Strong impression: ‘Red’ provokes deep thought about relationship between artist and his works
When the lights dim in John D. Archbold Theatre, the first line the audience hears is a question with a seemingly straightforward answer.
‘What do you see?’ asks artist Mark Rothko, one of only two characters in the play.
The lights come up to reveal several canvases with ominous rectangles in various shades of red, and it becomes evident that the answer to this question is anything but easy.
With just one set, one act and two actors, the Tony Award-winning biodrama ‘Red’ shows the intense and all-consuming relationship between an artist and his work. Posing the question of whether art must be tragic and misunderstood to be considered great, the play brings the audience into the gloomy warehouse-style studio of abstract impressionist Mark Rothko.
The play is a fictional account of Rothko’s commission to paint a series of murals for New York’s Four Seasons Hotel. Tables cluttered with paint supplies, canvases, spotlights, a record player and a lone green armchair provide the setting where Rothko creates his thought-provoking art onstage, with the help of his long-suffering assistant Ken.
Rothko’s opposition to natural light explains the dim and somewhat dismal lighting of his studio, but it is in this low lighting that his paintings seem to come alive. Many have stood in front of puzzling works of art at galleries and museums, gazing into a canvas filled with little more than a configuration of shapes or colors.
After seeing ‘Red,’ audience members will leave with a different perspective and perhaps a new understanding of more abstract works of art, particularly pieces they have trouble connecting with.
The production challenges the audience to think. ‘Red’ uses themes from classic literature as Rothko references various authors like William Shakespeare, telling Ken that it is impossible to truly be a good artist without being well read.
Faced with the realization that he is part of a dying breed of artists, Rothko must choose to bow out gracefully or adapt to the changing time all while desperately trying to cling to his dignity. This complex, challenging role is portrayed brilliantly by Joseph Graves, a seasoned actor and artistic director of Peking University’s Institute of World Theatre and Film.
From the moment he steps onstage, lit cigarette in hand, every tiny movement or change in expression embodies Rothko’s conflicting inner turmoil.
At first, his cold and callous attitude makes Rothko seem tough, but the play reveals his real fear – the color black. His fear that ‘one day the black will swallow the red’ arguably makes him the more vulnerable of the two.
At the climax of the play, Rothko shows this vulnerability when he finds that some of his paintings are displayed in a gallery next to Andy Warhol’s work. He is outraged and believes that his own art has much more meaning and depth than a painting of a mere soup can.
Ken, on the other hand, is an aspiring artist who challenges Rothko’s egomaniacal way of thinking. He forces his stubborn mentor to admit that he is becoming the very thing he hates and to acknowledge his hypocrisy. When first introduced, his seeming innocence and naivety contrasts sharply with Rothko’s depressing character. But as the play progresses, it becomes evident that Ken has demons of his own to confront.
The more than capable Matthew Amendt portrays the dynamic character with just the right amount of mystery. Delivering his lines either with flat sarcasm or fear and confusion, Amendt adds a refreshing touch of humor to the intense play.
The audience will undoubtedly become immediately torn between sympathizing with Rothko or Ken. Rothko’s treatment of Ken often seems cruel, but it becomes clear that he is trying to teach his assistant a valuable lesson. In his defense of his own character, Rothko forces Ken to think hard about the relationship artists have with their work.
Ken provides an important counterpoint to Rothko’s view that artists don’t always necessarily need to ‘hurt.’ Sometimes a still life is really just a still life and a landscape is just a landscape. There isn’t always a need for a profound deeper meaning. These two opposing viewpoints cause the characters to re-examine how they define art and challenge the audience to do the same.
A rare, interesting perspective into the complex mind of an artist and much more, this brilliantly engaging play will leave viewers seeing ‘red’ long after the final scene.
Published on March 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm
