Clybourne Park

by Bruce Norris

Clybourne park had its UK premiere at the Royal Court Theatre, London. Set in Chicago, the play "applies a modern twist to the issues of race and housing and aspirations for a better life." It is loosely based on real events. The first act depicts the racial atmosphere in Chicago in 1959. The second act is set in 2009 in the same house where a white couple wants to move into the now-gentrifying black neighborhood. The premise is gentrification, but Norris bares much more. He peels away layers of propriety with acuity, subtlety, and boldness.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Theatre, Fiction, Race, School, Historical Fiction

96 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 2010

Reviews

[Ashley Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Updated after watching a full performance--
I still don't think "enjoyable" is the proper word for this, but it is an important show with deep themes and a poignant message (maybe several poignant messages). To watch the show go through its full arc from Act I to Act II is really incredible and I've picked up on different things both of the last two nights I've been at the theatre. Yes, the characters are neurotic assholes, but you have to dig past that level and go further. See the way Betsy, Karl's wife, is deaf and barely able to speak in Act I and then how the same actress, as Lindsey, is constantly being cut off or talked over by Steve in Act II. How they all bounce back and forth discussing national capitals and things like downhill skiing. How Kathy in Act II is the daughter of Betsy from Act I. It's all beautifully interwoven.

Bumped up to 3.5 stars.
I still think Aaron Burr is spot-on, though.

-----------------------
Original review--

Not a huge fan and I'm still wondering how this convoluted thing won the Pulitzer. Anyway, we're performing this at my community theatre and all of the actors are fantastic, I just can't stand the characters they play. They're so neurotic and constantly either mindlessly chattering or arguing over the most mundane, irrelevant topics as they dance around the topic of race and racism without ever actually SAYING (until the end, anyway) that that's what they're worried about. This does work as a sort of sequel to Raisin in the Sun (which I loved), but the message I really take away from this play is that people talk entirely too much about the most irrelevant, banal shit.




Aaron Burr's got it right. This is what we need to do.

[Christopher · Rating 2 out of 5]

I so wanted to love this play. Way too much of this play is characters mindlessly chatting about nothing and sadly much of what they talk about is uninteresting. The play could be about how people don't talk about things, but Pinter does this much better. As a comedy it is just unfunny, except late in the second act when ethnic and sexist jokes serve partially as a uniting force. As a drama, it works best in the first act. The playwright has written that he thinks this play talks about things we are afraid to talk about and I sorely agree. Sadly it says absolutely nothing new about race and in fact is rather trite on the subject. I love the prospect of this play, but there is very little here to be excited about.

[Tung · Rating 5 out of 5]

Winner of the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for Drama, this completely brilliant play took my breath away. The play is staged in two acts: the first Act takes place in 1959 in the white suburb of Clybourne Park (a nod to A Raisin in the Sun). Russ and Bev are selling their house, and they are visited by acquaintances of theirs (Karl and Betsy) who express concern over the people buying the house. It turns out the concern is rooted in the fact that the buyers are African-American, and the community is afraid of the changes that might result from the new family’s arrival to the neighborhood. Act Two takes place 50 years later. Clybourne Park is now a predominantly black neighborhood, and the same house is now being sold to a white couple that plans to level it and build on the lot a much larger dwelling. A black couple now sits with the new owners to discuss the community’s fears of the changes that might result from the new family’s arrival to the neighborhood. I think back to all of the plays I have read over the years, and this might be the most well-crafted play I know. The contrast of the two acts, and the framing of the same question from two different lenses and perspectives – it’s an outstanding construct. And because of the juxtaposition of these two acts, Norris really makes the reader ponder the notion of race as it applies not only to individuals but also to communities. But while the major theme of the play is about race, it also does an incredible job of showing the different kinds of tension that exist within marriages. Despite the seriousness of the subject matters being broached by the play, though, there are moments of absolute hilarity; this happens to be one of the funniest plays I have ever read. The climax that the play builds to is one of the most hysterical yet cringe-inducing yet powerful scenes I’ve come across in dramas. From a prose perspective, the dialogue is engaging and real and alive, the characters are unique and well-written, and Norris includes little details in both acts that parallel each other so cleverly, I couldn’t believe it (my two favorites being a line about skiing, and a fixation on cities of the world). I think it’s perfectly-crafted, and despite it being early January as I write this review, it’s going to take an extraordinary book to beat this out for my book of the year. This play is outstanding, and receives my highest recommendation.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This play won the Pulitzer in 2011. It is set in a house in Chicago in 1959 and then again in 2009.

