The Taming of a Radical Monologuist

Spalding Gray's `Monster in a Box' needs more of his old experimental spirit

WALKING into Lincoln Center's well-scrubbed Mitzi E. Newhouse Theater to hear Spalding Gray's new monologue, ``Monster in a Box,'' was a little bit jarring. I'd seen Mr. Gray perform in Lincoln Center before, but I've seen him far more often in the Performing Garage, the dilapidated yet charming - and culturally essential - downtown theater where he did his first important work. In both settings, he confronts his audience directly, chatting casually from a wooden desk, with no onstage props but a glass of water and a looseleaf notebook that he rarely consults. Yet the atmosphere of Lincoln Center is so different from that of the Garage, and of the whole avant-garde scene in which Gray once played such a central role, that one can't help realizing how much times have changed - and wondering whether the changes have been good ones.

Not that there's anything wrong with ``Monster in a Box,'' which stands with Gray's best offerings of this type. It's the story of his effort to write an autobiographical novel called ``Impossible Vacation,'' how the novel grew to an impossible size, and how a string of interruptions kept him from completing it. I'm sure the story is true, since whenever I've talked with Gray in recent years he's immediately mentioned the number of pages - now well into four-digit territory - under his belt so far in this seemingly endless project. The real substance of the monologue, though, is not the novel but the interruptions that interfered with it, ranging from a part in a Whoopi Goldberg movie to a sojourn at a Soviet film festival.

WHAT'S missing in ``Monster in a Box,'' and in all Gray's recent work, is a sense of the restless, questioning, experimental spirit that surged through his career in its earlier years. To explore this a bit, it's worth recalling the genesis of Gray's monologues, which now seem like cozy bits of sit-down comedy but once epitomized a truly radical approach to theater art.

As a member of the Wooster Group (then called the Performance Group) during the 1970s, Gray was a main creator of a trilogy called ``Three Places in Rhode Island.'' The second portion of this work - an overwhelmingly brilliant show called ``Rumstick Rhode,'' about his relationship with his late mother - used direct addresses by Gray to the audience on startlingly personal subjects. The third portion, the equally brilliant ``Nayatt School,'' began in a similar way, and from this came Gray's earliest experiments in pure monologue - performances in which all barriers between performer and audience, including a prerehearsed script, would be eliminated. It's hard to imagine a more drastic questioning of what theater is or ought to be.

In those early days, I remember seeing Gray perform at the Garage for an audience of perhaps a dozen people. Now he's a star of Lincoln Center, the Broadway stage, and HBO, and mainstream audiences can't get enough of him. He has earned his success, and it's good to see a genuine maverick getting such wide recognition. But it would be even better, I can't help feeling, if he'd start questioning this brand of theater as radically and insistently as he once questioned mainstream and avant-garde styles of the past.

``Monster in a Box,'' cleverly directed by Renee Shafransky, continues at Lincoln Center through Jan. 20.

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.