In The Next Room (or The Vibrator Play) Alternates Current

IN THE NEXT ROOM (OR THE VIBRATOR PLAY)
Play by Sarah Ruhl
Directed by: Scott Edmiston. Sets, Susan Zeeman Rogers. Lights, Karen Perlow. Costumes, Gail Astrid Buckley. Sound design and original music, Dewey Dellay. Presented by SpeakEasy Stage Company.
At: Roberts Studio Theatre, Boston Center for the Arts, through Oct. 16. Tickets: $30-$55. 617-933-8600, www.speakeasystage.com


The buzz for this play has been positive. Its suggestive title explains part of it. When it comes to prurient interest, we Bostonians have our share.

The SpeakEasy Stage Company’s production of “In The Next Room” has some “insightful, fresh, and funny” moments, as promised by snippets excised from a New York Times review that promoted the Boston production, but it can’t seem to extend those moments into a satisfying 2 and 1/2 hour play. The idea for the play was conceived after Ruhl read Rachel Maines's 1999 book, "The Technology of the Orgasm," in which Maines documents physicians in the 1880s treated women in emotional distress (“hysteria”) with a vibrating device applied you know very well where in order to induce an orgasm (“paroxysm”) to relieve what they surmised was congestion of fluid in the womb.

Using Edison’s electrical inventions as a scaffold, Ruhl’s characters make perceptive observations on the fundamental way technology impacts their way of experiencing light… and life. The play then explores the emotional abyss that separates her male and female characters,  especially their pitiful inability to understand sex as an intimate, shared experience.

In his role as Dr. Givings, a detached “man of science,” Derry Woodhouse plays his role with stolid earnestness. In his office, separated on stage from their living room by a partition with a closed doorway, he dispassionately dispenses his treatments. He marvels not so much about the emotional release his patients experience as with the technology of the machine that makes it possible.

On the other side of the partition, his emotionally starved wife keeps house and tries to fathom the nature of the moans of his female patient as she climaxes at the end of her “three minute treatments.” With fierce, occasionally wacky intensity, Anne Gottlieb establishes Catherine’s increasing sense of desperation, physical longing, and sexual awareness.

Marianna Bassham plays Dr. Givings’ patient Mrs. Sabrina Daldry with ethereal charm and wry humor. Her straight laced husband (Dennis Trainor Jr.) is nearly a caricature of the domineering, uptight Victorian middle class male. His supreme lack of understanding of sex helps to underline the plight of his wife in particular, and, Ms. Ruhl seems to suggest, men in general in this era. I could hear women in the audience stifle gasps at some of his more egregious comments.

From left: Marianna Bassham, Lindsey McWhorter, and Anne Gottlieb in SpeakEasy Stage Company’s production. (Stratton McCrady) Photo courtesy of SpeakEasy Stage Company web site.

The second act, in which Leo the Artist (jauntily played by Craig Wesley Divino) is introduced, seems a bit forced. His wild and hot-blooded nature ignites Mrs. Givings’ smoldering passions. His desire to paint a portrait of Elizabeth, the Givings’ African-American wet nurse, leads to unforeseen complications, one of which helps lead Catherine and Sabrina to test-drive the newfangled device in a giddy scene in Dr. Givings office. In the final scene, the good doctor and his wife have a moment that changes their chemistry. Thomas Edison has nothing to do with this one.

As Ruhl’s characters show at the beginning of act one, we've been in the thrall of technology for ages. They exude childlike delight in standing next to a lamp and marveling “on…off”, “on…off.” Like us, they speculate about what new advances the new technology will bring to their lives and how it might shape their perception of it.

Today we gape at each other’s latest 4G cell phone or iPad as we flick fingers and say. “Look at this app… and this one… and this one.”

With contemporary culture awash in sexually oriented entertainment and advertising, there is no mystery about the sex act as there was in 1880.  That said, one look at the feature stories in Cosmo and a rack of similar ones suggests there’s no overwhelming evidence that men and women are any better at communicating with sexual or emotional intimacy now than they were then. It still takes work, and, in the Givings’ case, trust, to allow it to bloom.

Despite its title, this story of a man and a woman who slowly learn from technology rather than becoming slaves to it unfurls with more of a cerebral than emotional thrust. Trimming the second act might add voltage to the play’s resolution and present us all with a more satisfying climax.

Comments

[susan sullivan]

Very,interesting,insightful review,Paul.SS

[Paul aka pt at large]

Thank you, Susan. I hope others who see this production weigh in with their take on the play.

