Amy Herzog (2)Reviews

Technically these two plays are supposed to be independent but while "After the Revolution" works on its own, "4000 Miles" is full of underdeveloped characters if you had not read the other one.

"After the Revolution" is all about the past, the memories and forgiveness. A few months after Joe Joseph, the family patriarch, dies, a book is about to expose the biggest lie in his life. Unfortunately, despite the fact that most of the characters knew the truth, one of his granddaughters did not - and she had made a career out of the lie itself. So when the truth is about to come out, it throws her life into a disaster - or so she believes. Is the truth really what it is? And are there shades of grey somewhere in the whole thing? Herzog asks the questions - and answers them with the voices of her characters - and leaves you wondering what you would have done - both if you were in Joe's shoes and in his granddaughter's shoes. And somewhere along the line, it is Vera, the 82 years old grandmother, that seems to be able to look at most of it from outside. And the very last sentences are gut-retching - not unexpected but still giving you something to thing about.

The second play, "4000 Miles" is set almost entirely in Vera's apartment, 9 years later (based on Vera's age anyway). One of her grandsons shows up unexpectedly after biking from Seattle to New York and stays for a while. It is not a happy story - there is death and memories that bubble to the top - but it is all about life (and death). Without the previous play, the two main characters look almost like caricatures - there is no depth to their depiction. Add all you had been told (and what had been implied) in the previous play, and this one makes a lot more sense - and you can see the depth.

I definitely like Amy Herzog's work - and I will need to chase the rest of her plays.

It's hard to figure out what this play wants to be. There are some good things about it and some bad things. The voices of the characters are distinct and vivid, but their reality as a character is shadowy and underdeveloped. The plot is weak and the author seems more interested in clever dialogue than her story line. This isn't the first work I've read by this author, and this seems to be a common problem.

This play tries to do too much, and in the end, accomplishes too little. In fact, essentially nothing, including telling a story. It is disjointed, rambling, with uninteresting stock characters and chock full of pop psychology. The author seems to want to be clever, but just comes off looking unfinished. And can we please ask playwrights to stop writing plays about pop psychology they only half understand, but want to inflict us with the depth of their knowledge of? This one gets an enormous thumbs down. I would hate to see it on the stage. It is cold, boring, and promotes poorly thought out ideas.