dramatic rescues.  They wanted to see the way Kirk, Spock and McCoy et al... reacted to EACHOTHER.


The opening sequence of “Into Darkness” illustrates the stark contrast with the original.  The film hits the ground running - literally.  Our heroes are incognito drawing the natives away from a volcano that is about to blow in order to safeguard this developing civilization. Meanwhile back in the center of the volcano Mr. Spock is trying to avert a cataclysmic eruption.  It’s about to blow and the Captain must balance the cumbersome regs and saving his friend.  Don’t forget the ‘prime directive’: there can be no interference with the internal development of alien civilizations. In other words the natives aren’t supposed to see you or know you’re there.... what to do?  Well don’t worry it all works out and the planet is saved and our protagonists triumph... except when they get back to headquarters.  Spock, with his usual ‘missing the forest for the trees’ cluelessness, unknowingly betrays his friend.... literally almost costing Kirk his commission for violating the prime directive.  Contrast this with one of the opening episodes in the original series where Spock deliberately violates orders in order to secure a homeland for his friend, a Capt. Pike.  JJ’s script violates the prime directive of Star Trek: Spock is cold, ruthless and non-human - except when it comes to his beloved friends.  In this case the overall give and take between the new pair makes Spock’s error almost believable. In other words Lenard Nimoy would throw himself on his sword for William Shatner; but Zachary Quinto is less concerned with Chris Pine.... and who could blame him.  They do ‘get along’, in professional way - and it all makes sense, in a professional way.... but where is the magic that made this the most successful movie franchise in the history of cinema?

“Into Darkness” zips along at warp speed: the Federation under attack, Vulcans burning for war, spies are amongst  the crew..... Abrams does an admiral job of translating the original ‘Cold War’ dynamic into contemporary political concerns. The original show cast the Federation as a stand in for liberal democracies.  the Klingons and Romulians were the Russians and Chinese.  Our current dynamic sees us chasing enemies from within; hence an evil Federation Admiral who places his judgement above those of the people his is serving.  The script presents a credible story of what happens when we forget our core values. It has solid action sequences and solid performances... and yet.  I guess I wanted to go “where no one has gone before”. Instead I felt a familiar dull coldness of material produced with calculation rather than heart. It is said that Abrams is going to be involved with a ‘Star Wars’ project. A bean counter would lump ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Star Trek’ as similar Sci-Fi outer space narratives.  A real ‘fan’ of either franchise could speak for hours on the difference. The bean-counter would point to the fact that ‘Stark Trek Into Darkness’ has grossed over $400 million worldwide and was the #1 grossing domestic movie on opening weekend.  Abrams ‘Star Wars’ endeavor might prove equally financially rewarding. Unfortunately it will be equally lacking. I can’t explain... you need to ask the women who started the letter writing campaign.