Anna in The Tropics is about Cuban workers (most of them are also the owners, actually) in a Tampa cigar factory in 1929. A new lector is hired from Cuba, and his job is to read to the workers while they work. His choice of material: "Anna Karenina." Passages from the novel are woven into the play as he reads, and we study the book's effect on the other characters. Of course, life reflects art, and the lector takes up with one of the married women.
Critics have made much of the poetry in the script, and there are some very nice lines. At its best, Cruz's dialogue sounds like Tennesee Williams', with poetry woven organically into speech patterns. But when Cruz tries to be realistic, the idiom is inconsistent -- at times highly formal ("One can always find shade in the park"), at times colloquial ("What's with the shoe?"). People in this culture would undoubtedly speak Spanish, but these characters speak English with Spanish accents. I guess we have to allow Cruz this premise, but why didn't he write the play in Spanish, and translate it into General American?
Does anyone doubt that the Pulitzer Prize board gave Anna and Cruz the Prize last year for political reasons? They chose the play because it reflects lives that might otherwise be neglected in theater -- and they're right to do so. Content does count for something after all, and we can only applaud a theater that reflects life. Besides, beyond a certain degree of excellence, there is no hierarchy.
Unfortunately, Anna tells us next to nothing about the way these people lived. There's a self-conscious passage about cigar rolling - bunching, stuffing, wrapping -- but otherwise, the texture of everyday life is missing. The set gives us no more than is necessary; a few work stations at the factory. Also, there's no through line to speak of. The play opens with the factory owner losing a share of the factory -- he's put it up to borrow money, which he gambles away. But he soon pays back the loan, and the event has no consequences. The plot, such as it is, is predictable.
And what excitable, child-like characters Cruz gives us! They're always in a frenzy, and they clap when they like something. One young woman wets herself because she's so excited to meet the lector. This is certainly not the best our Latino playwrights can do in holding the mirror up to nature.
As you may know, this was the first time the Pulitzer board gave the Prize to a script without having seen the work performed. They might have reconsidered if they'd seen this heavy-handed production. Pacing is regular and slow; the first act would bore the dead, and the second is only marginally more animated. Emily Mann has directed her actors to YELL nearly every line in the play, for no reason. Worse, they divide lines into bits - TO BE SURE - THAT WE GET - THE POINT. And they face front a lot. Everything is done for the audience. In short, there's not a moment of privacy on stage. It's awful.
Anna transferred from the McCarter Theater, a small venue (360 seats) in Princeton, New Jersey. It undoubtedly fared better in a small space. Ms. Mann fails utterly at transferring the show to Broadway. The actors are lost on the big stage with its sparse set. And the fact of transfer may explain, in part, the yelling.
The cast do the best they can under the circumstances, but the subtlety has been directed out of their performances. Jimmy Smits (of TV fame) plays the lector. As written, the character is even less fleshed-out than the others; less a person than he is a personification. Nonetheless, Smits gives us the evening's few moments of truthfulness. He even manages to sneak in a few lines in a conversational tone.
Let's hope that, in future, the Pulitzer people find material that satisfies our need for diversity and still maintains our standards. Indeed, let's hope that American playwrights rise to the occasion.