[Ann]

So how is the acting? Is it worth 21/2 hours of my life ? Can I get through the boring part because the rest of the story is well written and acted ? This is what I need to know . What do you think.? I think you have mixed feelings about this play. It is okay to say, I didn't like it and here is what is good and works in the telling of the story. And here is what didn't work for me. And do you not like the story, or the acting or both ? Just some questions I have.

Keep on writing. I'll keep on reading , especially the theatre pieces.

Thanks,
Ann

[Paul aka pt at large]

Really valuable feedback, Ann. Here you go...
The play doesnt elevate from the telling of a story to an affecting theater experience.

I cant tell whether the problem was in the writing or the directing or the acting but, for me at least, something was lost in translation. The acting was adequate, competent, but neither of the three main characters illuminated their roles with sufficient pain/passion to make them come off the page. The biggest problem is with Dr Givings wife Catherine. Anne Gottlieb cloaks Catherine's longings and frustrations too long with portraying her as a flaky flibbertigibbet, plays her for comedy, and the switch to a more sympathetic character is a bit bumpy, too often interspersed with sight gags, that detract from her unhappy, unfulfilled sense as a wife and a woman. Considering the story line, the play fails if we cant relate viscerally enough with Catherine and her plight.

Craig Wesley Divino's turn as the artist in the beginning of act 2, as terrific as it is, seems like a device Ruhl uses to introduce sexual tension, the idea of romantic love in marriage, and spur Catherine into becoming pro-active in determining her role in her marriage and initiating a sexually satisfactory marriage with her husband.

I wonder if with a different cast or with different directorial input Sarah Ruhl's play about technology, culture, sex, and science would have produced a more visceral result. So, to answer your question, I dont think this play is worth 2 1/2 hours of your life.

Thanks for your comment. It gave me a chance to reassess the play.
What feedback have you heard from others who saw this play? Is this feedback more helpful?
pt

[Ann]

Oh this feedback is really helpful. I haven't heard anything. And I'll ask around .

How come you didn't say all this in your review ? It is helpful to your readers to express your opinion. It is what YOU SAW AND HEARD that we need to know. Someone else may see and hear it differently.

We as readers have to understand how the writer sees and hears. It is how we (the reader) learn that we may have a different opinion and that may reveal more about us to us.
Also, if you see a character that doesn't ring true to his role, it can be stated in such a way as to give both the reader and the actor/ director/writer some information that allows for improvement/alteration. I don't mean to sound preachy here, I'm saying your reviews are becoming more relevant to the whole production and audience.
What you have written here is beneficial to all. ........Of course, this is just my humble opinion.

Thanks for all written words,
Ann

[Paul aka pt at large]

One of the perplexing things about going to a play is that I have certain expectations based on the advertising for it (example, the NYT snippets re this play - “insightful, fresh, and funny”) which may or may not pan out. RE reviews, I don't usually read other reviews before I attend a play in order to experience the play through my own lens, not that of another reviewer. I transcribe my scribbled notes, then write a first draft of my review.
I ask for a "press kit" when I buy my ticket. The press kit is useful for all sorts of background information that other reviewers (I assume) and I use in formulating our writing. Once I've established my sense of what worked and didn't work in the play, I'll re read the press kit background and use whatever information I need to complete what I write and I'll read what other reviewers have said about the play.
Sometimes, I feel like the kid who shouted, "Hey, the Emperor is wearing no clothes!" - the play just doesnt match the hype. Other times, I'm in agreement with other reviews. It's rare that my essential vision of the play will be substantially altered by reading other reviews. Sometimes other reviewer's observations help me buttress my own instincts, sometimes they don't.
One issue I grapple with is moving from third person to first person. I used a little of both when I responded to you, maybe that's the way to go.
Paul

[Ann]

OOOps. I think I didn't put into words that translated, what I meant. I understand, accept and agree with your return comment. And some day I'll have to have this conversation with you in person.

What if you knew nothing of the play ? What if you just went , sat in the seat and saw the play ? I ask because that is the way I've been going to the theatre for over 30 years. I think people want a good story well told. And I think they want actors who bring the characters alive. And sets , costumes and lighting that enhance the whole production without calling too much attention to themselves. And if all of those things are working really well, they will often make a less than stunning script into a worthwhile night in the theatre.

More HEART pt, along with your wonderful brain. Keep writing . I love reading what you see.