Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Play Review: CMU presents 'fascinating, problematic' 'Detroit '67'
Pittsburgh Current: Pittsburgh is in the midst of a mini-festival featuring the work of rising star playwright Dominique Morisseau. Earlier in the month, City Theater presented Pipeline, her drama about America’s propensity for incarcerating black men as a matter of course. Now Carnegie Mellon University joins the fun with their production of Detroit ’67, Morisseau’s period piece set during that historic summer when Detroit, if not the whole country, went up in flames.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As a student at CMU, this article was so exciting to read and even see that it was published to begin with. It’s crazy to see students do such amazing things and see how powerful young people can be. I was particularly excited to read this article because I will be going to see the production of Detroit ‘67 in less than an hour so I was curious to see what other people, outside of school had to say about it. I think the fact that someone had published an article about a production that was put on by a school is exciting in itself. It's nice to know that people are interested in see new and fresh talent. The director, Kim Moore, spoke to the freshman class during conservatory hour about the techniques she uses when directing and from what I’ve heard, the direction was perfect. This article made me even more excited to see the show and to be in the place that I am.
This was much more summary than review. Given the brevity of the article to begin with, you would expect most of the commentary to be the writer’s opinion on the production of Detroit ’67, when in reality, it was filled with historical context and a long summary of the action of the script. The author’s largest criticism was of the writing itself, leaving only a three-sentence comment on the strength of the acting.
The acting in Detroit ’67 was phenomenal, it deserved more that three sentences. And what about the other elements of the production? How did the scenic design affect your perception of the action? What about that amazingly well-done sound design? It just wasn’t a very substantial review, which is a bummer because I was excited to read a review of a show that I not only saw, but had a role in behind the scenes so I wish there was more content.
I find it odd that this article-- comprised mostly of a summary of the plot and characters-- constitutes a play review. There were no comments, positive or negative, about any design elements of the show, which to me did a great deal of the storytelling and character-shaping. The cast was described as a whole, rather than individual performances with unique strengths and challenges. A general, uninformed assumption about Dominique Morisseau’s level of experience at the time she wrote Detroit ‘67 is a bit haphazard and a bit irrelevant to what should be a CMU Drama-specific performance. I also have to strongly argue against the notion that it’s a bad thing that none of the major action happens onstage. The events that the characters are reporting back about are violent, terrifying, and real, not to mention on a scale that would be massive to show on stage. In my opinion, the significance of the race riots, with all its fire, smoke, and tanks and black people being shot in the open, are more powerful when we see how it practically impacts the complicated, emotional people who lived in Detroit.
As a couple others have said in the comments, this isn’t really a review. They give a summary of the plot then talk about how it was too long and it was problematic in its flaws. Of course we have a bias from being in the School of Drama, but after reading this article, I feel like some insight bias is needed. The purpose of the play was to show how this family’s life was affected by the events in Detroit so watching them react to the events that happened offstage was pretty much the point. Of course I can’t speak for Dominique Morisseau, but after also watching her play, “Pipeline”, at the City Theater, that is a huge part of her work when detailing the lives of black families going through society and how it affects them. It’s not that I don’t agree with the author’s opinion, but it’s definitely not formulated enough to have a strong standing as a published article.
As mentioned above, I was very excited to read this review, only to find out it was a summary instead. Not that I think the writer did anything wrong, and quite the contrary the bit of the article that was actually a review was quite positive, but there was a depth lacking here that I really had hoped for. After seeing Detroit 67 at 10am on Friday, I will agree that the linear time of the play is a bit long. 2 hours and 40 minutes is quite a time to sit and concentrate, especially when the subject matter heart-breaking beautiful and the actors onstage convey each word with such authenticity. However, it was only after I left the theatre that I realized how much time the play took up. Never did any moment feel superfluous or dragging. For moments of silence, there was tension, anticipation, or love. The emotional depth that each character reached throughout the show is beautiful to watch, and Morisseau makes her characters real, flawed, and relatable. The larger situational context of the show aside, every person can relate to familial relationships and how to connect with one another with other obstacles in the way. And yes I am biased, but I think that Kym and the entire production and artistic teams did wonders on that stage, and made its audiences feel simultaneously uncomfortable, and at home, in Detroit 67.
Post a Comment