Prisoner Of The 70s

This'll be the third time in under a year I've written about the fate of Neil Simon. It's not that I'm obsessed with him. I just think it's interesting that arguably the premier comic writer of the past fifty years has outlived his era. It can happen to anyone, I suppose, but here's a guy who enjoyed unprecendented success on Broadway (not to mentioned movies) from the early 60s to the early 90s, but has since gone out of fashion.

I'm not worried about the guy. I'd guess he's still the most performed living playwright, and he hasn't had to think about money for decades. But it wasn't that long ago a new Neil Simon play was more likely to be a hit than not. Okay, so maybe he's tired, not writing like he used to. However, the last three revivals of old hits were slammed by The New York Times (and others, but who cares about them). Barefoot In The Park seemed irresitibly funny in 1963, but the latest Broadway version was hooted out of town. The revival of Bright Beach Memoirs (which was supposed to be done in repertory with Broadway Bound) also closed soon after it opened. Only Promises, Promises seems to be running, and that seems due to the stars and the music more than Simon's book.

So now there's word of a successful London revival of Prisoner Of Second Avenue. I like the play, but it's always seemed to me weaker than either Barefoot or Brighton (both of which ran about twice as long as Prisoner). Most of it is Mel and Edna complaining (in a fairly humorous way) about how bad New York has gotten. Opening in 1971, it was certainly a darker Neil Simon than what had been seen in Barefoot--as Simon put it, New York had changed. Perhaps Simon had too. It was part of a general change in his outlook, but the comedy had always been there.

So why does Prisoner seem to be working when other (better) works don't? Well, the most obvious explanation is big names--in this case, Jeff Goldblum and Mercedes Ruehl. (Interesting casting. I'm sure she can pull it off, and I'd like to see what he does with the role.) But I wonder if it isn't something more.

Sometimes you get tired of something you see all the time. Maybe we were Simoned out. He's a brilliant comedy writer, but do we now take him for granted? They're less familiar with him there, and perhaps he's a bit more exotic. And perhaps they wanted to show us we've been missing something

Britain has had major revivals in the past couple decades of Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals. Shows that were huge hits in their day, but are now considered quaint, perhaps even sappy. In London, they looked at them anew and found the darker sides--not to mention all the hummable tunes.

For that matter, there have been some playwrights, once respected, whom American intellectuals seemed to get tired of. Probably the best example is Arthur Miller--many critics started to think of him as hopelessly middlebrow. But he found honor in another country, as Britain often revived him and found his work fascinating. Now perhaps they figure they can do the same thing with Simon.

I do have some trouble with the Times coverage of the play, by Patrick Healy. He describes Simon's work, condescendingly, as "elbow-to-the-ribs humor." This description might fit, say, Milton Berle, but it's unfair to a playwright who, though very funny, creates characters and situations that help create the laughs.

It's strange London critics are having trouble with the play's "surprisingly upbeat" ending. It's true, Simon wasn't ready to have Mel and Edna end in despair, and ends up with a somewhat positive note, but it's not a big win, just a readiness to face a tough future. (Simon's memoirs have an amusing story of how director Mike Nichols told Simon how the original ending wasn't working, and how he had to work to find some image at the end that would cap things off.) The ending doesn't change the pain beforehand, and even if one considers it happy, the audience understands the couple could just as easily have skidded off the edge.

Then there's the belief from a producer that Prisoner is more "accessible" than Brighton Beach. This is nonsense. Brighton Beach is probably the deeper work, and maybe the funnier. As far as accessible, I'd guess if it had stars in could run in London just as successfully. It's hard to call it dated, since it was a period piece when it opened.

The article mentions Goldblum has seen the movie version, starring Jack Lemmon and Anne Bancroft. If you haven't seen it, don't. It deservedly flopped. In fact, very few screen adaptations of Neil Simon plays are good, and I don't think I'd say any of them are as good as a decent stage production.

It'd be nice if the revival transferred to New York and once again Broadway had a Neil Simon play running to packed houses.

PS I just read a bunch of reviews. Most of them call the play dated and not particularly funny, so I guess the star casting explains its popularity.