The tragedy that occurred here in the 1950’s provides the foreboding for the play and connects the two acts. The racism around integrating neighborhoods in 1959 and then back the other direction in 2009 provides the main plot thread.

I thought the first act of the play was 5 stars. The second act was more like 3 or 4 stars.

4.5 stars

[Paul · Rating 1 out of 5]

So incredibly disappointed. I have the utmost respect for Lorraine Hansberry's play "A Raisin in the Sun" and so I consequently had high expectations for Clybourne Park. I actually read it with the hope of pairing it with the original play in my American literature class, as a more recent take on some of the same themes. Not going to happen.

Clybourne Park is like The View written on paper. Everyone is yelling and talking at the same time. The characters are not engaging and they ramble on and on. Important themes that transcended from A Raisin in the Sun into this play were barely developed. The potential of this story was so great, yet it fell so hard.

I don't think I've disliked a piece of writing like this since I read The Catcher in the Rye.

[david · Rating 5 out of 5]

A two act play highlighting the differences between races (black and white) during 1959 and 2009.

It won a Pulitzer after its' premiere in London in 2010.

A worthwhile and quick read for these troubled times.

[Tuti · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting and timely - even though some years have passed since it won the Pulitzer (2011)

[Jane Medoro · Rating 2 out of 5]

Why would you chose to take the first play to be produced on Broadway that is written by a black woman and make it about white people? I don't know but that is exactly what Bruce Norris did.

[Orla · Rating 3 out of 5]

don't have anything extraordinary to say about this. i'm not disappointed because my hopes weren't that high but i also didn't love it. also, questionable that a white author is writing about white flight and segregation in Chicago 🤨

underwhelming and inconsequential a 3/5 from me

[Bandit · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am trying to expand my knowledge of plays and this was recommended to me. Even if it wasn’t, it probably would have attracted my attention with a striking cover and a Pulitzer Prize win. The Pulitzer is actually from 2011, but the play is about race, a subject as timely as it gets, so it reads very contemporary. The basic structure is a juxtaposition, two acts, one set in 1959 and one fifty years later, dealing with gentrification of the eponymous neighborhood. In 1959 it’s about a first black couple coming into an all white enclave and later the situation is reversed. So it’s all very clever, even the cover reflecting the context is exactly right, but…turns out a scorching hot theme (like racial politics) and clever juxtaposition and parallels or mirroring isn’t quite enough to make a play good. This is just my opinion, obviously The Pulitzer committee disagrees. But for me the play didn’t really work. There were too many characters, none of whom were made especially distinct, personality wise, it required a constant flipping back to the dramatis personae page. None of them are that interesting either or likeable for that matter. It’s almost like the author got too busy with drawing out his precious parallels to pay attention to the rest of the things that ought to go into a play. At over 200 pages it’s one of the longer plays I’ve read to date and by far one of the least compelling. Usually, when I read a play it sort of plays out in my mind, the dialogue, complete with accents and all the rest of it and this one just stayed flat on the page throughout. It was easy enough to intellectually appreciate what the author tried (and most say succeeded) in doing here, but not an especially engaging reading experience. An interesting conversation about race, an auspicious attempt at satirizing a difficult subject, but strangely emotionally mute for such a loud theme. User mileage may vary.

