.

Blog | "The Gift": Joanna Murray-Smith's Hard-Hitting Comedy about Friendship, Art and Parenthood at the Geffen Playhouse

Victorian Chick's review of Joanna Murray-Smith's clever satire which explores friendship, art, marriage and children to uncomfortable but amusing ends.

Emerging from the Gil Cates theater after last night's play, I saw a lobby full of unusually animated theatergoers discussing the Joanna Murray-Smith play reviewed without mercy by LA Times theater critic Charles McNulty.

Usually when a blurb in a program written by the hosting theater calls a play "thought-provoking" or says that it generates more questions than it answers, I'm skeptical. One hardly plugs a play by saying it raises no important questions and ends with definitive conclusions which altogether terminate thought and discussion. 

But in the case of The Gift, I must agree with every theatergoer who has posted on the Geffen FB page about this searing comedy by the controversial Australian playwright, screenwriter, columnist and librettist. I knew about Honour (Broadway production in 1995 with Meryl Streep and Sam Waterston) and Female of the Species, which played at the Geffen in 2010 and starred Annette Bening. 

In the New York Times, Charles Isherwood had this to say of the Geffen show: "The Female of the Species is not just antifeminist. In its depiction of women as variously pompous, deluded, self-obsessed, hypocritical, sexually obsequious or just plain crazy, it comes closer to being antifemale." But I knew little of the prolific writer who seems to be a bit of a provocateur, a kind of Australian Camille Paglia. 

Ms. Murray-Smith's remark that male playwrights are generally better than female ones set off a firestorm of tweets calling her out for what was regarded as terribly sexist. In truth--and this bears on what I have to say about The Gift--it's acceptable to hold outrageous views which fly in the face of PC or conventional wisdom, but it's not okay to say them out loud, much less in an interview. And from what I can gather, Ms. Murray-Smith is a bit like a highbrow Howard Stern circa 1990, who in this case (as more than one parent told me after the show), "says what we've all thought at least once."  

In reviewing Ms. Murray-Smith's clever satire, one has two choices: issue a spoiler alert and discuss the morally complex and unsettling conclusion (as in Theater Notes, a serious now defunct blog I didn't read until last night) or speak abstractly while trying to say something meaningful. McNulty does not reveal "the gift" but notes, petulantly, that he would not have been wrong to do so given the play is "banalit[y]" personified and a waste of four great actors. For a different reason--because the emotional, psychological and moral force of The Gift depends largely upon a late plot twist--I have chosen the second option. 

Even McNulty must acknowledge that the set--like the writing--was "superficially appealing": faint praise for a set which in its evocation of a lush tropical vacation and glorious LA home with a view reminds one that set design truly is an art form. The play begins with two couples on a 5-star vacation which one couple paid for and the other won: Ed (Chris Mulkey) and Sadie are wealthy, middle-aged, childless, and in their own words, not particularly interesting; Martin (James Van Der Beek) and Chloe (Jamie Ray Newman) are young, artistic, passionate and slightly irritating (unless you're part of the conceptual art scene).

I was a couple minutes late and missed the part about the young, beautiful being a writer with a Ph.D. Just as doctors and lawyers lack patience for medical and legal dramas, I rarely like movies or TV shows about literary people (particularly academics) because they don't represent what I know of the world I lived in for many years.

Chloe doesn't sound like a first-year Masters student in English (or anything), much less a PhD. This doesn't matter in the scheme of things but nothing about Chloe communicates intellectual seriousness, unless your standard is someone completely uncultured and unread. 

The couples become strangely close over expensive wine and cocktails (mojitos), a closeness cemented during a sailing accident in which the young artist saves the life of the older businessman. They agree to meet in a year's time--during which the older couple has embarked on a whirlwind tour of art galleries in Europe and New York and the younger couple has finally broken into the "bigtime" art world--so that Martin and Chloe can think of an appropriate gift as an expression of gratitude for having their lives saved in more ways than one. 

The first 35 to 40 minutes is riotously funny, particularly on the score of parents who schlep their kids to lessons in activities for which they have no talent. I have ordered the text of the play so I can relive these scathing comments about parents who essentially lie to their children about their aptitude rather than providing their offspring with realistic assessments: "You're a wonderful, caring person but a future Stanford pediatric oncologist or concert pianist you are not."

