Speed the Plow: the dark hollywood dilemma
Mamet’s Speed The Plow* is a rapid-fire dissection of the corrupt world of Hollywood movie making. In the play, Head of Production Bobby Gould struggles to determine whether he should green light a vacuous blockbuster or an adaptation of an apocalyptic book of revelatory poetry. “Being a good man” suddenly has multiple interpretations. Is he good if he does his job and makes money for the studio, or good if he produces a certain flop in the interest of moral art?
Terminal Theatre’s production of Speed the Plow at the Havana Theatre is very well-directed by Sarah Szloboda, who manages to create a hot house of pressure in a tiny black box theatre. The play’s success largely depends on the skill of its actors, who must deliver Mamet’s operatic text with brisk precision. Mikal Grant (Bobby Gould), Ivan Wanis Ruiz (Charlie Fox), and Alexis Kellum-Creer (Karen) rise impeccably to the challenge. Grant is able to deftly navigate the journey from superficial power boxer to conflicted humanitarian. Without his ability to reveal conflicted emotional depths, Mamet’s text would be reduced to a clever articulation exercise. Gould’s ability to reveal the vulnerability beneath his producer’s armor gives the play the moral depth it needs to be effective. Kellum-Creer’s earnest performance leaves us with the unanswered question: is she a naïve do-gooder or a Hollywood whore in disguise, trading sex for power? Ruiz climbs deftly from groveling wannabe to controlling shark, only occasionally falling into the Mamet language trap and sacrificing emotional authenticity for the rhythm of the text.
Speed the Plow poses some compelling questions for the Vancouver film community. Where do we draw the line between commercialism and art? What do we sacrifice by catering to the bottom line? And, most importantly, what kind of person does this industry turn us into? Szloboda’s Speed the Plow is a swift, powerful analysis of the pressures of the film industry. If you’ve ever wondered where your movies come from, Mamet’s scathing play offers a dark perspective.
*Because the title seems so unrelated to the subject, I dug up this quote from Mamet explaining his choice: “I remembered the saying that you see on a lot of old plates and mugs: ‘Industry produces wealth, God speed the plow.’ This, I knew, was a play about work and about the end of the world, so ‘Speed-the-Plow’ was perfect because not only did it mean work, it meant having to plow under and start over again.”
Speed the Plow Written by David Mamet; Havana Theatre, November 3-14; Directed by Sarah Szloboda; With Mikal Grant, Ivan Wanis-Ruiz, Alexis Kellum-Creer; Produced by Terminal Theatre
Had a lot of fun
I have never seen a Mamet show, and was pleasantly surprised! The crowd was full and everyone was laughing from the get go. The third act was my favourite, probably because Gould calmed down a bit and Charlie really got nasty.
It looked like the pacing slowed once in a while, but it felt like that might have been because the main actor f*cked up on his line. I guess I can’t blame him though, there are a lot of lines!
Overall though my family and me liked it a lot, and I will definitely be checking out more theatre around town if it’s all this entertaining!
For fuck's sake, it's fucking Mamet!
Wow Rachel, I couldn’t disagree with you more on this production. Terminal Theatre were so far from the mark that I left the theatre completely bewildered by why this young company has chosen to do Mamet in the first place. They clearly did not understand the material or how to approach it.
“Loved It” talked about the trap that Mamet presents and you mention how his text can be reduced to a “clever articulation exercise”. But those articulations are the whole point of Mamet! Everyone is performing. Bobby is supposed to be a guy with balls the size of grapefruits who finds himself seduced by the girl from the temp pool. Mikal Grant doesn’t give us any of this. It is one of the most spectacular miscasting of recent memory. Dear god, he’s soft and warm and verges on camp. If Mamet were dead, he’d be turning his grave. Bobby’s a shark. Bobby gets off on the hyped up macho “fuck you” lingo that these guys speak. It turns him on. Instead, Grant gives us this weird teddy-bear creation and his face never stops emoting as if he were in a silent film. It all became clear when I saw that he has worked in musical theatre. I’m sure he’s great in that form, he’s got an appealing energy on stage, just that he’s no Bobby Gould.
“Other Thoughts” was right when the identified Ivan Wanis Ruiz as the only one who managed to get even close the performative, rhythmic quality that Mamet demands. Alexis Kellum-Creer, like Grant, was trying to find emotional truths and expressing these to the audience. Just stop it, all of you. It’s fucking Mamet. You don’t need to fucking emote.
I’m afraid most of the problems have to be laid at the door of director Sarah Szloboda. “Other Thoughts”, it was not nit-picking to notice that there was an ipod and cell phone in 1988. Nor is it nit-picking to sneer at the idea of an image conscious film-exec drinking Crown Royal or wearing white shoes that turn up at the end like jester-boots. Look, I remember 1988 – that is not how men power dressed back then. Trust me. They just didn’t. I think these elements of carelessness are sign-posts to carelessness on a bigger level in understanding how the piece worked.
Perhaps the biggest problem: pacing. The performance I saw was easily ten minutes too long. Throughout the evening there were actually pauses while one character waited for their counterpart to interrupt them! What the fuck is that? The joy of Mamet is listening to Mamet, it’s like a musical duet or poetry. Even with lesser works like Speed the Plow there is always the language but we didn’t even get that. And for $20 I want at least that.
I’ve just had a quick look in the program to see if I can find any clues as to why Terminal Theatre did this show. The line “…it just closed a highly acclaimed Broadway run, featuring…” popped out at me. Are we still in 2009 looking to see what is hot on Broadway? Can’t we trust our own senses to pick material that is right for us and for the talents we have available?