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

Have to say I was very disappointed with this piece. I'd heard such amazing things about it, and it won the Pulitzer and the Tony; and I don't see why. Now it may play differently than it reads, but I didn't do anything for me. It didn't core a new topic in a new and/or surprising way, it doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said in other pieces (and said better in other pieces). I do look forward to seeing a production of this piece next season, to see if my initial thoughts are different (it's happened before). I think the plays Stickfly (Lydia Diamond) and Luck of the Irish (Kirsten Greenidge) do a much better job of tackling the same issues in more intriguing ways. Overall I was underwhelmed.

[Hassan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Whitest book I have ever read, an affront to the radical life and legacy of Lorraine Hansberry.

Norris puppeteers his black characters to help illustrate his terrible psuedo-political points. It reads like a sitcom and a bad one at that. Anyone who thinks this is a tactful writing of race relations must think the same of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

The entire point of this play is to titillate petit-bourgeois white audiences and make them just uncomfortable enough to find it "challenging".

Norris calls himself a "provocateur" but he's really just an opportunist. Worth reading only for a better understanding of how to spot a grifter.

[Alex Scarborough · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. What a powerful play!! There is so much to dig in to!! Definitely a play to consider for a classroom if you are trying to open up the door to a conversation about race, gender roles, gentrification, stereotypes, privilege, and a whole slew of other social structures. Even though it is a quick read, you will find yourself spending days considering the comparisons between the first and second act. READ THIS!!!

[John Bardsley · Rating 1 out of 5]

Fuck this play.

[Maddie Coe · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I think the book/play was certainly elevated by hearing my classmates curse at each other while reading (I unfortunately didn’t get to swear in my part), this was a great play and very important. It challenges racism in the modern setting, and the symbols throughout are done very well.

[Bonnie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Are modern plays these days just unpleasant people yelling at each other? The only thing that gives me hope is Tom Stoppard. That man can write more than just sound and fury. Seriously, after this, The God of Carnage and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, I’m feeling that playwrights are obsessed with people griping about their problems.

It’s not like A Raisin in the Sun and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof didn’t involve people being miserable and sniping. BUT in those plays, it was convincing that the people in it loved each other once even if they were angry at each other now. The relationships were broken, but the real tragedy was that once they had been so good and they had cracked under pressure. But in these griping plays, it’s like the characters had never liked each other and I don’t understand how they ever got together in the first place – or why they’re staying together.

I liked the idea of this play a lot – it’s a sequel/side-story/inspired by A Raisin in the Sun. It’s the home in Claybourne Park, from the point of view of the white family that was selling. I actually liked this half the best – the couple was dysfunctional, but like Cat and Raisin, the relationship one good has been destroyed by circumstances - in this case, the tragic suicide of their son. The second half was just beastly. It asked the interesting question of how much the hostility to yuppy gentrifiers was similar to the hostility of blacks moving into white neighborhoods. But everyone was so horrid and I couldn’t even get a sense of relationship. Why were two of the couples together? All they did was be bitchy to each other. And I don’t think this issue was explored when every single person was just rancid. WRITE BETTER CHARACTERS NOT JUST ONE-DIMENSIONAL ASSHOLES.

[Jolene · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been meaning to read this play for a while, but I saw a high school performance last night, and wow! A lot of the reviews tall about how it's just a bunch of people talking over each other, but those reviewers are missing the point. Like most Americans when it comes to race, they talk AROUND it. They talk but don't SAY anything. They nod their heads in agreement without actually hearing each other. This is a rich, complex story that I look forward to reading or seeing performed again.

[Isabelle Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really interesting and dynamic meditation on race and gentrification.

[William Adam Reed · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars rounded down. I read this play because I am hoping to find texts to write an essay about the American Dream. This play takes a concept from a plot point in Lorraine Hansberry's "A Raisin in the Sun", which is a play that I really enjoyed reading. So perhaps I felt let down that play wasn't as compelling to me as that one was. Most plays are dialogue driven, so rarely do I feel that I connect with the characters as much in a play as in a well written novel, where an author can get you into the interior spaces of a character and help you understand what makes them distinct and their motivations. In a play, I often feel that the characters aren't developed enough and that makes reading a play a bit frustrating because some of the characters get lost for me. In this play, that happened more in Act II for me. Kathy and Tom did not really stand out for me. I kept thinking, why are they here? What is their role in this play? Also, the entire play is two long scenes, which are Act I set in 1959 and Act II, which is in 2009. The scenes are quite long for a play. I prefer shorter scenes, but can see why Norris decided to write the long scenes this way.

