Customer Reviews

Topdog/Underdog - Acting Edition

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Since there are a lot of negative reviews here, I thought I'd throw in my two cents. I just got around to reading the play, which I was sad to have missed on Broadway. But if you're thinking of reading it this late in the game, you probably did too. I recommend it.

The topdog is older brother Lincoln, a card hustler who quit the streets for a legit job as a Lincoln impersonator. His (underdog) brother is Booth, a petty thief with ambitions to become as good at three card monte as his older bro. What plays out between the brothers is classic stage drama, tiny eruptions of sublimated hatred leading to one big volcanic moment.

If you choose to read them not as characters, but as symbols of African-American manhood, or American history or whatever -- and this is tempting to do when dealing with Parks -- then the play probably won't pack the visceral wallop that it intends. As someone who has studied playwriting, I find it a very clean, well-structured story, other than some moments of awkward exposition. Parks' dialogue is hip and muscular, and I would have loved to see it performed by the likes of Jeffrey Wright and Mos Def. It's stylized and you either like it or you don't.

If you haven't read or seen any Parks, I recommend giving this one a try. Clearly it isn't everyone's style, but it deserves respect for craftsmanship if nothing else. Sustaining a two character play ain't easy. 4/5 stars.

Saw this play last night at the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles. Yes, it's obvious where the story was going. (Parks didn't choose the character name's by accident.) What's impressive was that you could feel the audience willing the action not to happen. I'm sorry, but that's great theater. I wanted to savor the language some more, so I logged on to Amazon to purchase a copy. I was shocked when I read the customer reviews. I couldn't disagree more with the naysayers. Obviously, a person's reaction to art is subjective, but three points must be made: Theater is meant to be seen, not read. From minute one, the audience was with this play. Booth's pathetic attempts at practicing Three Card Monte were hilarious. Then to later witness Lincoln's smooth as silk moves told you all you needed to know about these brothers. And I don't use the word "brothers" in the colloquial sense -- which brings me to point number two. These are two black men, not all black men. Is Hamlet about all Danish people? (I'm not saying "Topdog" is Shakespeare, merely illustrating a point.) Unfortunately, since there are so few plays by African Americans that get mainstream attention, the impulse it to attach a lot more meaning than the playwrights perhaps intended. My third point is that many people seem to feel that if dialogue isn't written in the Queen's English, it's somehow not artful. Parks did an amazing job. She took two marginalized human beings and showed that there is poetry in their lives. Perhaps that's what's behind some of the negative reactions. These are people you avoid in real life. Why would you want to spend two hours in a theater listening to what they have to say? That being said, anyone with a sibling can relate to this play. It'll make you think twice the next time you feel the need to elevate yourself at their expense. Topdog is what theater should be -- exciting, provocative, funny, tragic. Yes, it deserved the Pulitzer.

In a recent interview, Suzan-Lori Parks said she wrote plays when characters tugged on her sleeve and told her they wanted her to write for them. She went on to say that Topdog/Underdog, which had just been awarded the Pulitzer for drama, came to her as a "gift" in three days of work.

After reading this play, I must agree that it's a product of Divine inspiration. Topdog/Underdog gives voice to two brothers, Lincoln and Booth, as they posture and play and explore the dynamics of being the younger and the older, the experienced and the eager, the resigned and the motivated.

It's a stunning meditation on race and family and class ... made all the more stunning as it pours forth from two down-and-out, plain-spoken, African-American men, characters Parks herself has been criticized for writing about.

What these critics have failed to realize is that by giving voice to these marginalized, unsympathetic characters, she has tapped into the darker, less acceptable side in each of us.

It's a beautifully crafted work that deserves a far greater audience.

Suzan-Lori Parks' Pulitzer Prize winning play, Topdog Underdog, shows the strength of Parks' ability to write convincing dialogue, to develop memorable characters and in the process to create something of a meaningful nature. Certainly this two-man play contains black male stereotypes that are uncomfortable to deal with, however this seems to be the point. While the reader hopes that Lincoln and Booth are caricatures, or at the very least are only representative of an extinct past, the fact is these two men could easily exist in modern day society, and probably do. Parks adds a large dose of irony to their lives: their names, their family, their occupations (or lack of), their girlfriends (or lack of), that gives the play a dark comedy feel.

Beyond the immediate action, Parks has managed to take the reader further, creating a symbolic and meaningful statement in a worldly sense. It is interesting that because this play is written by a black woman it is considered to be a statement on black society. The work, when read and reread, takes on multifaceted meanings in the world of the reader, of any color, and while the surface level of introspection seems to hint at the stereotypical perpetuation of black men making bad choices and keeping themselves in the fringes of society, these two "brothers" truly represent "everyman," who battle with each other in a continued "sibling rivalry," attempting to distance themselves from their past, maintain control over their future and to control their own and each other's lives. Literature, as reflection of life, has shown us the error of our ways time and time again and Parks reminds us that human nature is inescapable and that we are our worst enemy.

