5

Red: The Myth of Rothko and of Painting at Theatrical Outfit

Written By Karen Tauches on February 24, 2012 in Reviews

Jimi Kocina as Ken (left) and Tom Key as Mark Rothko (right), Red, 2012, written by John Logan, directed by David De Vries, and produced by Theatrical Outfit. Photo by Josh Lamkin. Image courtesy Theatrical Outfit.

How bizarre is it that the twentieth century’s most famous fine art figures can be unknown to the majority of people? Barney, Beuys, Hesse, and Hammons slip right under the radar of mainstream awareness, while being upheld as fearless gods to us art initiates. Mark Rothko, the subject of Theatrical Outfit’s currently running play Red, is one such god. His rust-and-black-hued paintings of fuzzed-out squares are prime icons of Abstract Expressionism. I sat in the Atlanta audience before the play began, feeling like an art culture insider as I explained to my date and others around me who the hell Rothko was. But that’s exactly what this play attempts to do: present, without escape, the real intensity of an overbearing art character, Rothko. Although today’s general audiences may carry romanticized and somewhat outdated myths about what artists are like in their studios, I think they may ultimately be unsympathetic to or even bored by the intellectual and emotional fierceness exemplified in this superb play. The angst and tough love of this art world is indeed outrageous, badass, and out of touch.

David Hammons, Bliz-ard Ball Sale, 1983. Image courtesy frieze.com.

Bravely, the play never changes set and does not break for intermission. We are warned from the outset several times that it will be an hour and fifteen minutes without a rest. Thus, the director David De Vries, firmly establishes a feeling of insularity. Cleverly, the audience is rather stuck inside the dim interior of the artist’s brick work space. Rust-red canvases (which represent well the actual work) are strewn about, a single line of light illuminates a real dripping red spill of paint, foreshadowing blood and suicide. The windows have been blocked off but light seeps through in jagged lines across the floor. There is a fifties record player marked with a pattern of paint prints where Rothko has repeatedly touched it. His is a beautiful prison, indeed.

There are only two characters in this play. Seasoned and successful Rothko (played by Tom Key), who hilariously refers to himself in the third person, and Ken (played by Jimi Kocina), his young studio assistant, an aspiring New York City painter, fresh out of school. They have a lot in common. Both have been affected by tragedy, which may be a statement in itself about artists. As the newbie with his greaser hair and penny loafers is indoctrinated, the audience also acclimates to Rothko’s deep and dark reality. Playing on an old cliché, the actors stand forward at center stage pretending to ponder an invisible painting. In his role as Rothko, Theatrical Outfit Director Tom Key says, “Let it work on you…engage with it…lean forward…you must be empathetic.” The artist has constructed quite a lot of requirements and conditions for the viewing of his paintings, which is all very demanding and unrealistic to the outsider. But, of course, this is his brilliance. He attempts a great feat of illumination and melancholy through carefully selected color fields. This is why natural light has been forbidden. Rothko paintings are designed to pulsate in the dusky light.

Tom Key as Mark Rothko (left) and Jimi Kocina as Ken (right), Red, 2012, written by John Logan, directed by David De Vries, and produced by Theatrical Outfit. Photo by Josh Lamkin. Image courtesy Theatrical Outfit.

Rothko’s life is climaxing. He is past midcareer. He is famous. He is threatened by the rising generation of young pop artists. Stella, Johns, Warhol, and Lichtenstein bite at his heels with bright graphic “non-serious” work, as opposed to his own morose contemplations. He advises Ken that “courage in painting is facing the previous masters,” but the aging artist finds himself a master facing the hungry young lions. Most agitating of all, Rothko works on the pivotal Seagram Murals commission for the Four Seasons Restaurant. This project is dear to his ideals of working with space and light. Rothko chooses to ignore the bourgeois condition of the commission, until this hypocrisy is challenged by his young assistant, who has now graduated to searing levels of criticality. As completion draws nearer, Rothko finally leaves his studio to dine at the establishment, which provides a final blow to his dreams. He had bragged, claiming to be making “something that will ruin the appetite of every son-of-a-bitch who ever eats in that room.” But faced with being seen as a sell-out for all of immortality, Rothko sends back the money and pulls out of the prestigious project. He couldn’t stand to have the work reduced to “overmantels,” paintings “doomed to become decoration!”

Before his suicide in 1970, Rothko ultimately does complete a project that satisfactorily deals with space and light, and which aligns him rightfully as a precursor of artists including Donald Judd, Dan Flavin, and James Turrell: the Rothko Chapel in Houston is perfectly designed for contemplation and seems poised to stand as a testament to his vision. There his paintings resonate unscathed, where the natural light is forever controlled.

