Rating: 
Summary: Not worthy of the pulitzer
Review: It is my belief and the belief of many others that a play cannot be fully appreciated based solely upon absorbing the text, as may be the case of a novel or a closet drama but rather through the amalgamation of thoughts and interpretation during production. With this in mind I cannot fully judge this work based on it's potential on stage because I have never seen the play in such a format. Therefore my review is based solely on my experience from reading the text. And after having read Top dog/Underdog I have come to a sobering and definite conclusion. This play is what I would like to call an exercise I tedium and the pathetic. (Pathetic= i.e. Arthur Miller's essay on the modern hero and the death of spirituality in art.)In order for a play to be good it must do at least two things. It must first entertain, and secondly it must teach in some form or another a basic truth or higher revelation of life. First let's look at it's entertainment value. Whether or not something is entertaining is highly nebulous and subjective and cannot be explained or appreciated universally. However I personally do not find two horribly selfish, emotionally [stunted] grown men locked in a fraternal pissing match to be terribly compelling for more than the length of the intermission let alone two hours. I found the dialogue criminally sensationalistic and highly predictable, appealing to the lowest common denominator of society. The sense of realism was mundane and overly naturalistic. For instance the ½-¾ of a page of stage direction conjures up drudgerous images of Zola and Thoreau. Though both pioneers, they are essentially hated by anyone with a sense of imagination. So secondly, does it teach or enlighten? I found the characters to be as Arthur Miller puts it "unable to achieve the celestial." They are common men with base ideas and base emotions with no ability to convey any desire or thought that is greater than the individual needs of the moment. They are incapable of higher thought, reasoning nor are they particularly humane. I found neither character compelling or enlightening. I found them to simply be nothing more than a celebration of the declination of the American spirit. This is in lamens terms akin to literary and social self-gratification. There is a third element, which is more tangible that takes a play or piece or art beyond simply good and makes it great. This is understood by asking the question, "is it innovative and revolutionary?" My answer to this also is a definite no! This play is like every mainstream play of the past 20 to 30 years. It has for economic purposes a small cast, it follows a two-act structure, it uses plain language to the level of indistinguishability from everyday speech. The play is also politically correct which restrains it's ability to communicate truthfully. And it does not excite the imagination of the reader. So by now you are probably asking "Why two stars if you hated it so much?" Well I must admit that Suzan Lori Parks is a well-trained playwright. She, as a technical writer is more finely versed than the American standard seems to call for. However her subject matters, their execution and her literary style (which is something that cannot be taught.) leaves much to be desired.
Rating: 
Summary: STUNNING AND BRILLIANT
Review: Ok, I just read the review from the person who gave this play 2 stars, and would just like to note that he/she admitted that they HAD NOT SEEN THE PLAY. Last week, I was given the amazing opportunity of attending the LONDON PREMIER in the second row, and then meeting the author and the two actors. All I can say is, it was the most stunning piece of theater I have seen in years! In London, I saw "Edmund" with Kenneth Branaugh and "Brand" with Ralph Fiennes, and although the acting was phenomenal and both stories compelling, I still couldn't help but look at my watch once or twice. In Topdog/Underdog, the dialogue was so lighting-fast, the chemistry between the actors was so electric, and the story so compelling that I did not look away from the stage once!!! I had read the play before and had liked it, but on stage the play just came alive. There was so much humor that I had missed before(people were laughing every minute), poignancy(I cried at the end), and finally, so much TRUTH. As Parks mentioned, she did not write this play with a single theme in mind, instead, this play can reach so many elements of her audience...in can touch on sibling rivalry, our past, family ties and connection to history, family wounds and healing, the fine line between truth and reality, loving a woman, etc. And as Parks said, she did not write this play for any audience in mind, but for her two characters, to give them a chance to inhabit the stage. I am glad she did, for the performances by Mos Def and Jeffrey Wright were some of the finest I have seen. Furthermore, the fact that a story with only two characers, who remain in the same set the whole play, was able to captivate for the whole play, really speaks of the works brilliance. Also, reading the play at first may seem confusing, because it is almost rap-like, but watching it really allows one to see how the words are like poetry. The music is awesome too, and the whole feel of the play is hip, modern, but very true. Simply brilliant-please see this, or at least read it, and have an open mind.
Rating: 
Summary: 90% awsome, 10% horrible
Review: ok, the first 90 or so pages of this play are great, i like the dynamics, the writting is good, the relationship between the brothers is well portrayed. Now this is a contemporary shakespearean tragedy, so the ending is pretty obvious, and your supposed to figure out what happens pretty early in the play, if you still dont want to know however stop reading.