(Note: This review is based on reading the play. I have not seen the play performed)

I recently saw this in New York. And quite frnkly i don't see what the big deal is about. I could have gone down to Nostrum in Brooklyn and picked up better more intelligent dialouge. Is this what our society considers literarture? As an African american woman I feel ill to see trash such as this portraying African american men in such a stereotypical light (from an african american writer no less.) Suzan Lori Parks is no more than an uncle tom who panders to the predominantly white theatre patron. I personally would like to see more plays about black men in positions of power and responsibility not the same old junk that america has pidgeon holed them into as drunken lazy womanizing thugs.

Parks' play is a well crafted drama about two brothers' lives smoothly built around their relationship with 3-card monte. She does a strong job of handling the darker aspects of sibling rivalry, poverty, and family. I mostly enjoyed Topdog/Underdog for its raw toughness and the way the two-character structure brought out the inner workings and different demons of the two brothers. While not the greatest play ever, it is a good, solid dramatic work and definitely worth reading.

I'll be brief. This play reads well on the page ... it is intense and in-your-face daring. On stage (done well, as I recently saw it the Oregon Shakespeare Festival) it is breathtaking. Amazing. Unique. Startling. Touching. Unexpectedly real & funny. It won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize and it is obvious why. It is an "African American play" but these brothers could be any ethnicity and it would still pack the same punch. In other words: Don't let reviews talking about "stereotypes" disuade you from experiencing this amazing work for yourself.

Although I would highly recommend seeing this show in production (on Broadway now), just reading the play is enough to take anyone on a serious roller-coaster ride. Humorous and tragic, this play just knocked me out. I had already read two others by Ms. Parks (In the Blood and Venus), but this one has more kick, more oomph and requires you to invest yourself in the lives of Lincoln and Booth.

I think I have it all figured out. The gods of the theatre today have decided that good storytelling, clever dialouge and well developed characters are no longer neccesary. Instead all you need are marginalized characters with poorly executed themes and an author which reaffirms whatever lame agenda is hot at the moment and Shebang!!! you've got a hit. I am not black , I am hispanic, but if I was black I would be horribly embarrased by this piece of filth. It does nothing more than make black men look like knuckle dragging morons who roam the streets looking for the next mark. It has no redeeming qualities or hope for the future generations whatsoever. It is simply a celebration of the degredation and sense spiritual atrophy that America has fallen into. If this is the future of american literature then i'm going to start reading Latin and European authors exclusivly from now on. at least they actually have something intelligent to say. And as for the rhythm that so many have raved about? It is akin to a well produced N-SYNC or Brittany song, Sounds nice has a funky beat "but like a dull knife it just ain't cuttin' just talkin' loud and sayin' nothin'" as the great James Brown once said.

Unless you are Chekov, writing an entire play about planning to do something that never happens is bloody boring quite frankly. Last year I was subjected to this monstrosity of a play by a director friend of mine. Having just come on a wave of rave reviews from the states and a pulitzer prize from the university of columbia I thought that I would give this play a chance. My god, the suffering that followed! It has come to my attention that many consider this to be a play of great merit and strength, that it is a bold new avenue of dealing with the tragic hero. I have heard raves that there is a rhythm and meter that is revolutionary to the modern voice of playwriting. If this is the case then I challenge anyone who reads this to answer me with an intelligent reply as to how this is true. I did not find anything revolutionary about the rhythm. I found only a feeble volley of sensationalistic verbage that sounds nothing like art but only pandering. This is as one reviwerer aptly put like a well produced studio album yet has neither soul nor substance. So what of that studio like rhythm? If there is no substance to the words behind it, who cares? A tailor is not rewarded by his employer for fashioning together only half a coat to warm his cold body. So why should we reward S.L. Parks for fashioning together a half witted story that only shocks and not shapes our senses? I could go on, so I will. I spoke briefly that critics raved about the new voice created for the marginalized. First let us consider this, Just because a play gives a voice to a group that is traditionally marginalized does not mean that it is good literature (or entertaining for that matter.)Ssimlpy because it enchanted you into mindlessly pouring forth some form of emotional investment that does not make it a good piece of work. However thrilling this can be at times it does not denote quality. What does in most cases is a empathy for humanity, a revolutionary voice that is unique and intelligently unique to that artist and is bloody well not trying to pander for awards from predominantly white critics and judges. You can call a steer a bull but I can guarantee you that the animal knows the difference, and so does the buyer. And since we are the buyers in this case I say this to the masses , do not be told by the media what to like. Think for yourself and question authority. My questioning has led me to demand better from live theatre.