Dammit, Mamet

David Mamet's latest, The Anarchist, just opened on Broadway. It's a 75-minute, two-woman piece, starring Patti LuPone and Debra Winger. The plot involves a former Weather Undergound type, who's served decades behind bars, pleading with an official for a pardon.  Apparently the discussion gets into if she's truly repentant, and what that might mean.  The reviews have not been great--most call it talky and undramatic--and it'll be closing soon.

The oddest review came from Chris Jones of the Chicago Tribune (not that anyone in New York cares what the Trib thinks--of course, no one really cares about any opinion except The New York Times').  He starts with a discussion of how Republicans have tried, and failed, to tie Obama to domestic terrorists of the 60s. Then he speculates on how David Mamet--who has, in recent years, notoriously become a conservative--feels about this. Next he goes on to discuss how Mamet's play shows the playwright's feelings about these political issues.

He eventually talks a bit about the play as a play, but it's not until the end of the fifth paragraph that we get this surprise:

That’s a fair point in favor of “The Anarchist,” which is refreshingly different in its world view, unabashed in its attacks on the cheapness and ease of snagging forgiveness in a majority-Christian society, and, to my mind, never dull for a second, not that it takes up too many of them in its 75-minute running time.

And a bit later we get this:

Students of the man won’t want to miss it; I was engaged and compelled throughout.

So it's "never dull for a second" and he was engaged and compelled.  Isn't that burying the lead? (Some spell it "lede" but I refuse.)

The review isn't exactly positive, but still, should we have to go through paragraph after paragraph of the critic's political speculation to find a few morsels that indicate whether the play is any good or not?

PS  In other Mamet news, the star-driven revival of Glengarry Glen Ross pushed its opening back (to today) after Hurricane Sandy struck.  Now The New York Times' Christopher Isherwood complains the production hasn't allowed critics in (or at least given them free tickets, which amounts to the same thing) until the production is well into its limited run.  Well boohoo.  We'll just have to live for a little longer than usual without critics telling us what to think.

It obviously won't matter when it comes to this Al Pacino vehicle, which is one of the hottest tickets in town.  But no matter what the production, the real scandal is, and has always been, the absurd power of The New York Times in deciding what plays will succeed or fail.  Somehow Isherwood doesn't seem bothered by that.