THE ENDING SUCKS, it reminds me of the orignal ending of clerks, in which Dante dies in a robbery, Kevin Smith discovered that the only reason he ended it that way was because he didnt know how to end his movie and wasnt tallented enough to write a good ending yet. Now i think parks is tallented, but this could have been better. The manner in which everything unravells is just not believeable. Anyone can end a tragic play with the guy everyone knew was going to die dying. Now it takes much more tallent to not kill him off. When a main character dies in the last couple moments it sends an emotional wave at the audience, death always has that effect, they dont take the time to analyze things because they are overwhelmed with the emotion of the experience. Just because it evicts an emotion everyone comes to the conclussion that it was good, smart. Killing off a character is a great way to end a trajedy if you arent inspired enough to think of anything more tragic than death. I just finished reading 20 minutes ago so im not going to trash it anymore, upon further review i might warm up to it. As for now though, there is one major error in contintuity really that ruined the ending for me, if you catch it youl probably be left scratching your head too, and unless a light bulb goes off and i figure out what just happened, i cant suggest this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Gritty Angry Boy Drama
Review: Parks' play is a well crafted drama about two brothers' lives smoothly built around their relationship with 3-card monte. She does a strong job of handling the darker aspects of sibling rivalry, poverty, and family. I mostly enjoyed Topdog/Underdog for its raw toughness and the way the two-character structure brought out the inner workings and different demons of the two brothers. While not the greatest play ever, it is a good, solid dramatic work and definitely worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Impressive Theater
Review: Saw this play last night at the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles. Yes, it's obvious where the story was going. (Parks didn't choose the character name's by accident.) What's impressive was that you could feel the audience willing the action not to happen. I'm sorry, but that's great theater. I wanted to savor the language some more, so I logged on to Amazon to purchase a copy. I was shocked when I read the customer reviews. I couldn't disagree more with the naysayers. Obviously, a person's reaction to art is subjective, but three points must be made: Theater is meant to be seen, not read. From minute one, the audience was with this play. Booth's pathetic attempts at practicing Three Card Monte were hilarious. Then to later witness Lincoln's smooth as silk moves told you all you needed to know about these brothers. And I don't use the word "brothers" in the colloquial sense -- which brings me to point number two. These are two black men, not all black men. Is Hamlet about all Danish people? (I'm not saying "Topdog" is Shakespeare, merely illustrating a point.) Unfortunately, since there are so few plays by African Americans that get mainstream attention, the impulse it to attach a lot more meaning than the playwrights perhaps intended. My third point is that many people seem to feel that if dialogue isn't written in the Queen's English, it's somehow not artful. Parks did an amazing job. She took two marginalized human beings and showed that there is poetry in their lives. Perhaps that's what's behind some of the negative reactions. These are people you avoid in real life. Why would you want to spend two hours in a theater listening to what they have to say? That being said, anyone with a sibling can relate to this play. It'll make you think twice the next time you feel the need to elevate yourself at their expense. Topdog is what theater should be -- exciting, provocative, funny, tragic. Yes, it deserved the Pulitzer.
Rating:
Summary: Impressive Theater
Review: Saw this play last night at the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles. Yes, it's obvious where the story was going. (Parks didn't choose the character name's by accident.) What's impressive was that you could feel the audience willing the action not to happen. I'm sorry, but that's great theater. I wanted to savor the language some more, so I logged on to Amazon to purchase a copy. I was shocked when I read the customer reviews. I couldn't disagree more with the naysayers. Obviously, a person's reaction to art is subjective, but three points must be made: Theater is meant to be seen, not read. From minute one, the audience was with this play. Booth's pathetic attempts at practicing Three Card Monte were hilarious. Then to later witness Lincoln's smooth as silk moves told you all you needed to know about these brothers. And I don't use the word "brothers" in the colloquial sense -- which brings me to point number two. These are two black men, not all black men. Is Hamlet about all Danish people? (I'm not saying "Topdog" is Shakespeare, merely illustrating a point.) Unfortunately, since there are so few plays by African Americans that get mainstream attention, the impulse it to attach a lot more meaning than the playwrights perhaps intended. My third point is that many people seem to feel that if dialogue isn't written in the Queen's English, it's somehow not artful. Parks did an amazing job. She took two marginalized human beings and showed that there is poetry in their lives. Perhaps that's what's behind some of the negative reactions. These are people you avoid in real life. Why would you want to spend two hours in a theater listening to what they have to say? That being said, anyone with a sibling can relate to this play. It'll make you think twice the next time you feel the need to elevate yourself at their expense. Topdog is what theater should be -- exciting, provocative, funny, tragic. Yes, it deserved the Pulitzer.