Several times during minor set changes, Baker poignantly addresses the audience, confessing that seeing this young couple admire one another (Chloe calls him "brilliant" and a "genius" far too often to preserve crediblity or unequivocal sympathy) makes her imagine what she might have become had she not married Ed or believed marriage permitted ongoing growth and autonomy.

Baker freely admits that even as a young woman, she lacked Chloe's "beauty and intellect" but can't help wondering what might have been. This is moving, though again, the beautiful and waifish Chloe (with a particularly commanding voice) hardly screams out erudition or "life of the mind."  She reminds me more of the mousier, more neurotic faux intellectual Monica (Ellen Paige) hilariously mocked by Alec Baldwin's character in one of his best performances in years in Woody Allen's spectacular To Rome with Love (2012).

Baker's humanity and commonsense emerge most powerfully during the part of the play I cannot here discuss, but even her early admission that she has never had a great idea is endearing in its self-deprecation.  As a great fan of Aaron Sorkin's underrated Sports Night, his critical darling and commercial bomb in the late 1990s due in part to its 30-minute format and in part its relatively untested genre (the "dramedy" had not yet caught on as Denis Leary learned through the failure of The Job from the same era), the "great idea" episode immediately and pleasingly sprung to mind.  

Ed and Sadie are profoundly decent if simple people for whom life has grown terribly dull.  Martin and Chloe remind them, even before the transformation in the year following Ed's accident, that life--via art--can be strange and surprising.

Of course if one expects a treatise on aesthetics or literary criticism which provides a novel analysis of the way in which art remakes life--a Defence of Poetry a la Sir Philip Sidney for the 21st century--one will be disappointed. The talk about art is somewhat cliche, but the way in which art touches the lives of those not invested in it in connection with two artists (or one artist and his promoter wife) is not without meaning or value. 

Musing on the play this morning on Facebook as I am prone to do about a performance seen the night before, it occurred to me that this play appeals to a particular sort of person, namely, a secular, educated, urban dweller at least in the upper middle class, or an artist on the fringes of a culture made up of such people. For observant Christians or Jews, children are the point of marriage if not life itself. Post-Friedan, it's fine not to want kids (at least if you live around money in a godless, liberal city, because of course the quickest route to poverty is children). 

A woman whose username is "MadgieofBrentwood" left the following comment on the LA Times blog: "As an urban parent guilty of helicopter tendencies (like most boomer parents living in upscale L.A. neighborhoods), I found the play to be well-written, surprising, and thought-provoking. I'm guessing the critic isn't a parent.  Thought all four actors were superb."   I left my own remarks (my first time commenting on a piece in the LAT), wishing both to counter the critic's view and to register my wholehearted agreement with Madgie. 

As "Tiger Mom" Amy Chua learned in the wake of the Wall Street Journal's irresponsible and misleadingly-titled "Why Chinese Parenting is Superior," only the topics of abortion and guns arouse such intense cum hysterical passions as parenting. I heard Ms. Chua--a professor at Yale Law--discuss Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother at UCSB last year and found her as affable, witty and incisive as she was in Palisades native Michael Medved's radio show. (Medved took a sharp right turn some time ago but is to my mind one of the sharpest of what a friend calls the "conservative talking heads".) 

Ms. Chua nearly sued the WSJ both for making it sound as though she asserted the superiority of Chiense parenting--she didn't as she told her audience at Campbell Hall, and the title was not hers--and for committing the cardinal sin of criticism even of the journalistic variety: failing to contexualize an excerpt or passage. The first third of the book describes the Tiger Mom philosophy, while the other two-thirds questions it in the wake of her second daughter's dramatic rebellion in the middle of Moscow's Red Square at 13.

But nothing pushes buttons like talking about other people's kids, and generally rational people become downright certifiable when it comes to criticism of their children or their parenting methods. Any Little League coach knows that a perfectly normal parent off the field can become a candidate for a straitjacket at the bottom of the fifth when his son is taken out of the game.  

The Gift won't play in Peoria, as they say, any more than Coney Island Christmas, which though never mean-spirited, is clearly pitched to Jews whether secular or observant. Wondering if having kids was a mistake which destroyed your life, career, and possibility of happiness or passion is a luxury only people not occupied with survival can indulge. And even to the 1%-er couple, Ed and Sadie, who could not have children, the significance of "genius" over and above humanity is dubious at best. 