Act I is about a white family in Chicago that sells their home to a black family and the reactions of the neighborhood when they learn about this. Act II takes place fifty years later and tells the story of the same neighborhood, this time with white families moving back into gentrify the area. This play is adroit at dealing with a divisive issue such as race relations in a skillful manner. I feel the play largely won its Pulitzer for this reason and I would say that it is a worthy Pulitzer winner. The large cast does do a lot of talking over each other and shouting, so I think seeing it on stage would lead to my missing a lot of what each character is saying, so having read it is a benefit in that sense. However, I'm sure the emotional impact is much more powerful when viewed in the theater. There is a sadness to this play. Although this play has its comedic moments, there are a lot of moments when the characters verbally unload on each other too. Steve and Lindsey are a married couple in Act II who say such unkind things to each other during the scene that you are surprised that they are still together by the end of it. The back of my copy of the book really plays up how funny this play is, which I didn't find to be the case. Important, yes, and I'm glad that I read it. I would even be willing to see it performed. But it's not a top tier play for me.

[Julia (Shakespeare and Such) · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.8/5 stars, full review to come! This is the laziest “sequel” I’ve ever read in my life. It could have been so much stronger to stick with the idea of either act, not both, as they felt hastily tied together and incomplete on their own. Either make the play about the people who sold their house to the Youngers, or about the black family in 2009 who’s neighborhood is on the verge of gentrification. Regardless, as a “satire” I found it both unfunny and uninsightful. Compared to the moving, gorgeous writing of a raisin in the sun (who’s very set descriptions bring me to tears), this text felt like it could have been generated by a bot. There were like two lines I liked of the entire play.

Plot: 2/5
Characters: 3/5
Pacing: 1/5
Writing: 2/5
Enjoyment: 1/5

[Davelowusa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had extremely high expectations for this play. It's possible that no version of Clybourne Park could have lived up to them.

In terms of concept, this play is actually quite brilliant, exploring race and community over 50 years in one house: the house that the Younger family moves into at the end of A Raisin in the Sun. (Despite none of the Youngers actually appearing in the play, we can feel them at the periphery.)

However, in terms of the actual content of the play, I was rarely moved by Norris's characters. Hansberry's original play employed levity and gravity in perfect harmony. Norris's play feels a little too reliant on the levity, which undermines the epic thrust of A Raisin in the Sun and reduces the characters to petulant archetypes.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

More like 3.5. On one hand, this is an interesting use of duality and intertextuality with Raisin in the Sun. A playwrights play, in that regard. On the other hand, it's pretentious as hell and the second act is filled with inane dialogue of rich people that are really unlikeable characters. But I'd try to see it if someone was performing it near me.

[Kaitlyn · Rating 1 out of 5]

ethnic and racist jokes being used so characters could relate to one another is a big no-no. i loved a raisin in the sun so much but this one is Not It™

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

Clybourne Park by Bruce Norris exhibits:

A fascinating examination of class, race, cultural etiquette, and the dynamics of gentrification.

Great conceptual use of space, as the same house is used for a setting 50 years apart (Act One, 1959. Act Two, 2009).

Whether intended or not (although it seems intended), a great use of raciolinguistics to show culture, etiquette, class and, obviously, how race can be expressed through language. I could read and mentally hear the Whiteness in the first act.

