The essence of theater is artifice. As audience members, we know that we're being manipulated, and yet we're eager to submit, as long as the production in question exhibits craft and genuine emotion.
It's funny, though, sometimes when we're actually aware that our collective chains are being yanked, it sort of spoils the fun. Sometimes. Other times, we know full well that the show we're watching is shamelessly tugging at the old heartstrings, and yet we succumb.
War Horse is fairly shameless. And manipulative. And, at times, cheap. And yet it works, and smashingly so. I can't remember the last time I felt so pummeled and yet so emotionally satisfied by a staged production, musical or otherwise. (Although War Horse has quite a bit of music, the show is technically a play.)
The production is the latest in a delightful succession of productions imported from the The National Theatre of Britain, and it shows every sign of becoming a smash hit: the production was originally supposed to play at the Lincoln Center's Vivian Beaumont Theatre through June, but has been extended indefinitely based on boffo box-office sales and a raft of raves from the critics.
From where I sit, the show deserves both its praise and its financial success. Frankly, War Horse is not the deepest play ever to trod the boards. The play is based on the children's book by Michael Morpurgo, adapted for the stage by Nick Stafford, and the story essentially comprises "boy meets horse, boy loses horse, boy goes to war to get horse back." The show is directed by Marianne Elliott and Tom Morris, and in lesser hands, this could have been nothing but a turgid, sappy melodrama. And, frankly, at times, it is. But Elliot and Morris bring the admittedly predictable story to vivid and often horrifying life through some simply stunning stagecraft, aided by a handful of heartfelt performances.
You may have heard about the amazing puppetry involved in War Horse, and everything you've heard is true. (The puppets are designed and constructed by Handspring Puppet Company, with horse-movement sequences credited to Toby Sedgwick.) But, here's the thing: it's not the technical wizardry that makes the horses astonishing, but rather the way the talented team of puppeteers brings each horse to life. I swear, at times, I completely forgot that I was watching puppets.
Also, the dialog in the second act became a bit more ham-handed, particularly the lines for the German deserter, Friedrich (Peter Hermann). The story became a bit plodding and confusing, and the writer/directors missed some ripe opportunities for pathos. The unceremonious demise of one of the show's main characters is treated in an almost off-handed way. The show forecasts many of its developments long before they arrive. ("What's that in the distance? A German regiment? Or a predictable plot twist?") And the climactic scene in particular seemed blissfully unaware of subtlety and all its synonyms.
So, not a play for the ages, but definitely a production to be cherished, savored, and remembered for years to come. This is pot-boiler theater at its tear-jerking best. I was weeping like a little girl, practically from start to finish. And I hope to see the show again, to marvel once more in the physical production, the clean and honest emotion, and one of the most genuinely moving stories I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing. But this time, I'll bring tissues.
Saw it today. Its unfortunate there were people in the cast and the whole production wasn't horses. Insipid story,poor acting, beautiful staging an those horses were magnificent.
Posted by: Billy Rose | April 24, 2011 at 11:39 PM
What a schizoid review: "War Horse is "shameless...manipulative...cheap... (and) not a play for the ages..." but at the same time exhibits " a marvelous" physical production, "clean and honest emotion", a "genuinely moving story" and " a production to be cherished, savored, and remembered for years to come. "
As a matter of curiosity how can a play be manipulative but honest, cheap and shameless but genuinely moving, and most of all what defines a show as "one for the ages" from one that should be "cherished, savored, and remembered for years?
Posted by: Glenn Korbel | May 02, 2011 at 10:36 PM
I think my review speaks for itself. The show itself had a decidedly dualistic character. The play is simple and manipulative, but the production and the acting make it a wonderful theatrical experience. If the show is "schizoid," I see no reason why my review shouldn't be as well.
Oh, and, BTW:
Schizoid: characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, sometimes sexually apathetic, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, and emotional coldness.
Posted by: ccaggiano | May 03, 2011 at 06:57 AM
I went to this show with high expectations given the rave reviews and the tony awards, and after a half an hour I couldn't wait for it to be over. The 1st act was relentlessly bleak, cloyingly sentimental, and a crashing bore. The 2nd act had a couple of scenes that were not completely depressing, but even these were trite and overlong. The best feature was the horse puppets and their handlers. They do an amazing job of mimicking the graceful, powerful movements of the animal, which captured my interest for a few minutes. And their assorted snorts and whinneys were the sharpest dialog in the play too.
Posted by: Bruce Campbell | October 06, 2011 at 03:02 PM
I plead guilty to misusing the word schizoid. I should just have kept it simple and said "it was the quintessence of verisimilitude."
Posted by: Glenn Korbel | November 21, 2012 at 02:08 AM