Of course for (deliberately) childless people like myself, who late in life fell in love with two children of friends (both 5 years old) but who sees children as the worst possible financial investment with an enormous potential for catastrophe (mental illness, drugs, alcoholism or just general uselessness to name a few) not to mention the certain annihilation of freedom for a minimum of two decades if you're not in the 1-2% and able to hire full-time help, the play is an amusing confirmation of everything I've always thought about the childrearing endeavor. 

The Gift runs until March 10th. If I were not leaving for NYC on Saturday and returning March 9th, I would pay to see it again.  

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Suzanne Birdsall February 12, 2013 at 04:56 PM
The play has its moments, but is nearly unwatchable drudgery. I have a problem however with this review, which fails in several ways. This review seems to be more about the reviewer than the play. Everything in it is written in relation to something about the reviewer herself that nobody interested in the play itself could possibly be interested in. Almost everything she write relates some aspect of the play to her own eccentric views. Why do we care, and what does this have to do with the play itself, that she is childless or a variety of other facts we learn about the reviewer? Her bizarre references to Jews and Christians are, well, bizarre. She also doesn't seem to be able to follow any single idea she starts to write about for more than a few sentences before losing focus and changing the subject to pontificate about random things that she illogically then connects to the play, before then loosing focus again and moving on to another topic. This reviewer is a terrible writer. For a better review of the play, I recommend the review from several days ago from the LA Times. You can read that here. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-the-gift-review-geffen-20130208,0,5527787.story
Victoria Ordin February 12, 2013 at 06:47 PM
And finally, my intent here was on the one hand to counter the gratuitously mean review of Mr. McNulty, notoriously "persnickety," and also to underscore the appealing aspects of the play to someone secular, childless and of the world Madgie of Brentwood (LAT commenter) lives.
Victoria Ordin February 12, 2013 at 06:53 PM
My other comment seems not to have appeared so I will reiterate: 1) If you know anything whatever about the world of literature or literary criticism, you would know that the Yale School of Criticism/deconstruction emerged in relation to British Romanticism. Geoffrey Hartman, Harold Bloom, Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller and secondarily, Leslie Brisman and Paul Fry all wrote at length about Wordsworth and in 1988's Unremarkable Wordsworth, Hartman memorably noted that WW takes himself "as ontological starting point," by which he means that reflections ORIGINATE in his own phenomenological viewpoint 2) I was HONEST about my prejudices and preconceptions. William James in Pragmatism wrote "The trail of the human serpent is everywhere." If you know anything about James, philosophy in the 18th C (German Idealism) or even British Empiricism (Locke, Hume etc) you should know that part of the point for these theorists of mind, morals and art was to ACKNOWLEDGE our subjectivity rather than pretend to objectivity which in any case is a fiction analogous to Lacan's "founding fiction" re the self. My style is grounded in Yale English education and then doctoral program for which I was THE top candidate of the year in 1996 out of Yale; Humanities Predoctoral Fellow with 5 free years, 2 with stipend. 3) If you read my Weekly Standard reviews--Lithgow, Edith Wharton--you will see at 1200 word review which nevertheless DOES take my self and as "ontological starting point."
Victoria Ordin February 12, 2013 at 06:59 PM
And yes, my writing in part about ME, self-reflexive, autobiographical. But given the play arouses a love/hate reaction, I wished to register a "love" reaction. Moreover, many commenters on FB privately and publicly think I'm on the right track re secular vs religious theatergoers I have to say, it was shocking to hear this many parents saying, "We've all thought what this play stated explicitly." You simply do not like ME and that's okay: Google Analytics and FB insights indicate that enough people like me , my eccentricities, my reactions to art and life and travel to make me comfortable with arousing strong dislike (which an outspoken, secular woman with my viewpoints about life is bound to do though I have a STRONG GOP Christian contingent on BOTH my FB pages). In WLA, of course, my views are not out of line with many. Interestingly, I have a strong following in the Midwest of people who are not pro-choice, pro-LGBT and hate the NYT, the Ivy liberal elite, LA, and NYC. Unlike a critic who trashes a play and may have undisclosed reasons for doing so --I'm merely speculating about the religious orientation but was pointed to the Exorcist article in which McNulty seemed to be coming from a similar place. My politics and general orientation (secular Jews are ubiquitous in WLA of course) aren't out of line. My views about children as the quickest route to poverty are less traditional but a private school girl will of course have notions about money and kids.
