mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/16/85)
[Note: this article has be cross-posted because of its obvious relevance to the three groups. I suggest, however, that if anyone wishes to discuss it we should move to net.theatre so as not to have to wade through the Amazing Stories on the one hand and the Libertarians on the other.] Tonight I had the privelege (through the offices of PBS) of seeing "Master Harold and the Boys". For those of you who have not heard about it, it is a play about the social and personal effects of aparthied. If you haven't seen it, I strongly recommend catching the inevitable rerun (watch for it on _Great Performances_. Even though I missed the first 15 minutes due to a balky TV, I still found it a powerful and illuminating experience. One thing that struck me about the play was that, for a play ostensibly about the effects of a political system, it wasn't especially political. Harold's troubles were as much caused by his own immaturity and hypocrisy, and by the choice they forced upon him, as by the racial tensions. Indeed, without his problems, it seemed to me that the racial problem would not have surfaced at all. As a play about moral development, though, it made a very strong and eloquent case-- not only with respect to race, but with respect to all sorts of self-importance and hypocrisy. From an acting point of view, Matthew Broderick's character (Master Harold) is certainly very difficult. He's very complicated, and he has to be an ass without being despicable. I don't think Broderick embarrassed himself, but playing a heel doesn't quite fit on him. His anger doesn't quite convince me either. But he has clearly picked up a lot of range, and I think he will continue to improve. But *please*, no more casting him with phony British accents, please? Willie is clearly the supporting character in this; he was very well played (unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the guy who played the part). The other fellow (egad this is embarrasing! I can't even remember the name of the PART!) was really impressive. It's a part which requires combining immense dignity and wisdom while avoiding any trace of self-importance or pomposity. It was carried off splendidly. I really wish I had had the opportunity to see this on the stage; visually, it would be good as a movie, but being a one-act play I don't know that it would survive the transition to the screen dramatically. Comments? Discussion? Charley Wingate