Category: Theatre

The Believers Are But Brothers was a theatrical experience I’m glad to have taken a part of. And I do feel as though I took part in it, as the show felt sort of like a conversation between performer Javaad Alipoor and the audience. The fact that a WhatsApp group of the audience was constantly ringing in my hands was also a pretty big part of this feeling.

And I know everyone wants to talk about what it means to have a communal theater experience via our phones and the interest of this choice is obvious. But I’m still going to talk about it too.

I’ve been to a handful of UMS and SMTD performances, and the age disparity has always been there. Can I say it’s surprising that the majority of attendees at these shows are much older? No, to be quite honest it’s hard to get student foot traffic to go anywhere if free food isn’t offered. I found this imbalance to be really clear during the show, though, and really intriguing. At the beginning of the show, a large group of older attendees leaned over to ask what everyone was doing on their phones–they didn’t have the app and throughout the show leaned to watch the conversation (I guess that’s the word for it?) on my phone or the person’s in front of them. I’m sure this experience was equally meaningful, though, as it most likely mirrored the disconnect they have towards the darker parts of the internet.

And that’s a lot of this show; Alipoor would describe internet phenomena that I’m sure was new to plenty of the audience, and then offer narratives of young men taking part in and affected by such concepts. I found the rhythm of the show to be really engaging, as it alternates between the unfolding of intense, affecting stories and more casual audience interaction.

This show feels like a piece of a puzzle. These concepts are monumental and I realized that there are so many connecting pieces and stories that I left The Believers Are But Brothers wanting to see more. I wanted to understand Alipoor’s more complete idea of this whirlwind of a decade (that is definitely kind of impossible to do, but I digress). Turns out, there is a sequel: Rich Kids: A History of Shopping Malls in Tehran, and ultimately Alipoor is making a trilogy. Here’s hoping that we have the chance to see his work again soon.

So, I decided to go into this play blind. No previous research, I didn’t watch any trailers, I just showed up for the show. And what a surprise it was! A politically focused, media infused, continuous stream of information that both baffled and intrigued me.

To give a little bit of context, the show concentrated around one man, the show’s creator, telling us the stories of how several different people across the world were influenced by online media to join ISIS. He narrated the entire time, and was joined on stage by one other person who never spoke or interacted with the audience at all. I’m not sure exactly what the other man’s role was, but the show definitely centered on the narrator as he told several individual’s stories and gave information on the rise of movements like ISIS through media and websites online.

The first aspect I need to discuss is the use of a WhatsApp group chat as a supplement to what was going on onstage. Everyone who was in the audience had a chance to download the app and was added to the group, so as to receive messages from the show itself, interact with other audience members, and show how one aspect of social media can be used to spread political ideologies. This was a good idea in theory, and I liked the uniqueness it added to the show. However, there was a lot of white noise, aka people just adding random messages on the app, that kept distracting me from what was actually happening on stage. I was very torn between wanting to check the messages and wanting to pay attention to the show, since it was very fast-paced. However, the app did do its job of helping to understand messaging’s media impact, and it was cool how sometimes the narrator could send out messages or photos instead of speaking to the audience to get his message across. This was especially impactful when the images conveyed a lot more looking at them on your own screen than on a big screen on stage. It meant you were not influenced by the reactions of the people around you, and you could privately interact with the messages and pictures the way you wanted to. I also liked how the messaging app gave the audience a way to join the show that was less chaotic than shouting out loud. Sometimes there were questions posed to the audience that could be answered in the app, and people were much more honest than they might have been if they were saying the answers out loud.

Another aspect of the show that I did enjoy was the use of several types of media to display different stories that were concurrent. The narrator used an old fashioned microphone for two of the stories (which were made distinct by lighting), he sat in a chair on the opposite side of the stage for another, he streamed a video of himself speaking onto a big screen for another, and stood center stage and broke the fourth wall for the last one. He also used the big screen to display pictures and videos that helped supplement whatever he was discussing in that moment. I think a lot of shows do not take advantage of the technology we have today, and the way this show used it made it certainly an new experience.

There were a few things about the show I did not like. First, the main actor had a very strong accent (I know, not his fault) and he spoke very fast, too fast for me to sometimes understand what he was trying to say. I also have only bare knowledge of the terrorist organizations in the Middle East and their timeline of attacks, so when he assumed a lot of this information was common knowledge, I got lost pretty easily. It was also difficult to keep all of the different stories straight, or to understand how they were related, so that definitely made the show less enjoyable for me.

Overall, I would not recommend this show, but I also thought it was a cool media experience if you are very interested or invested in Middle Eastern politics. But I do commend the narrator for talking almost constantly for an hour without missing a beat!

The Believers Are But Brothers is a production that I already know will stand out in my mind when I think of theater in the future. Showing tonight and throughout this weekend, this show portrays the radicalization of young men today, using multimedia techniques to illustrate what it means to become a politically-minded person in the internet age.

For a $15 student ticket, you can come see this piece something that will either be a great statement on the polarization political culture of the United States or a cheesy attempt at alt-right condescension. This piece is an important venue of self-reflection, not only in ourselves but in how our peers are digesting and translating an alarming sector of American culture– and more importantly, of youth culture.

