Jack and Jill: A Romance

by Jane Martin

Book by Martin, Jane

Genres: Plays

89 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Jane Martin is the pen-name of a playwright speculated to be former Actors Theatre of Louisville artistic director Jon Jory. Jon Jory, Martin's spokesperson, denies being Jane Martin but has directed the premieres of Martin's shows.

Martin has traditionally been billed as a Kentucky playwright. While speculation about her identity centers around Jory, other theories have cited former Actors Theatre of Louisville Executive Director Alexander Speer, former Actors Theatre Literary Manager Michael Bigelow Dixon, and former intern Kyle John Schmidt.

Jane Martin's key credits include Anton in Show Business, Back Story, Coup, Cementville, Criminal Hearts, Flaming Guns of the Purple Sage, Vital Signs, and Talking With... Martin's Keely and Du won the 1994 American Theater Critics Association New Play Award and was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.

Reviews

[Bobby Keniston · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jane Martin, often called the "mysterious Jane Martin" because she never wants to be seen in person, first came to attention with the collection of female monologues, "Talking With". Her play, "Keely and Du", which deals with the controversial subject of abortion, was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize, and won an American Theatre Critics Association Award for Best New Play. The award was accepted on her behalf by playwright Jon Jory. Jon Jory also directs the original productions of most of her plays.

Because Jane Martin is (most likely) Jon Jory.

I am not telling tales out of school here, though Jon Jory has never publicly admitted to being Jane Martin (though even his Wikipedia page mentions that he is rumored to being Jane Martin). My playwriting professor at Bennington, Gladden Schrock, who knows Mr. Jory and worked with him, flat out told us that Mr. Jory wrote as Jane Martin when he wanted to explore themes that dealt a great deal women and gender issues.

Whether Jory is Jane Martin or not (he probably is), or whether maybe it has become like Andy Kaufman and Tony Clifton and others can take over, is not really a big deal. If a writer feels freer to explore certain things through a pseudonym, more power to them. I wouldn't take it away from anyone.

And really, it has nothing much to do with my reading of "Jack and Jill: A Romance", except, at times, one begins to wonder about certain tropes that Jill espouses, that sometimes feels like a male feminist writing from the point of view of what they perceive a feminist's mindset to be. Or maybe I just feel that way because I know the rumors about Jory being Martin, who knows?

But I don't think so.

"Jack and Jill: A Romance" premiered at the Humana Festival directed by (surprise!) Jon Jory. It is a two-character play, with dressers who help dress the actors onstage. Jack and Jill meet at a library, begin a relationship, marry, divorce and meet again. It moves fast with accessible dialogue that is often witty and clever. Both Jack and Jill have monologues directly to the audience throughout, giving us more insight into their characters, but, really, it is the back and forth between characters that is most engaging (at least when Martin restrains from some of the preachiness).

I don't think there is anything new about Jack and Jill: A Romance, and there wasn't anything new in 1996 when it premiered, not even the uncertain ending. The theme is about men and women connecting. The edges that overlaps and the areas that we don't understand about one another.

But just because something is familiar territory, doesn't mean it isn't told in an interesting, entertaining manner. I imagine that this show could be quite the crowd pleaser with the right cast, and a director who knows how to keep the action moving between the many scene changes (this would die onstage with too much time between scenes... absolutely die). And to its credit, the piece attempts to explore relationships and issues between the genders, and for the most apart avoids certain stereotypes.

I can't help but say that, in the final analysis, I found the play pretty much harmless. I could watch it and be fine and enjoy myself.

But I can't imagine it sticking with me.

[Erin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having directed this play, I would recommend it to any smaller group as a comic piece. The humour is quite dark, for the most part, and the best audience is an older one; but that being said _everyone_ in the audience will recognize at least some part of it from their own lives or the loves of someone they know. The play, as I read it, is about identity, vulnerability, and risk.

With lots and LOTS of scenes that are tonally different from each other, so be ready for that.

About staging:

We kept the 'dressers' and all props and furniture on stage and visible to the audience which increased the speed between scenes and removed any 'jarring' effect that having people walk on stage to work with the actors has. There are a couple places for a surprise reveal that still worked fine because one actor would be moved off and into hiding while the other monologued to the audience. The running crew will have to be well rehearsed for this, as they are such an integral part of the show. Ideally there are four 'dressers', but we got away with three, and _might_ have been able to get away with two - but I'd still rather have had four. ;)

About the actors:

This play could be tough to cast, despite only having two performers! It requires absolute vulnerability, or it just won't work (yes, they also appear in their underwear, but that doesn't make most actors blink twice.) The dialogue seems more complicated than it actually is - it takes loads of rehearsal time to find the right cadence, but when you do it will feel like it just *clicks* into place. Very much worth taking a day (or even two) to work a single scene over in different ways even before you get on your feet. Ellipsis are everywhere, so you'll have to find which are pauses, which are interruptions, and which are changes.

It's very flexible, which gives loads of options and is tremendous fun for actors to play with.

About directing:

You will have to be VERY careful to ensure that neither one is a villain nor hero, despite Jill starting from low, brittle point and Jack starting as a bumbling and kinda sweet guy. There's a very big trap waiting for your female lead to turn shrill and bitter while your male lead to becomes a brilliant angel, or for him to be a bumbling goof and she a perpetual victim. They're both right and wrong at different points, and a couple times being right (and wrong) at the same points, but in different directions. They change, but they never do things out of the blue.

Physically, there are plenty of leaps in time and space, but each scene has an intro and outro to smooth transitions. Light, music, and quick costume or hair changes are all that can really be added to pull from the set movements - it's why we kept everything out in the open and visible to the audience, and it seemed to work quite well.

Conclusion:

We enjoyed doing this play immensely, but I can't recommend it for beginners! Lots to play off between dialogue and scene; lots that you can bring to it; lots of ways it can be played. Jack and Jill was a great success for us, but it's not going to tell you how to make it work: you'll have to find that for yourself.

[Kara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maddening and exhilarating.

[Dadi]

:/

[Ethan Washington · Rating 5 out of 5]

So good.

[v · Rating 5 out of 5]

Searched high and low for this book for a few years before finally getting my hands on a copy, all because I read Jack's I'm Nice monologue in a book of audition-worthy monologues. It stuck in my mind, lines replaying at odd moments in my life until my brain finally insisted I find and read the entire story.
Having never seen the play, this review is based entirely off the book itself and agreeing with another review here, it is difficult to get the sense of urgency in an argument through a playbook, character's actions sometimes falling short.
However the characters themselves are well-built, IMO, and they are easy to fall into love/hate with as you can put yourself (at some point in your life) in their shoes in multiple situations in the story and nearly feel their frustration and emotions as if they were your own.
This struck a cord with me and while it isn't perfect, it holds a fond place in my heart as I found it eerily relate-able through my own stumbling relationships.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

As an actor I think this would be a nightmare of a play to get off-book for. 80 or so pages of dialogue, monologues and soliloquies. I could maybe picture it as a film since that would give the actors the ability to go one scene at a time.
The portions of dialogue when they talked over each other was difficult to decode, to wade through so many ellipsis. Of course it's a play and it would be easier to get from hearing actors speak it.
This piece is hot and cold for me with some moments and bits of dialogue written to perfection and others leaving saying "alright already." I think Martin does get there but perhaps with a few extraneous turns along the way. Too much harping on the same points from the two characters.
I loved how jack at times was so pathetic and seemingly desperate, and Jill unforgiving, unbending and almost cruel. It drove me nuts but perhaps in a good way.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

It probably plays well live. It's a quick, fun play, but because of all of the line cut offs and stutters, it makes for a rather tedious read.