Like many greats, Rothko worked in an artificial world of his own making, one that had to be coddled if it was to be cherished. Absolute single focus is necessary for artists to achieve the sort of status of a Pollock or a Picasso. But to an average audience, this play’s artspeak and literary references alone might be unbearable. Red represents well such fetishization of artists and paintings without glorifying it. I am very glad for its lack of sentimentality. The myth of Rothko is represented without a lot of curvy lines. Harsh words are flailed, emotional eruptions are quelled, passion and anxiety are bottled up inside the gates of the studio, and Rothko’s works live on for the record.

The performance of the Tony Award winning play Red, written by John Logan and directed by David De Vries, has been extended through March 11, 2012 at Theatrical Outfit. For tickets visit Theatrical Outfit’s website.


Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Category: Reviews |
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • michaelmunoz

    …you can’t jig to Rothko!  i’ve tried.

  • alexrobins

    I’d like to politely disagree with the author about the success of this play. As a bit of history it works but as a drama it falls flat. Its greatest weakness is its overly didactic script. Too often individual scenes were primarily organized around exposition. Sometimes this was explicit exposition for example, when the older Rothko instructs the younger assistant and we, in the audience, merely observe the teaching moment. This dynamic is obvious in the extended onstage explication of Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy. Or the exposition is implicit as  when a character turns towards the audience to explain his psychological motivation. Consider the monologue where we learn about the assistant’s childhood trauma or Rothko’s decision to end the commission. In these moments the playwright makes the audience become students of his own plot. The play is lecture all the way down. No critical plot moves are made by action only by dialogue, so unlike Zoo Story another 1 act 2 man drama about creative types, RED never leaves the realm of chit-chat. The Atlanta production, like the Broadway run, is carried along by the sheer charisma of it’s actors. Tom Keys is stronger than the play itself. I applaud Burnaway for reviewing this play and hope more theater reviews happen in the future, but I think it needed to be more critical of this play which fails in the ways I suggested above.

  • Ktauches

    I rather agree with you alexrobins that “the play is lecture all the way down.”   and, I’m such an art nerd, that I totally got off on being mired in it. 

    . . .I hope it was noted well enough that my tastes are in the minority. one of my favorite things in life is to sit around in the studio or cafe or bar with creative thinkers (artists and the like) and talk shop till dawn. I was glad that the play shared this experience with people who may not know what this sort of thing can be like. it seemed obvious that threatrical outfit was nervous about the endless abstract dialogue. thus, the play was designed with no intermission and they really warned the hell out of us as we entered that we’d be sitting for an hour and fifteen minutes. . .

    this imbalance of didactic talking stood out best in that amazing moment when the two characters actually switch gears to do some something physical: without a word, they take a good 5-10 minutes to prime a canvas with that rusty red paint. passionately slapping the large surface with brushes, they stretch and breath with their backs to the audience. it’s such a relief and a pleasure to watch–brings life back into the play by contrast and makes us remember that, oh, yeah, artists’ main activity is in the making of things, not just theorizing. . .

    I can think of two great movies that are a little like this:  ”my dinner with andre” (1981) & “before sunrise” (1995). Both are without any real plot, but simply record marathon hang-out sessions. . .the only thing that happens is conversation–philosophical, intellectual. the audience must just sit and be with them. . . this is not entertainment in the traditional literary or theatrical sense. similarly, the rothko play is experimental, acting more like a sometimes tedious or demanding installation. you may be right to criticize it from the context of traditional theatrical values. but I dare say, this form is more in keeping with the ultimate point: rothko’s world is intense, serious, brainy, & insular. . .and in this way it represents fine art quite well. I applaud them for that. . .because I’m sure the creators and presenters are all well aware of it’s difficulty to please the tastes and expectations of mainstream audiences.

    –kt

  • Limekitten123

    I agree with both the commenter and the reviewer. 
    The abstract art-talk is fascinating, but somehow the whole thing never really takes off as drama, as compelling action for the stage. 
    Still, I really enjoyed my afternoon at the theater and I’m glad Theatrical Outfit took on this play.

  • Lilly Lampe

    It’s interesting that they stressed the lack of intermission at the show you saw. I don’t recall them mentioning it when I saw Rothko, and find it surprising. It would be bizarre to show a one-act play with an intermission, and at 1:15, its shorter than most movies. Is the attention span for theater so limited? 

    no criticism, just musing.