Victoria Ordin February 12, 2013 at 07:06 PM
The review you posted IS THE review I took as my point of departure so I think my prior remarks may have been wasted since you seem to be unaware that Charles McNulty was the CRITIC to whom I was replying?! So it's quite amusing/startling that you read the review without catching on to that basic fact. That's not a matter of analysis or perspective; that's a matter merely or reading comprehension (sorry). I even QUOTED the adjective in the title--banality--and referred to his view of the sets. How you were able to read the view which not only takes McNulty's review as its point of departure but several times notes his particular views (the sets as "superficially appealing" makes me feel even better than you don't like --and cognitively lack the capacity to follow a stream of consciousness style, much less infer logical or causal links--given that YOU fail as a reader on the most basic level of comprehension,
Victoria Ordin February 12, 2013 at 08:05 PM
Let me clarify re British Empiricists vs Rationalists or German Idealists (though I'm not sure that it would make any difference given you didn't manage to pick up on the fact I was responding directly to the LAT review you like and agree with): For Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, the "Copernican Revolution" at the outset of his treatise on epistemology was to reverse the prior, traditional and long-held conception of the relation between objects and our knowledge of objects. Objectivists--of the Rand variety certainly, but others before--obviously disagree with this. But in CPR also known as the First Critique, Kant was seeking a middle way or synthesis between Empiricists (like Hume) and rationalists/Idealists (Berkeley, pronounced like BARK not like Cal the university). And those who both disagree with and simply misunderstand Kant and the Germans who wrote endlessly in rebuttal (very argumentative bunch the German "system mongers :), as some Brits disdainfully referred to them, like those in contemporary culture who ignorantly throw around the term "moral relativism" having no concept that there are two branches (cognitive/conceptual and moral/ethical), simply have no idea what was meant by "subjective" or subjectivity." These are large topics of which you are likely ignorant in your SHOCK that a review might be "self-reflexive."
Erik Anderson February 13, 2013 at 03:21 AM
Consider the choices: 1) read a dry review of which pretends to objectivity, even though it is full of undisclosed personal judgments, or 2) Ms. Ordin's fiesty no-holds-barred discussion of what she feels is really being presented to the audience and her reaction to it. If Ms. Ordin was a dullard like me, I could see how the first option might be preferable. However this is a uniquely qualified and interesting person who lets you know exactly where she is coming from. If you disagree with her opinions, ok, so what? By revealing her own feelings we can still accurately assess the quality and content of the play. I will probably never see "The Gift", but reading this review was a privilege and a pleasure.
Victoria Ordin February 13, 2013 at 06:00 AM
Aww, thanks, Erik. Well, it occurred to me later that this woman must not know a whole lot of practicing Catholics.Oddly I am friends with more practicing Catholics on FB than observant (or secular) Jews. One need not be a nun or professor at a seminary to know that when you marry in the Catholic church, you have to agree to raise your kids Catholic. This, uh, presupposes the existence of children to raise (I know, my inferential capacity is simply blinding!) She seems equally ignorant about observant Jews, particularly Boomers. My friend, raised conservative/Orthodox in Kansas City, says that from a young age it was impressed upon him and his fellow Hebrew school students that they were the FIRST generation post-Hitler to be raised in America and that it was up to THEM to marry in the faith and raise Jewish children to replace what Hitler eradicated. The only "bizarre" thing is this unpleasant (and obtuse) woman's chutzpah, first in taking me to task for writing a review for a casual local blog in a style she personally dislikes (but about whose tradition or history she clearly hasn't the foggiest notion ), second in missing the obvious fact that my review was a direct response to the LA Times piece she links, and third, for blaming her poor reading skills on a critic who makes free use of allusion. Oy vey! (I will say she had the good sense to make herself scarce as there likely wasn't room in the mouth to stick her foot in it any further)
Victoria Ordin February 13, 2013 at 06:15 AM
IN blaming, it should read in the third part of the parallel sentence in penultimate paragraph :)
Stephen Henderson February 13, 2013 at 01:22 PM
This was the oddest review I have ever read, only to be surpassed in it's oddness by the comments following the review. I am actually in agreement with the first gal who commented here. That the author is her own ontological starting point ( please ) does not give her license to waste the reader's time discussing anything she chooses. This writer needs a thicker skin. She displays an almost pathological need to defend herself.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »