Theater

Bone Portraits: Edison, the X-ray, and Ladies Buying Lead Underwear

Neither Steve Jobs nor antidepressant television ads would exist without Thomas Edison. Edison took the serious science of invention and pumped it full of old-fashioned American hucksterism until it exploded into the capitalist bonanza that it is today. Actor Roy Stanton doesn't look like Thomas Edison—he's tall and skinny and bald—but he's a perfect window into Edison's soul: a smiley, slimy showman who begins banging out a ragtime tune on a piano whenever anyone starts talking about things like ethics.

Bone Portraits is the story of how Edison took Wilhelm Roentgen's discovery, the roentgen ray, and transformed it into the much sexier X-ray (note the mysterious name), a marketing process Edison blithely refers to as "making it American." At the beginning of the 20th century, Americans everywhere took photos of their bones and gawked at things they never thought they'd be able to see. "We live in a time where we know all that there is to know," a woman pants as she wanders around the Chicago World's Fair. Another woman talks about buying lead underwear for modesty's sake.

America's mad rush to embrace the X-ray without understanding its cancerous side effects is fertile ground for metaphor, of course. (Do you seriously think your cell phone isn't going to riddle your brain with tumors?) So it's more than a little odd that Deborah Stein's script chooses to belabor an addiction theme as Edison's assistant—Adam Davis, earnest and handsome—becomes hooked on... looking at the bones of his hand? (Worst dialogue of the play: "What's wrong with your hand?" "I can handle it!")

It's equally odd that Live Girls!, "a theater company dedicated to producing and developing new works by women," is producing a play with such notably weak female leads. All the juicy scenes are devoured by Stanton (whose Edison carries a fried chicken leg in his pocket at all times) and the promising young Jason Franklin, who nearly steals the show as a quietly dismayed Roentgen and a flatulent, moronic vaudevillian. Poor LaChrista Borgers and Shawnmarie Stanton are diminished to support staff by Edison's monumental ego, and the issues that concern their characters—America's obsession with novelty and compulsion to embrace spiritualism—are upstaged by the production's mad rush for entertainment. recommended

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (9) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
It's kind of odd that you would choose to write a review without an actual review and call it a review. Or am I misunderstanding your mission here?
Posted by Verily on October 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM · Report
2
There's no template for theater reviews (thank God), but this piece satisfies even the most conservative definition: discussion of the script, some historical background, discussion of the performances.

What more are you looking for, Verily?
Posted by Brendan Kiley on October 28, 2009 at 3:48 PM · Report
3
I think it worth noting that you've misinterpreted the Live Girls! mission statement. Specifically the "plays by women" part. It isn't "plays about women." It's an important distinction and one that negates your criticism.
Posted by Mr. Smith on October 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM · Report
4
@ 3.

Paul was quoting from the Live Girls! mission statement, genius.
Posted by Brendan Kiley on October 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM · Report
Paul Constant 5
@1 and @3: You're being way too literal. I'm not saying the mission statement says that female actresses get equal time in every play. I'm saying that one would hope that a theater company devoted to producing new work by women wouldn't give women short shrift onstage, either, as this play does.

Live Girls! has produced wonderful plays with male leads and wonderful plays with female leads (and wonderful work with male and female ensembles, like last year's Love Person). This is a play with several wonderful male leads. But it fairly abandons the actresses to the few wisps of script meant for them. Usually Live Girls! does a better job with their incidental female characters, making them real and whole. They kind of drop the ball here in that department.

Posted by Paul Constant http://paulconstant.tumblr.com/ on October 28, 2009 at 7:07 PM · Report
6
Hey there. Joy Brooke Fairfield here. I'm the erstwhile literary manager of Live Girls. I suggested this play for our season and directed the production of "Love Person" last year (glad you liked it, Paul!). Just to be clear, Live Girls' mission is specifically to do new work by women, regardless of content and cast. Women, turns out, write a wide variety of plays, some that feature strong female leads and others that don't. Our priority is to take on powerful, engaging scripts, which is what we saw in Ms. Stein's play.

There are a lot of challenges facing women in theatre (and, well, the world). Under-representation in the writerly ranks is a big one, as is the question of stage time and meaty roles, like you bring up, Paul. No organization can be dedicated to working on all angles of this continuing social question at all times, nor should they be expected to.

But, good news! There is, in fact, a theatre company in town dedicated to plays with strong leads for women! Macha Monkey Productions (http://www.machamonkey.org/) (full disclosure, I also work for them!).

Thanks for bringing this conversation into the open, everyone. It's a useful one to have.
Posted by JoyBrooke on October 28, 2009 at 9:32 PM · Report
7
It's not often I am given the opportunity to sing, dance, play the piano and ukulele, and act all in one show. Thanks Live Girls, from this woman in theater!
Posted by S. Stanton on October 29, 2009 at 9:22 AM · Report
8
Paul- did you like it?
Posted by hethatis on October 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM · Report
9
A "belabored addiction theme?" Clarence Dally's continued self-exposure to the x-ray is a historical truism.

Also, Edison didn't want to change the name from Roentgen Ray to X-Ray to make it "sexier." Roentgen himself coined the term X-ray and refused to allow it to be named after him despite the requests of the scientific community.

Of course everyone experiences life through their own filters, and has their own biases, but what separates quality reviews from ones like this one is the writers ability to suspend his or her own assumptions and reservations in order to perceive a show for what it actually is.

It also seems that you have misunderstood (or maybe just misrepresented) the theater company's mission statement.
Posted by steampunk on October 30, 2009 at 10:37 AM · Report

Add a comment