By Christian Viveros-Fauné
By Miriam Felton-Dansky
By Tom Sellar
By Tom Sellar
By Jessica Dawson
By Tom Sellar
By R. C. Baker
By Tom Sellar
The chameleonic walls belong to the home of Anna (Kate Burton) and Claire (Martha Plimpton), two youngish women living in what the era euphemistically called a "Boston marriage"a household maintained by two unmarried women, which might or might not have been assumed to be sexual. It's unclear whether sex comes into Claire and Anna's relationship, though Love certainly does, in great gushes of ornate language, along with its flip side, Hate, which frees up their tongues for catty insults, plus occasional bursts of more familiar Mamet-style profanity. The latter sounds pretty improbable jostling up against the high-flown phraseology of the rest, which suggests a prolonged but inattentive immersion in Henry James. It adds to the event's overall effect of being a charade, with little contemporary girls dressed up in clothes from great-great-grandmommy's trunk.
The action starts with Anna triumphant; she's just acquired a wealthy male adorer willing to keep her in high style, with plenty to spare for Claire, who isn't jealous because she's simultaneously become infatuated with a young girl whom she proposes to bring into the house. Naturally, nothing that good can last. The two new entanglements turn out to have a family relationship; a touch of unwise daytime accessorizing brings on a crisis; and before you can say "Elizabeth Cady Stanton," triumph has turned into flight from financial ruin and legal peril, though not before the ladies nearly embark on a career as fake mediums. Throughout, the only sensible person in the house is the new maid, so disdained by the couple that Anna can barely remember her name, let alone that she's Scottish and not Irish.
The Fourth Sister
By Janusz Glowacki
108 East 15th Street
By Tim Miller
150 First Avenue
Some of this is tolerable foolery; some is interestingly resonant seriousness. Most of it, though, is archness posturing in a void, as if the 1890s were not a different time but a different planet, and women not an alternative gender to men but a different species altogether. Characters in Mamet plays tend to be isolated from the larger reality around themhis lack of interest in social history as a source of dramatic material is near totalbut they usually drop a clue or two that help you place them. Few have seemed as insular as Claire and Anna. Where they come from, what they do all day, how they lived before Anna went admirer-hunting, are all completely blank. Granted, we're talking about a time when "respectable" women's activities were highly restricted. But that's precisely why those tough-jawed spinsters in Boston marriages accomplished thingsmainly in the cultural arena, true, but also as pioneers in law, medicine, education, and politics. American women didn't win the right to vote in 1920 by osmosis; the gals in Boston marriages had been organizing and petitioning for more than half a century.
The puzzle of the play is why Mamet bothered. The subject matter doesn't appear to hold any interest for him, except as a cue to replay old themes. The contrived plot, handled uncertainly in both tone and action, is always on the verge of lapsing into outright farce. The experiment of writing a work wholly about women, given the normal feminist view of Mamet, may have been a major temptation, and may explain the jittery tone; the piece seems alternately like a tribute to women and a sneering gibe at them.
The strongest lure, however, must have been the linguistic challenge: Could fuckin' David fuckin' Mamet write like a demurely eminent Victorian? Sometimes he can, and much of the text rings true. The real complaint, though, is that the language never sounds like people talking, not even people in a play; it sounds like people mimicking what they imagine the diction of a 19th-century play to be. Mamet's dialogue has always had a formalized streak, but till now the artifice has always been his own. Wilde and Henry James are dead; David Mamet's alive. Guess whose plays I'd rather see him write.
The curlicued language and the triple-underscored production make Boston Marriage heavy work for the three actresses. Burton, catlike and ornately languid even in fury, gets away with it most easily; Plimpton juts her strong chin and does her powerful best. Only Arden Myrin, burdened with a difficult accent she can't sustain and a role dense with pointlessly mixed motives, seems utterly at a loss.
Living in present-day Moscow, the three biological sisters in Janusz Glowacki's The Fourth Sister have nothing but the kind of social-historical problems that Mamet ignores. Russians are still Chekhovian, flipping instantly from manic joy to silent melancholy, while their petty cares and giant heartbreaks cross everybody else's, till every cramped apartment's an emotional minefield. Nobody has any money except the Mafiya; the violence that goes with it can touch any life in Moscow. Nor is there any escape: The three girls' "fourth sister," who's really an orphan boy they've decked out in drag to impersonate a child prostitute in an American documentary on the city, gets to fly to Hollywood and appear on the Oscar telecast to boot. But even that doesn't improve life. Americansespecially Russians who've settled in Americaturn out to be vicious, betraying, violent pimps just like their Muscovite counterparts. The one person who actually keeps his word to any of the sisters is a nice young fellow who's smuggling black-market arms to Islamic extremists; don't expect him to end happily.