Tag Archives: class

No Offense, “Good People” Speaks Truth at Seattle Rep

John Bolger and Ellen McLaughlin in Good People at Seattle Rep (Photo: Gerry Goodstein)

The sets are pretty, the acting and script are polished, and there’s a political edge to the subject: Apparently we are watching a show at Seattle Repertory Theatre. The sociopolitical topic of David Lindsay-Abaire’s Good People (through March 31) is poverty. The script’s greatest achievement may be that it speaks truth on that subject without alienating any of the audience.

That’s not too surprising; after all Lindsay-Abaire grew up in Southie (Boston’s hardscrabble Irish enclave) but escaped its event horizon via a scholarship to the very tony Milton Academy. His play is a kind of fractal repeating of the experiences of anxiety and distrust when those who have meet those who want. Lindsay-Abaire deftly demonstrates that this is repeated at every level of class and income — and neatly separates race from the conversation, while acknowledging that important complication.

Most of the characters in Good People are of that lower economic class native to Southie. When Margaret (Ellen McLaughlin) loses her job at the dollar store, she loses the income that sustained her and her mentally disabled daughter. Her best friend is full of bad advice. Her landlady and ostensible friend turns out to be no friend at all when the chips are down. More than a lucky break, what Margaret needs is a reason to hope. She finds that in the rediscovery of an old flame, Mike (John Bolger), who left Southie, made good, and is now a fertility doctor living a posh life in a Boston suburb.

Marianne Owen, Ellen McLaughlin, and Cynthia Lauren Tewes in Good People at Seattle Rep (Photo: Gerry Goodstein)

Throughout the play the notion of luck stays front and center with scenes of church-basement bingo and conversation returning to the subject at key moments. However the question of luck winds up feeling like a big game of “What if…” that’s less about happenstance than it is about choice and also circumstance.

This may be a function of the fact that drama doesn’t do chance very well. Making a play about poverty inherently biases the discussion toward a conclusion that it is choice-based. Yet Lindsay-Abaire provides just enough ambiguity to keep us guessing while preventing us from becoming too comfortable with our assumptions.

The only time when the play rings at all false is in the explanation of a push present—a post-partum gift from spouse to birth-mother. Were the push present as common as the characters suggest, they would hardly need to explain it and if they know how privileged it is, then why are they so blasé about it?

That minor glitch aside much of the dialogue (in a perfect, if somewhat academic, accent) has the snap and wit of an experienced professional aiming for what generally passes for realism on the stage. It’s facile and the laughs fall consistently and predictably. The craft of the script is that even these banalities serve the story and every onstage character has her complexities.

The technical side of this production is impeccable. James Youmans’ sets are confining and grimy for the Southie locations, expansive (and applause-inducing) for the wealthier settings. Even the set changes support the story and a vase gets a gasp (draw what conclusions you will from that).

Projections are tremendously specific and often work in concert with the surfaces where they appear. Scott Killian’s sound design is solid and evocative of working class Boston. One expects to hear the scene-change music slip into the Standells’ “Dirty Water”—an essential Boston anthem—at any moment.

There are problems with the production and these are maddening because they’re largely justified. Ellen McLaughlin is very hard to understand in her opening scene (even for a formerly fluent speaker of Southie such as yours truly) but this is entirely justifiable. Not only has Margaret never really been out of Southie, she also has serious dental problems. Whether the audience adjusts to her speech or she tightens her diction our comprehension increases early in the first half.

Another justifiable flaw is that McLaughlin and Bolger’s chemistry approaches George and Martha degrees of intimate passion. While Bolger and Zakiya Young (as Mike’s wife, Kate) are less comfortable with one another they’re also portraying characters whose marriage is troubled.

UPDATE: The good people at Seattle Rep. have gone to some pains to point out the sloppiness of the statements on local actors at the end of this article. Their points are well taken. The issues surrounding the economics of theatre outside New York City are complex and deserve more attention than some off-topic commentary tacked on to the end of a review. It should be noted that Cynthia Lauren Tewes and Marianne Owen have grown from their significant local roots to national careers. Eric Riedmann is well on his way along that path as well.

One might wish to see less distance in Young’s performance, but Kate is the most formal of this play’s characters so it’s hard to fault her. Otherwise the glaring flaw in this cast is that it’s mostly out-of-town actors [UPDATE: and even this is justifiable as the show is a co-production with New Brunswick, NJ’s George St. Playhouse]. Eric Riedmann, the only true local, does excellent work in the small but vital role of Stevie. Still there is ample room for fantasy casting from our local talent, which suggests a whole other conversation on class and economics as it relates to the theatre industry.

In the spirit of this play the Rep. is throwing open its lobby doors (or easing them open a crack) with 25 tickets to most performance of Good People priced at $1 each. While the effort is laudable one hopes that in the future they will do more to open the stage door to local talent as well.

Fantasy casting directors: Tell us which local actors you wish had been cast in Good People.

Cycling as a Uniter, Not a Divider

"Summer in Ballard," courtesy of our Flickr pool's Slightlynorth

Sightline’s post on the demographics of bicycling, “Who Bikes?” contains a response of sorts to that viral Vanity Fair article, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%,” by Joseph Stiglitz.

Stiglitz excoriates the pernicious effects of income inequality, concluding:

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

But when it comes to bicycling, the appeal extends through all income classes. And there’s nothing like nearly getting run over by an SUV to illustrate how your fate is bound up with how others live. (I know it’s irrational, but if I’m going to be hit, I prefer it be a Subaru.)

Now, certainly, biking is a more popular choice for anyone on a budget. Sightline’s Eric de Place says, “the biggest share of bicyclists isn’t yuppies, it’s low income people. In fact, the lowest-earning quarter of Americans make nearly one-third of all bike trips.”

But he emphasizes that bicycling is “remarkably evenly distributed” among the other three quarters. Said another way, the poorer half of the U.S. makes 52 percent of all bike trips, while the richer half make 48 percent.

The extent of this commonality of interests is likely to be overlooked if you’re not careful: in Seattle, just 2.5 percent of commuters go by bike, though that still places us mid-pack in the list of the top ten largest U.S. cities.

But there’s a lot of distance between commuting and riding solely recreationally. Seattle’s Cascade Bicycle Club has over 13,000 members, and their annual Seattle-to-Portland ride has sold out months early, with 10,000 participants. In a city like Seattle, where “practically everyone” has a bike hanging in a garage, I’d be more interested in knowing how often people hit the road with a bicycle for any reason, not just commuting. (Nationally, commuting made up just 11 percent of bike trips in 2009.)

Now more than ever, as Stiglitz argues, we could stand to build bridges that are not purely rhetorical. Seattle City Council’s Sally Bagshaw has returned from a trip to Portland with visions of bike boulevards. Typically, the response to something like this is as if bicyclists had literally stolen a street and made off  with it, though people living on bike boulevards come to appreciate having a safe, quiet street that cars move slowly along.

But again, consider what the real population of cyclists might be, especially in the context of a residential street: kids biking to and from school or other activities, people visiting friends down the street, people just out for exercise, or running an errand near home. Cycling infrastructure is often seen as serving a minority, a niche group. But bike boulevards in Seattle could be serving a cycling population that rivals that of drivers–thanks to the obsession with measuring bike commuting, it’s actually hard to tell. What we do know is that bike infrastructure serves all income classes wonderfully equally.