I read this play to gather ideas for a piece I'm writing on gentrification. I had no idea what I’d find, only that I was hoping I'd at least get ideas for dialogue. What I found in this wonderfully written play was how investment can change a space. The play shows how the texture of a space or landscape is shaped by racial dynamics, specifically, who inhabits the area and what they permit to occur or what is imposed upon them within this area. It also shows how race forms investment, which then transforms neighborhoods, homes, and spaces, and vice versa. From that notion and reading a play with such events as these, one can begin to see and say, THIS, THIS is a White home. And THIS is a Black home. As I noted, the same house is used 50 years apart, so the determination of a Black home or White home comes across, especially because they are the same address. This was a wonderful artistic choice because it showed that the same home, the same address could be vastly different due to investment, who is allowed to live there, what people say in them, how people act in them—how they have peopled the space in effect.

Bruce Norris is great with dialogue. This is one of the main reasons I began reading plays in general, but his dialogue has a slow-burn quality that gradually erupts into crescendos that pique an observer’s attention. He can delve into the minutiae and leave a protruding thread out of an otherwise normal conversation. The thread will later be picked at by one character until all characters are picking at it. By this point, the conversation unravels into the chaotic mess of life, full of furious and existential debate.

As noted earlier, the play exhibits examples of raciolinguistics. Although I said I could clearly hear and read Whiteness enacted within the act occurring in 1959, there was also an interesting linguistic phenomenon that occurred between the Black characters, Albert/ Kevin and Francine/Lena, when I read their lines. The truth is, I couldn't tell they were Black until they were antagonized into breaking with White code-switching. This phenomenon might be subdued on the stage as one could see Black characters from the beginning, but I imagine the audience would not subconsciously observe them begin “talking Black” until the audience saw them get perturbed.

My hypothesis, never having studied or taken a class on raciolinguistics, is:

The Black community members were done with performing White linguistics and placating the White community members with White respectability when provoked, which in my culture comes out as “Don’t let my look fool ya. You don't want the hood to come out in me, so check ya tone before it does.”

In Clybourne Park, Norris showcases how race and space combine to compose social determinants, facilitating simultaneous yet paradoxical change and status quo, as the house both sits idle and changes due to its inhabitants. This change is conversely expressed by Karl, a White upper-class man, who says, “Now, some would say change is inevitable. And I can support that, if it’s change for the better. But I’ll tell you what I can’t support, and that’s disregarding the needs of the people who live in a community.” And Francine, a Black woman seeking to preserve the history of her Black community, who says, “And some change is inevitable, and we all support that, but it might be worth asking yourself who exactly is responsible for that change?”

[Jack Wolfe · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just knew the top Goodreads reviews for this were gonna be bad (even though this play obviously rules). It has all the hallmarks of something that people hate on Goodreads: unlikeable characters, uncomfortable situations, pretty edgy depictions of African-Americans, women, and a deaf person (all written by a white man who I'm pretty sure is not deaf), and it's a play not written by a (yet, understood to be) classic dramatist, so it could NEVER be as good as EUGENE O'NEILL, or whatever. But let's be real... Maybe the play's most ardent despisers hate it because "Clybourne Park" might hit a little too close to home?

Go ahead! Hate me too, ardent despisers! That's what you do! Ardently despise! I can take it!

Anyway, I loved "Clybourne Park." It's the best play I've read yet on "Dramaquest 2018." It takes a ton of chances, dramatically and thematically, and succeeds in every way. The subject of the play is, in a word, gentrification, and it handles this topic with both utter seriousness and an insane amount of pitch black comedy. (How does/can a white person write about this stuff? There is no formula for doing it "right." But I think it helps to be as clear-eyed as Norris, who finally locates.... well... a whole lot of racism as the real issue. He doesn't attempt to explain it (racism, and, to be clear, racism toward black people as administered by white people), and he can't justify it. But he can acknowledge it, again and again, and make us squirm.) But there are all kinds of other problems that linger around in this thing: gender inequality (Norris simply NAILS the condescending man, in both acts) and marriage relationships, war and PTSD and trauma, the responsibilities of an community to its members (and vice versa), corporate domination, etc, etc, etc.