Please, please, please, don’t do shows because of a successful Broadway run featuring…. Do shows because they speak to you and because you understand them.
For fuck’s sake.
Glad to hear I wasn’t
Glad to hear I wasn’t alone.
In regards to the reason why someone might choose this show, Andrew do you think it’s a dated show or do you just think that it was the wrong choice for this company?
I really feel that a young female director (and yes, I realise that is sexist) is perhaps not the best to direct this testosterone heavy script.
mamet and the birds
I’m not sure, Manny, that the problem rests with a female director not getting the testosterone. My sense is that Szloboda simply didn’t understand the play or how Mamet works as a performed text. It felt as if the performers were working to find “journeys” for their characters, which works directly against the nature of the piece. The text is the performance and that text explores a particular form of male performative behaviour. These guys are having a blast talking this way, it’s super-charged and I hope it wouldn’t depend on what you pack in your pants to get this or make it work on stage.
So, in no way is the text a “trap” it’s a platform the actors can build their performances on.I guess the best contrast that comes to mind is Main Street Theatre’s mind-blowing take on Glengarry Glen Ross last season (http://www.plankmagazine.com/review/glengarry-glen-ross-comes-fucking-ma...). There is no doubt that the Main Street production was driven by a group of guys who both understood the language and had fun with it. I left that fucking performance talking like – no, listen, seriously – fucking talking like those guys. No, really; no yes. So, yeah, fuck it, it is about a male sort of playfulness. And I don’t mean that like a fucking pissed on pansy way.
Of course GGR is a much more profound work that Speed the Plow and this links to your question about it being dated. I think it might be. Thematically it doesn’t feel fresh or revelatory – even if the language is phenomenal and the structure is sound – particularly in how it builds to the power shifts between the characters. The thing is, with a good production you can enjoy those elements while appreciating that thematically it’s kind of stale. Take those elements away and you got nothing really.
Loved it
I went to this show last week and again to last night’s show and totally agree with this good review. I’ve seen other productions of this play, including the 1988 Broadway production (I hope that doesn’t age me too much), and have to say I would be very proud if I was Terminal Theatre.
Of course the havana theatre doesn’t compare to the broadway houses, but the acting and directing was very comparable if not better than the proffessional production I saw 20 years ago. I never felt that an actor got trapped in the typical mamet speak which can be a character of its own, and there was only one part where I noticed lines (was it just me or did Gould blank on lines?).
I absolutely love this play, and I’m sure these actors could have sat on stools for 1.5 hours and still got a good reception…but thank god they didn’t. I thought the relationships between the actors were clear, and that the use of the space was great (considering the havana theatre is a weird shape to consider for sight lines). I can of course only assume much of that credit can go to the director. I thought mamet’s script was able to shine, and that the banter came off effortless because of the work of all involved.
The show was very much sold out yesterday, so if you plan to go to the show (which I very much reccomend) you may want to arrive early or buy in advance.
Great work!
Other thoughts
I saw this show tonight and felt compelled to share a few thoughts.
First and foremost I think that Mamet is extremely difficult to do. I’ve seen more bad Mamet than good – so I admire the gall of the company in taking this piece on. That being said gall doesn’t get you a great show. And this one is closer alright and okay than great.
Ivan Wanis-Ruiz easily saved this show for me. He wasn’t perfect, but he was the closest thing to perfection on the stage. His delivery of the lines was spot on and I felt his desperation for success shine through. I felt at times his delivery had a little too much mugging for my liking – however I’m not sure if the fault for that lies in the direction or the delivery – regardless, he turned in a fine performance.
Mikal Grant was decent in his role. I felt, especially in Act Two, that he was a little too lecherous and over the top in his “seduction” of Karen, the temp. This is a guy who’s on top of his game, who should be extremely cocky and it shouldn’t be until further into the scene that his vulnerability should shine through. Further to that, I felt that the “change” that was supposed to occur in him from Act One to Act Three was barely noticeable. I feel he’s supposed to be much more of a shark in Act One. No morals, no ethics – and yet he came across as a very likable guy. I don’t know Mr. Grant so I’m not sure if he was just miscast in this part or not – but I just didn’t buy him as a studio exec. I did buy him as a guy who wanted to make a difference. I will say that his performance after he makes his decision left me with chills. He cool, calculated nature of how he made his final choice was excellent, I just wish there had been more of it.
The female in the piece – Alexis Kellum-Creer did an servicable job with a lame role. I noticed a huge change from her through the acts, which was commendable, however to be honest, I felt she was too good looking for the part. Karen should be mousier. Good looking in a certain light, with certain clothes on. Kellum-Creer shifted far too easily into her “business mode” in act three. I would’ve loved to see her work up a bit more to the big “We have a meeting line” as opposed to coming in with the gloves on.
A lot of this might just be down to direction – and production team choices. The costumes for Grant were terrible. The sweater he wears in Act two was hideous and made him look even more like a lecherous old man (or maybe even an old grandfather?) How is this a man who’s attempting to seduce a much younger woman. Also, I was very curious when the play was set. Grant has a line early in act one that says he is getting calls from people who he met in 1962, yet Wanis-Ruiz has a very modern looking cell phone, Grant plays Kellum-Creer music on his iPod, the use of the “clapper” – something that I haven’t seen since old Saturday Night Live sketches. Is Bobby Gould the only man in the world who has an ipod and stereo and the clapper? It comes down to details and the buck usually stops at the director. While it may seem nitpicky – these are things I noticed. Another question I have is whether the clapper is in the script? It seemed like a lame joke and something that is far beneath Mamet.
All in all, as I said – a decent effort from a new company. Worth seeing if you’re in the area, but don’t cross town to spend the money.
Post new comment