Never before have I seen a play that starts with such tension. From the second the lights come up, a man rants erratically while the audience wonders what is going on. The attention is then focused on a screaming man who we later know as John, played by The Elephant King's Tate Ellington. Ellington won best actor at both the Tribeca Film Festival and the Brooklyn International Film Festival in 2007.
It is unordinary to discuss a minor character such as John, but his performance in this scene titled “A Day in Late October” possesses something special that should not go unnoticed. Nearly five minutes into the scene, Philip, played by Matthew Broderick, sits quietly on stage left. The scene has fast-paced dialogue and is particularly intriguing, but by its conclusion, it feels as if the action and intensity has nowhere left to go. The volume peaks and the excitement on stage begins to decline.
The Philanthropist, written by Christopher Hampton and directed by David Grindley, is the story of a lackluster philologist. Philip, the main character who studies historical and comparative linguistics, becomes identified as “wonderful with words and lousy with love,” and finds himself tangled in an unplanned web of romantic affairs. The story takes place in the 1970s at a highly esteemed British University described in the script to be “something like Oxford.” He can be considered the “nice guy” in the show, but he is not very compassionate. It is as if he is merely a breathing dictionary with no feelings or outwardly expressed emotions and has nothing but rigid terms that he is content with being defined by.
Philip’s friend and co-worker at the University, Don, played by Steven Weber, is an English professor who is much more accustomed to the social scene specifically in relation to interactions with the opposite sex. Weber describes Don as “a chronic underachiever who has achieved the heights of under achievement.” It is Don’s lack of motivation mixed with Philip’s lack of self confidence that makes their chemistry very entertaining and furthermore, unique.
Braham, played by Jonathan Cake, is a novelist who is so impressed with himself that he can hardly stand it. His arrogance is nauseating and although he is a spawn of academia like Philip and Don, he is a different flavor of intellectual. During the “After Dinner” scene, Celia, played by Anna Madeley, Philip’s love interest, Araminta, played by Jennifer Mudge, and Elizabeth, played by Samantha Soule, all sit completely muted as Braham listens to the suave sound of his own voice for nearly 20 minutes. It is almost mind-numbing and heads begin to nod uncontrollably.
Eventually, a conflict ensues between Philip and Celia. She is a bit more gregarious than Philip and looking for a spark in her romantic life, and is torn because she knows that Philip would never hurt her, yet somehow is not satisfied. Though this play is classified as a comedy, this predicament addresses a serious dilemma that is all too often encountered in real life and seldom discussed: the idea of settling into a relationship. Celia knows there is something missing between her and Philip, but as far as conventions go, it is the perfect companionship.
The Philanthropist is dependent on witty dialogue, but even if one cannot enjoy the dry British humor, it is possible to still leave the theater with something even more valuable. The play delivers an interesting philosophical commentary in addition to its one-liners. There is one point in the dialogue where Don tells Philip, “There are two types of people in this world. Those who live by a lie and those who live by what they think is the truth.” This solitary moment of the play could stand on its own for hours of reflection and philosophical debate. A loud obnoxious outburst of classical music erupts in between scenes and during a blackout, a line of letters flicker on the wall and spell out a word that hints to the tone of the following scene. The words eventually construct a list of the seven deadly sins by the end of the play. The Philanthropist may require an acquired taste of British theater, but if one grasps the deeper themes within the dialogue, it is a production worth seeing more than once.
Comments
Post new comment