| "Closer" by Patrick Marber At the Music Box Theatre Reviewed by Melissa Anelli for Theatre Reviews Limited It seems that Patrick Marber's "Closer," with its meteoric London hype, would have no problem finagling itself into American pop culture. The trip over the Atlantic, however, has put the play behind a glass wall, distanced the audience from its core and whatever hope of connection lies in its perfume-commercial banalities. The script, based on a twisted love rectangle, is piercing and witty enough in its own right, but is nothing more than the re-telling of the same love stories, the same tales of adultery and sorrow that have become all too common on stage. It seems honest in its obscenity, when the in-your-face vulgarity is its only weapon, hiding the fact that it takes the audience no "closer" to its characters than "Dick and Jane." A series of loose vignettes, the play is designed to show the intricate nature of the relationships between four (obviously consenting) adults, but the swirl of quick scene changes makes for confusion. It becomes more important to keep track of who's sleeping with whom and what the current scene's characters are griping about than to understand the plot's subtleties. The England production at least successfully masked its shortcomings. Perhaps it was because what was innovative and fresh to the Brits is nothing more than recycled material here in America. Take, for example, "Closer's" famous Internet Chat Room scene. This was hailed as one of the most creative few lines of theatre to hit London in a long time. New York audiences, however, will be less than impressed; the same technique was used in Craig Lucas' "The Dying Gaul," wherein a woman uses the internet to convince her husband's male lover that she is the male lover's dead boyfriend returned from the grave. Used in a dark, theatrical fashion, it was worked into the play in a creative way. In "Closer" the comedy of the scene is sharp and fast enough to forget that it uses every audience-pleasing and false shock-inducing tactic in the book, with cleverly placed vulgarity and sex-speak. The characters themselves seem so shallow and self-absorbed it is a wonder they can hold a relationship longer than the time it takes to do their hair. Natasha Richardson, making her return to Broadway after her Tony-winning performance in "Cabaret," plays the worn-and-wise photographer, Anna. Whereas in London the character was developed as a strong, confident woman who finds herself torn between men, not wanting to hurt either, Richardson's adaptation is torn between her cozy marriage and her guilt over her adultery. Even the "mercy f-ck" she gives to her ex-husband on the day the divorce papers come through, seems more to ease her conscience than to comfort her pathetically grasping former husband. There is something she does not comprehend about her character, but her sweatshirt elegance that fits the role so well is enough to cover up her less than exemplary performance. While at the end there is nothing to like about any of these characters, the females at least start out as charismatic and independent. The two male characters are treated, from the beginning, as no more than libido-driven blowholes who switch women as soon as the gauge on the bedpost speedometer drops. If nothing else, the London production gave the characters life and relatability, whereas this one seems to do all it can to make sure the audience does not care about the people they are watching. There is no connection; nothing to make us feel sorry for these losers in love. By intermission it is obvious that no one of these characters will end up happy, making each scene's content more predictable, if you care enough to try and guess. The script itself features
some cunning one-liners that embed themselves into The most interesting trans-continental
adaptation of "Closer" is the change Reviewed on April 24, 1999
(Opened on March 25, 1999) Melissa Anelli is a native
of New York City with a passion for theatre. She |