| The Allure That Is "Lulu" |
| Written by Kevin Filipski | |||
LuluWritten by Frank WedekindDirected by Michael Thalheimer Starring Fritzi Haberlandt, Norman Hacker, Felix Knopp, Christoph Bantzer, Markus Graf, Maren Eggert Performances on November 27, 29, 30, and December 1, 2007 BAM Harvey Theater 651 Fulton Street, Brooklyn bam.org  Fritzi Haberlandt as Lulu striking a pose in silence  Lulu trying to get the upperhand on one of the men in her crazy life  Standing up for herself Lulu aims the gun  Fritzi Haberlandt as Lulu trying to free herself from a sticky situation “Lulu” was made into a brilliantly uncompromising opera by Austrian composer Alban Berg in the 1930s, but otherwise, Wedekind’s ambivalent anti-heroine–who discards men like Kleenex in her search for true, if impossible, happiness, until she literally meets her match in the form of Jack the Ripper–has had a rocky history; the only other time I’d been able to see it was at the Kennedy Center in Washington in 2001, when London’s Almeida Theatre brought it across the pond. That production was, unfortunately, forgettable; as Lulu, however, Anna Friel was dazzling as the girlish woman whose power over men is such a part of her very being that she doesn’t even seem to be aware of it but, at the same time, is coldly calculating in her every move. In Michael Thalheimer’s staging–originally produced at the Thalia Theater in Hamburg, Germany–Lulu is a boyish, even androgynous figure, a skinny wisp of a woman who seems disinterested in this parade of men continually falling for this irresistible but unknowable female. Now I know that Lulu can be many things to many people, yet Thalheimer never convinces me that this character would be so alluring to so many different men, who end up slitting their throats, getting shot and following her to the ends of the earth (or, at least, Paris and London) to be near their Lulu. Thalheimer has hit on an intriguing idea: to wipe the slate clean, to get rid of all the baggage that’s accumulated on Wedekind’s plays in the past century and present it as stripped-down as possible: no sets or scenery–a large white wall moves slowly forward until, at the play’s climax, it’s near the front of the stage–and with actors declaiming their lines, often shouting them, as if they are utterly natural speech. In theory, this would work fine; in performance, however, Thalheimer’s “Lulu” never gains any dramatic momentum, remaining surprisingly inert throughout its intermissionless, 110-minute running time. By heavily editing Wedekind’s two “Lulu” plays (“Pandora’s Box” and “Earth Spirit”) from their original five hours, as well as adding his own material, Thalheimer undercuts the potent force of Wedekind’s original drama, instead leaving us with a skeletal play that includes a character pointlessly yelling several “Fucks” in succession and a scene in London where the German actors ludicrously speak English (as opposed to the previous Paris scene, where they speak German, not French). As Lulu, Fritzi Haberlandt has a moptop Beatle haircut, is so unbelievably thin you want to feed her some real meals, and changes her mini-dress for each scene, from pink to green to blue to white to black; she certainly is a striking presence, but since Thalheimer seems to have chosen her because she has a defiantly non-sexual presence, it seems a serious bit of miscasting. Not every Lulu needs to be as appealingly winsome as Anna Friel, but femininity is among Lulu’s trademarks, and refusing that is a grievous failing. Haberlandt gives an intensely physical performance, whether she is simulating sex with various men or forced to strike different poses without speaking; again, though, Thalheimer never reconciles Wedekind’s text with his own directorial quirks, which also include the raucous and unnecessary rock music that’s blared at full volume between scenes; that silly white wall that’s slowly baring down on the characters; and the full nudity of several of the men, while Lulu remains clothed throughout. The result is a failed attempt to modernize a play that was ahead of its time when it was first written and doesn’t need help staying relevant to today’s audience. {mos_ri}
|