A historian would look at this play and wonder what
happened to our society. That is, if he
thought that the play represented what life was like in our century. As far as being a well made play, it may be
very confusing in comparison to The Glass
of Water and The Children’s Hour. Yes,
it has three acts and those “one liners” that left you hanging at the end of
each scene. Much of the dialogue seem
petty and didn't make a point such as when they are arguing about what they
want to watch on television.
The difference between the “truth” and illusion is
hard to separate. The part when James
closes his eyes, the piano stops, he is looking at the chair, and now he is
John, is very confusing. Is this real, a
hallucination, or is it really John? What is the truth and what is the
illusion? Then all of a sudden John is sitting in the chair? Maybe, this was James’s way of justifying how
his parents treated him and John. Is
he really “James the Good” and his brother is “John the Bad?”
This play was confusing to me and I lived through
the 90’s. Every once in a while the
characters would move forward and talk or narrate to the audience which was
confusing to me. I guess this was the
biggest difference from the other well-made plays that we have read. I found very distracting from the standpoint
of keeping up with what was happing. It
wasn’t until the end that it made more sense, especially when each character
was telling the audience how they died. As
a dramaturgical choice, it helped to bring a close to the story. I also liked the last line when John says, “Anyway.”
I understand what you mean about historians thinking, "What were they thinking?" about our society after reading this play. However, I think if a historian was reading this play, they might get the sense that america in the 1990’s was just a little disjointed and confused. For example, the characters braking of the fourth wall from time to time makes the reader think of the disjointed view of what theatre is “suppose to be” at this time. We get that maybe a capital T- truth could be seen differently depending on whoever is viewing it.
ReplyDeleteThis play was very very confusing indeed. I did my analysis on it and ended up re-reading it about fifteen times and it started to make more sense to me. I will agree that a lot of the dialogue seemed like filler, but all the varying timelines eventually matched up to tell a story of life and how it ends.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s interesting how you observe that the line between “truth” and illusion is blurred. Could this logic imply that capital-T Truth may be an illusion? I think that McNally leaves enough room for interpretation, evidenced by the multiple questions that arise from the John/James episode. Maybe this indicates that everyone’s attitude toward Truth can vary. One person could believe that capital-T truth is an illusion while someone else could believe that Truth is determined by each person’s mindset.
ReplyDeleteIt was so confusing, especially,as you mentioned, the places where they stepped out of the story to talk to us. It really only became clear when they talked about there deaths. I had to wonder about this as a choice. I don't think it was meant to make it easier for us to follow, as it certainly didn't. But maybe to bring us closer as you said? Possibly the idea was that if the characters spoke to us directly, instead of staying in their world, we might have a closer relationship to them as readers.
ReplyDelete