Sunday, August 9, 2020

271. JAMES JOYCE'S DUBLINERS. From my (unpublished) ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE NEW YORK STAGE, 1970-1975

Martin Cassidy, Ruby Holbrook, Ty McConnell.

JAMES JOYCE’S DUBLINERS [Drama/Alcoholism/Biographical/Family/Ireland/Literature] A: J.W. Riordan; SC: Stanislaus Joyce’s book, My Brother’s Keeper; D: Gene Feist; S: Holmes Easley; C: Christine Gianini; L: Ian Calderon; M/LY: Philip Campanella; P: Roundabout Theatre Company; T: Roundabout Theatre (OB); 2/25/75-5/4/75 (80)

Cast of James Joyce's Dubliners.

The credited playwright of this work, J.W. Riordan, was thought by some to be a pseudonym for Roundabout director Gene Feist. Riordan’s play was a biographical account of Irish literary giant James Joyce, drawn largely from the autobiography of Joyce’s brother, Stanislaus, with material added from Joyce’s own collection of stories, Dubliners. Several period songs also were interpolated into the play.

The episodic play traversed a sequence of Joyce family incidents over a period of ten years. Stanislaus (Ty McConnell) served intermittently as a narrator. Both the gradual disintegration of Joyce’s father (Stan Watt), who turns to liquor when he loses his job, and the maturation of the youthful writer (Martin Cassidy), were covered, with the play closing as Joyce prepared to leave Ireland and his father’s home for the artistic temptations of Paris.

Reviewers were at odds over this drama in which nearly 30 roles were played by less than half a dozen actors, including Justine Johnston, Ruby Holbrook, and Kent Rizley. John Simon thought it overly simplified, like other dramatizations of a real life, but he found it “one of the Roundabout Theatre’s better productions,” making for “easy watching and listening.” Brendan Gill decided that “The tone . . . is gentle and pleasurable,” but quibbled over the failure of the actor playing Joyce to wear the glasses so often talked of in the text. Keatha McClean respected the play’s ambition, but considered Joyce’s language too literary and dense for stage purposes. In Martin Gottfried’s estimation, the play lacked a developing action, had “vague” characterizations, and “not quite professional” acting. Finally, both Clive Barnes and Douglass Watt were simply bored by it all.