Rating:
Summary: The divisive Pulitzer Prize winner
Review: Since there are a lot of negative reviews here, I thought I'd throw in my two cents. I just got around to reading the play, which I was sad to have missed on Broadway. But if you're thinking of reading it this late in the game, you probably did too. I recommend it. The topdog is older brother Lincoln, a card hustler who quit the streets for a legit job as a Lincoln impersonator. His (underdog) brother is Booth, a petty thief with ambitions to become as good at three card monte as his older bro. What plays out between the brothers is classic stage drama, tiny eruptions of sublimated hatred leading to one big volcanic moment. If you choose to read them not as characters, but as symbols of African-American manhood, or American history or whatever -- and this is tempting to do when dealing with Parks -- then the play probably won't pack the visceral wallop that it intends. As someone who has studied playwriting, I find it a very clean, well-structured story, other than some moments of awkward exposition. Parks' dialogue is hip and muscular, and I would have loved to see it performed by the likes of Jeffrey Wright and Mos Def. It's stylized and you either like it or you don't. If you haven't read or seen any Parks, I recommend giving this one a try. Clearly it isn't everyone's style, but it deserves respect for craftsmanship if nothing else. Sustaining a two character play ain't easy. 4/5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: The divisive Pulitzer Prize winner
Review: Since there are a lot of negative reviews here, I thought I'd throw in my two cents. I just got around to reading the play, which I was sad to have missed on Broadway. But if you're thinking of reading it this late in the game, you probably did too. I recommend it. The topdog is older brother Lincoln, a card hustler who quit the streets for a legit job as a Lincoln impersonator. His (underdog) brother is Booth, a petty thief with ambitions to become as good at three card monte as his older bro. What plays out between the brothers is classic stage drama, tiny eruptions of sublimated hatred leading to one big volcanic moment. If you choose to read them not as characters, but as symbols of African-American manhood, or American history or whatever -- and this is tempting to do when dealing with Parks -- then the play probably won't pack the visceral wallop that it intends. As someone who has studied playwriting, I find it a very clean, well-structured story, other than some moments of awkward exposition. Parks' dialogue is hip and muscular, and I would have loved to see it performed by the likes of Jeffrey Wright and Mos Def. It's stylized and you either like it or you don't. If you haven't read or seen any Parks, I recommend giving this one a try. Clearly it isn't everyone's style, but it deserves respect for craftsmanship if nothing else. Sustaining a two character play ain't easy. 4/5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: Lessons re-learned.
Review: Suzan-Lori Parks' Pulitzer Prize winning play, Topdog Underdog, shows the strength of Parks' ability to write convincing dialogue, to develop memorable characters and in the process to create something of a meaningful nature. Certainly this two-man play contains black male stereotypes that are uncomfortable to deal with, however this seems to be the point. While the reader hopes that Lincoln and Booth are caricatures, or at the very least are only representative of an extinct past, the fact is these two men could easily exist in modern day society, and probably do. Parks adds a large dose of irony to their lives: their names, their family, their occupations (or lack of), their girlfriends (or lack of), that gives the play a dark comedy feel. Beyond the immediate action, Parks has managed to take the reader further, creating a symbolic and meaningful statement in a worldly sense. It is interesting that because this play is written by a black woman it is considered to be a statement on black society. The work, when read and reread, takes on multifaceted meanings in the world of the reader, of any color, and while the surface level of introspection seems to hint at the stereotypical perpetuation of black men making bad choices and keeping themselves in the fringes of society, these two "brothers" truly represent "everyman," who battle with each other in a continued "sibling rivalry," attempting to distance themselves from their past, maintain control over their future and to control their own and each other's lives. Literature, as reflection of life, has shown us the error of our ways time and time again and Parks reminds us that human nature is inescapable and that we are our worst enemy. (Note: This review is based on reading the play. I have not seen the play performed)
Rating:
Summary: Ehhhh.... why bother?
Review: To avoid repeat, I will avoid giving a recap of the work itself. I did see the play in L.A. not too long ago and really I wasn't that impressed. Maybe it's because I am cynical and hate most modern realism, or maybe it is just that this isn't a very well wriiten/produced piece of work. I didn't care about the "complex" and "controversial" relationship the brothers' had. I didn't care about the "hip" rap-like use of rhythm and urban language, probably because rap is lame anyway, and so are cheesy gimmicks to sell a play. Oh the horror! He hates rap! He hates this play! "But it makes us appreciate that we are not those people up on stage." Alot of plays and movies do that, but that doesn't merit making them a huge literary hit. I didn't care when Lincoln was shot by Booth...oooh that is such a deep and meaningful use of symbolism and metaphor. Oh these poor people are caught in a vicious cycle of self [decline], poverty and violence that is out of their feeble control! Thank God I am not like them. Thank God I'm not poor! Thank God I'm not stupid! Thank God I'm not Black! Or whatever else people need to be reminded of that they are sheltered from in this world. I'd rather open my eyes and look around at the misery of the world with a sense of hope and lust for life and feeling of connectiveness to the world rather than get off on a play because the characters are so pathetic that they make me feel more numb towards everyone by making me feel better about myself. (...)
|
