How Is It Possible To Explain The Technical Virtuousity Of Mary-Louise Parker??????????????????

                                    For my birthday, my beloved took me to see Mary-Louise Parker in "Heisenberg."  It has taken me this long to actually process the experience, and all the magic that Mary-Louise, aided and abetted by co-actor Denis Arndt, bring to this work.

                                    But, first, I have to be honest.  Had I understood more of what the vehicle was, I would not have brought my beloved.  Nor, could I honestly recommend this work to everyone.

                                     And notice I have not used the word "play" yet in this post.  Because I am not convinced that is what Simon Stephens has written.  Yes, many two character works--Albee's "The Zoo Story," or Coburn's "The Gin Game"--are considered plays, but here what is presented to the audience is more like an acting workshop.  Hence, I would recommend this vehicle only to those attuned to acting--those who have done it, want to do it, are doing it, or studying it.  Because watching Mary-Louise and Denis Arndt is like watching a master acting class.  And if you are one of these people attuned, as I am, dears, you will be enthralled.

                                       No one does quirkiness better than Mary-Louise Parker.  Despite her stunning looks, she has unlimited resources and areas that she can dig into, and make the most unusual choices of any actress working today.  This is why she is so fascinating to watch.  She is a constant surprise. 

                                         I, for one was fascinated by the voice she chose to use.  I would love to know how she arrived at that.  Because of who she is, and how she works, the choice works in ways it would not for other actresses.  But, then, after watching Miss Parker, I cannot imagine any other actress in the role.  She takes the audience on an exploration of this individual, who is more than likely chameleon like--I wonder how she plays it each performance; I bet there are shifts and changes--to create a character that has completely evolved from the organic whole of her body and technique, because the playwright forces this on her, providing minimal scenery and dialogue for a reason.

                                        How, I asked, does one explain the technical virtuosity of Mary-Louise Parker?  She uses every working resource she has to create a whole.

                                        Mr. Arndt is no less effective, though he is as grounded as Mary-Louise is quirky.  At actually 77. to be making his Broadway debut, should be enough to tell any aspirant never to give up--one never knows.  He is the balancing act, who plays off Miss Parker, and the two work superbly.  And when things turn romantic, it seems, through their work, altogether natural, not some May-December romance, or one old man's last hurrah.  As the work evolves, it becomes apparent, both characters are sad, and reaching for connections, and when those connections are reached, one is indeed happy for them.

                                          So, see "Heisenberg" for two superb acting performances.  Don't try to understand the audience seated on stage; to me, it was not necessary, nor did it add to my experience of things.  What is remarkable is that a work that should be staged in a more intimate venue still manages to emanate a great deal of intimacy.  Which speaks highly of the actors.

                                            And, of course, never, absolutely never, underestimate Mary-Louise Parker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!