As always, the National Theater Live company put on a compelling show, paying tribute to our very own Arthur Miller, who attended the University of Michigan and even has a theater named after him on North Campus. The show is a classic, and it was well acted. Going into it blind, its twists took me by surprise and the way the play ended certainly shocked me. (Don’t worry, no spoilers!) This play aimed viewers’ attention much more on the acting, which was very different from the last National Theater Live play I saw, which was much more focused on the integration of acting, set, and costume.

The show begins in the backyard of the family of whom the show is centered around. And then they stay there, in that setting, for the whole show. I thought that was a very interesting choice with both pros and cons. First, I got a bit bored of that same setting, and I had expected it to change after intermission. Also, there was certainly a limit as to what could be performed or shown on a stagnant set. Despite these possible setbacks, the show was full and interesting nonetheless. The play was less focused on anything besides the words and acting, and the actors brought that forward well. The acting was thankfully good enough to keep the show from getting boring, because the production was barely more than just the actors on the stage as the set was unchanging. On the pros side, this also meant that the set could be very detailed and specific because it did not need to be moved in any way. This style was unlike plays I have seen before, usually with moving sets and gaudy costumes, and it sort of surprised me, although not necessarily in a bad way.

As the actors had the most prominent role to play in a performance with a stationary set, they were definitely the thing I focused most on. I was impressed by the range of each actor, although I thought the men played much stronger than the women (other than Sally Field of course). Their emotions were certainly strong, but I was surprised that I was unmoved, and did not feel very attached to the characters. I did enjoy the performance of Oliver Johnstone playing George Deever, the frazzled and angry brother who unravels the whole lie that the Keller family is keeping. He was the actor whose story I bought the most into, and I felt his pain when no one believed his claims. I liked that the cast was very small, and I thought it helped to keep the focus of the performance on the story being told.

Overall, I thought the play was a little boring and drawn out. I do think that the intended audience was a bit older than me, judging by the fact that the majority of the crowd was above the age of 50. Perhaps if I had done some previous research to understand the themes better, it would have been a more enjoyable show. But, I did have a pleasant experience watching the play and enjoying the superb acting!

Upon the uncertain arrival of their deceased son’s sweetheart, everything that has happened to the Keller family seems to be coming back all at once. The year is 1947, and we, the audience, are dropped into the backyard of Joe and Kate Keller’s family home. Since losing their eldest son Larry in the war, the Kellers and their remaining son, Chris, all have found their individual ways of coping with the grief that accompanies the loss of a loved one. Having found closure, Chris and Ann Deever, the once-sweetheart of Chris’s brother, both find in each other an opportunity to start fresh and build a life that is their own. From this comes a great heartbreak within Kate, who still refuses to give up the hope of her son’s return. Overshadowing these, however, is the reemergence of Joe Keller’s old secrets, and a new stirring of bad blood among Joe Keller and the family of Steve Deever, old neighbor and once-business partner who is now incarcerated for a crime that is still denied.

From the Old Vic in London, National Theatre Live presented an absolutely captivating production of Arthur Miller’s “All My Sons,” and despite the medium of live broadcast, the gripping performances and the quality coverage allowed for the entering-in of a truly epic yet intimate experience in classic theatre. Miller’s writing to this day stands as strong and compelling content that not only sparks the imagination of an audience, but introduces challenging themes and ideas that often act as convictions that remain ever-present.

Having seen “All My Sons” a time before this at a college level, I truly enjoyed comparing my two viewing experiences, and ultimately stumbling upon some new realizations. For example, a great theme that is touched upon is the notion that when one’s light of honesty goes out, they live in the darkness. From NT Live, there was a noticeably greater hopelessness in the atmosphere that was put forth, and the consequences of deep-seated dishonesty seemed to be made more resonant with the audience members. Entering into this play can be quite challenging to watch, for it’s not only pulsed with family drama and tragedy, but also a close look at how selfishness can lead to a chaos that tears family apart.

Two elements in this production that felt almost mis-matched in my mind were the contrasting tones from the characters of Chris and Kate Keller. While both actors performed their parts with great competence, the moods of the deliveries felt almost too distinct as Chris Keller delivered lines that were relatable and natural, while Kate Keller’s delivery held a wistful melancholy that often brought the peripheral activity to a thoughtful stop.

I frankly did not care for the pre-show short film that explored the production and cast perspectives on Arthur Miller’s work. One can very easily enter into this play without a production note that tries to persuade audiences that the content and themes are comparable with our economic climate today. A great work of art such as this can often tempt those involved to feel as though “this story needs to be told, now more than ever,” but a work’s timeless quality is cheapened when a seemingly self-righteous view of current events is present.

With a paced beginning up until a truly-climactic ending like a contemporary Shakespearean Tragedy, NT Live’s “All My Sons” had me on the edge of my seat, entranced by the scope and intimacy of this show. I left the Michigan Theatre with adrenaline pumping through my veins, anticipating the next show from National Theatre Live that I hope to one day experience.