‘Grapes’ evokes wrath
Erika Wilkins
Spectrum Editor
To it’s credit, the production of “The Grapes of Wrath” at the Barksdale
Theatre in conjunction with Theatre VCU has incredible technical execution. The planks of unevenly assembled wood that stretch across the floor, back wall and sides of the stage immediately draw you into an America of hard times, hard workers and family struggles (sound familiar?). The light fog that seeps through the gaps in the wood on the left enclave of the stage further intensify the dreamy, dusty rural atmosphere. Artistic Director Bruce Miller did well by incorporating grime-covered props, soiled costumes and ambient lighting. It’s a strikingly realistic and incredibly sensational visual masterwork. Had it been recorded in still photographs, it would be visual perfection.
That is not, however, all that goes into the appreciation of a play. Fortunately for all who subjected themselves to “The Grapes of Wrath,” Theatre pedagogy graduate student Joseph Carlson as Tom Joad gives a staggering, heartfelt, remarkably realistic performance. As an unyieldingly moralistic, headstrong young man fresh from prison, Carlson is the staple of the entire production. His portrayal of Joad doesn’t patronize the audience’s level of empathy or intelligence. Instead of over-selling his character and his country accent – like many actors did – he anchors himself firmly in reality. The other exception to the prevalence of un-enjoyable actors is Martha Rainer as Ma Joad, the indestructible life force of the Joad family. Rainer’s representation emits all the unbending love of a firm-handed but compassionate mother—despite the difference in accent from rest of the actors. Her and Carson’s characters were the most developed of the cast.
Unfortunately, the compliments stop here. When watching any theatrical rendering, each performance needs to carry a certain level of credibility. I’m not interested in straining my imagination to make characters a reality. The remainder of the cast lacked the depth and vehemence needed to portray their roles. The deficiencies only continued when the script demanded competence in comedic timing.
Jim Casy, the wayward ex-preacher was neither prolific nor believable. It was difficult to identify with his struggle or his triumph. The other actors raised the same sentiments.
“The Grapes of Wrath” is a poignant story, which stirs the pots of patriotism, family loyalty and religious understanding in times of strife. It’s about families of blood, brotherhoods of man and the fabric of a youthful America. For it to be appreciated, a production must be more than technically sound. Each character should be a fully realized person, with his or her complexities recognized and manifested. It just wasn’t there.
After waiting more than three hours for the production to finally end, bewildered and irritated over the time wasted, I left the theatre failing miserably to understand what on Earth just happened.
The show runs for another month. Hopefully that’s enough time to shorten the run-time, lose the final scene and bring the rest of the cast up to par.
Editor’s note: The original online posting of this article was not the version that went to print and included some critical errors that have since been corrected. The original online posting included a misinterpreted conclusion and was removed during the editing process. The Commonwealth Times strives to bring its readers critical and informed viewpoints about topics reviewed.
It would behoove the author of this review to be familiar with Steinbeck’s timeless tale before reviewing its play adaptation. Did you ever consider that your discomfort was an intentional directional choice in order to transform? Part of being an active audience member is to consider your own feelings throughout and after the show. I remember reading the Grapes of Wrath and feeling a necessary discomfort after the final scene, but it spoke more to me about the primal state of the human necessity to live. The human spirit which springs forth from the narrative is properly conveyed by the actors. A story reveals, it does not justify itself.
Actually the it’s supposed to be a grown man and his son in the barn at the end of the play. Not a young boy. That’s the story that steinbeck wrote. I also always find it interesting that reviewers fail to mention the standing ovations that follow every performance. Thanks for the press!
Maybe if the story doesn’t come across on stage that Steinbeck wrote it’s not the reviewer’s issue. Neither is it the reviewer’s job to mention a standing ovation but to express their view of the production. How anyone has the energy to stand after this long and boring show is surprising.