Oh, and you probably know this if you're reading this review, but the play has two acts, with two totally different sets of characters, played by the same cast, within the same house. Each act begins with page after page of annoying, pointless small talk, until finally a subject is broached, and said subject acquires a power that turns everyone in the house into screaming maniacs. I'm sure some people think the "callbacks" Norris makes from 2009 to 1959 are forced and corny, but I thought they were great. He's not suggesting there's a sort of mystic force in houses that commands people to act in a certain way. But he might be saying that the circumstances of history affect all of us individuals whether we want to fully own up to it or not. Great shit.

[TreforL · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even before recent events I was heartily sick of America's deep-seated problems over race. So I approached this script - which is all about black/white relationships - with some trepidation. Rightly so, it turned out, though the play is superbly crafted and well worth reading. No amount of wit can prevent its politics from falling down the plughole of the usual tropes.

The first half is set in 1959 when a white family is selling to the first black residents, causing uproar in the neighbourhood. The second half is set in 2009, when uproar around the same house centres on a white couple moving into what has become a black neighbourhood. The same actors play different roles in the two halves and this works surprisingly well.

At intervals, Norris uses a three-way overlap of dialogue as characters dance around the race issue until one of the assembled neighbours calls it by name (causing uproar). This is the cue to rehearse the notion, culturally prevalent among white Americans, that racial tensions and inequalities can be laughed off in unfunny jokes. Norris tries to put a new twist on this, specifically writing a lack of mirth into the cast's reactions. But he tells the jokes anyway, none too subtly appealing to the audience for uncomfortable laughter.

This - and the implication in the play's structure that black people now have the upper hand - make it part of the problem rather than any solution. While it typifies the attitudes of many white Americans who think they're for equalities when they're not, it's a compelling piece of drama.

[Lauren · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting concept – looking at how the racial make-up of a neighborhood changes in 1959 due to desegregation and in 2009 due to gentrification – that misses the mark by avoiding the actual subject and instead opting for shallow sidetracks. The play continually hints at contending with what makes and defines a community and how that definition can change and alter, but Mr. Norris doesn’t seem to trust his subject matter and instead opts for too many post-modern conversational tics.

I live in Los Angeles, which, like many big cities, is undergoing gentrification in several communities due to skyrocketing real estate prices. What continually strikes me about the issue are the complicated relationships most people have with it. Making assumptions about someone’s opinions on gentrification is a fool’s errand (and has landed me in an awkward situation more than once). I’ve come to enjoy talking to people about the topic, because everyone has an opinion (and an often complex one at that), and I walk away with new information and perspectives to ponder.

Some might argue Clybourne Park is supposed to be a play about modern society, how everyone talks and never listens. Fine, but if I want that, I can watch cable news.

I had hoped to see some of that uncertainty regarding gentrification demonstrated in Clybourne Park. Instead I got pages of dysfunction and a rather stupid and overly drawn-out exchange involving bad jokes. Quasi-recommended (mostly for the potential).

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

(Screenplays are short enough that I feel bad adding one to my Reading Challenge, but not bad enough to not add it.)

Several years ago I got to see Clybourne Park performed live. I sat on the front row. I remember feeling like I was sitting in an emotional splash zone. Clybourne Park is one of those plays that holds up a mirror and shows the plain truth.

The story unwinds slowly through ordinary, almost painfully mundane conversations in the same house at two points in history. Throughout, we see how racism, red-lining, and white denial show up in a normal house, in normal conversations, and are themselves our truest normal.

This 2010 story might benefit from a second edition, but it remains a great addition to American theater. Five stars.

[Katt Hansen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not my favorite play I've read for acting class, but interesting all the same. Basic premise, black family wants to buy a house belonging to a while family. The bigotry put a bad taste in my mouth, which is the point. It's supposed to. This is a play designed to make you feel uncomfortable. Sadly, it doesn't resolve well in my opinion, leaving you feeling like you're not quite finished in formulating the thought the playwright wanted you to take away with you at the end.

[Chayse Seaburg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this play however it’s no my favorite. I thought the parallels from the characters in 2009 and the characters in 1959 was very clever. I would not go and see the play but I did enjoy reading it. I’m not sure I would enjoy watching a group of people argue for two hours. Overall I really did enjoy the play and it had some really powerful scenes!