DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

     In 1959, Lorraine Hansberry enlightened the world with the release of her innovative play A Raisin in the Sun. The inspiring messages that this play expressed left a mark on many people, including playwright Bruce Norris. In 2010 Bruce Norris wrote Clybourne Park, a play that goes hand in hand with the events that take place in A Raisin in the Sun. Then, on November 4, 2015, the Hunter College Theater Department performed Clybourne Park at the Loewe Theater located within Hunter’s main campus. Their Clybourne Park production ran for 2 hours and with a short 10–minute intermission after the first act, and was showcased at the Loewe Theater until November 11, 2015.

     Act one of Clybourne Park takes place in Chicago, 1959, and it follows the lives of Bev and Russ, a married couple who are moving out of their white middle-class neighborhood (Clybourne Park). It becomes clear throughout the act that they are the white family whose house the protagonists from A Raisin in the Sun are moving into. Act two takes place in the same house, but fifty years has passed and Clybourne Park has become a predominantly black neighborhood.

     First and foremost, I would like to applaud Mia Rovegno, the director of this Hunter play production, for deciding to stick very closely to Clybourne Park’s original script. The playwright’s intentions were clear to me and, judging from their response, the audience as well. The overall theme, many would say, was racism. Act one clearly displays the racist attitudes whites had towards blacks, through the character of Karl Linder. Then, act two displays the fact that although time has passed and racism is looked down upon, racist attitudes still exist. The wonderful directing, costume design, set design, and cast, allowed the play to convey other themes such as gentrification.

     I felt that every costume the actors wore suited their characters. In act one for instance, although all the costumes were beautiful, I found myself drawn to Bev. Her dress was a nice pink color with an interesting design. Bev was an upbeat character who constantly worked hard to maintain a comfortable and happy atmosphere around her. I believe that the bright colors of her costume reflected her cheery and bright personality. The stage was also well done. It was very detail oriented and in both acts I felt like I was in someone’s actual home. On the left and right ends of the stage were projection screens that displayed images of the outside of the house. When the acts changed so did the image on the screen. Inside the house I observed how run down and bare it was, and when the screens displayed images that showed its outside was the same I was then able to comprehend that the the entire house had undergone changes. This allowed me to envision the changes the neighborhood as a whole went through when Lena begins to talk about how she wants to “preserve” the neighborhood as it is at the moment. Lena’s main concern was that because the couple moving into the house, Steve and Lindsay, were planning grand renovations, the homes and rent prices for all the homes in the neighborhood would increase. This was a problem because judging from the looks of the neighborhood it seemed like the current residents of Clybourne Park would not be able to afford those possible rent increases and thus be forced to move. By connecting the actions of the play with the set design I was able to grasp that the issue at hand was gentrification.

     The music and lighting in this production did a great job at emphasizing certain details in the play. There was one moment that really stood out of for me because of its great use of lighting and music and this is why it happens to be my key aesthetic moment of the play. Throughout act one someone by the name of Kenneth was mentioned. We learn that he was Bev and Russ’s son, a former veteran who killed himself. I understood from the angry talks Russ had with the other characters, that the residents of Clybourne Park alienated Kenneth when he came back from war and he believes this was what led Kenneth to commit suicide. This is why the ending of the entire play was quite significant. The set was left alone and everyone except for Frank, a workman, was on stage. He sat on the trunk he found buried under the house’s tree and starts to read Kenneth’s suicide letter. Then the scene from the day Kenneth commits suicide begins to unfold. He was wearing his army uniform and was sitting in the living room writing a letter when his mother comes down the stairs in her robe. Kenneth seemed very solemn and as his mother headed back up to bed she stopped to tell him that things would get better. At this moment, as he sat on the sofa chair, and with a dark and serious expression on his face, Kenneth looked away and slowly turned up his radio music. As the music got louder, the spotlight on Kenneth slowly began to fade until there was utter darkness. The music, lighting, and acting from both the depressed Kenneth and hopeful Bev made this scene memorable because of all the emotions it brought me. I had read this play beforehand and I can honestly say that reading this scene had me nowhere close to tears as it did with watching it.

            Overall this production was a nice watch. The actors who played Bev, Russ, and Karl had my most attention because of their immense acting skills and captivating stage presence. One actor who I felt needed to work on his connection to his character, and the other actors, was the student who played both Albert and Kevin. In act one he seemed out of place, like his character belonged in 2015 instead of 1959. In act two he seemed more comfortable, almost too comfortable, and I almost didn’t believe he was really Kevin. That being said I did feel that he had some great moments, like when he comes barging back into the house and is about to beat up Steve. His expression, speech, and movements at this moment allowed me to see why the director chose him. I wasn’t sure how I felt about the arch-shaped seating arrangement the characters in act two sat in. After much consideration I decided that it did work for the play. By sitting in an arch not only was the audience able to have a better view of the actions and expressions taking place, but it led the characters to have some distance with each other. This distance between the characters worked because we see how different they all are from one another and how nobody seems to really understand one another. Instead of talking to each other they talked at each other. I praise the entire production team for the work they all put in because it was their collaboration that led to the success of this theatrical performance.

 

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.