So the next play I read was from a collection of very early Sam Sheppard plays called Chicago and Other Plays. I chose the first one, Chicago and right away I knew had changed perspectives and the inmates had taken over.
Unlike the other experimental plays I have (and to be fair there haven't been many), which have subverted the presentation of the play but pretty much kept basic narrative structures in tact, this play explodes both. The text is scattered, There is almost no exposition at all, Symbolic and iconic actions dominate. Sifting a clear narrative out of all this imagery takes some doing, but I think I did.
The play seems to be about the dissolution of a relationship. Stu and Joy are apparently a couple. Joy has got a new job and it seems she will be moving on. In response to this, Stu has hunkered down in the bathtub, with water and becomes by turns, petulant, poetic and uncommunicative. To Joy that is. He has a lot to say to himself and the audience. He speaks in long rambling monologues barely acknowledging Joy. Many friend come by to have a party, offstage, celebrating Joy's new job. Joy leaves and in a probably arresting visual finale, the guests cast fishing lines into the audience while Stu delivers a monologue about loss.
I admit that after reading lots of traditional narrative plays encountering this one annoyed me a bit. Why make an audience work so hard?, I thought, There are good reasons. The predictability of so many scripts does need to be refreshed now and then. One should strive to find a voice different from than those that came before. Something profound and moving is definitely communicated by this text and the lack of clarity forces one to pay more attention. I liked this play the more I thought about it.
Unlike the other experimental plays I have (and to be fair there haven't been many), which have subverted the presentation of the play but pretty much kept basic narrative structures in tact, this play explodes both. The text is scattered, There is almost no exposition at all, Symbolic and iconic actions dominate. Sifting a clear narrative out of all this imagery takes some doing, but I think I did.
The play seems to be about the dissolution of a relationship. Stu and Joy are apparently a couple. Joy has got a new job and it seems she will be moving on. In response to this, Stu has hunkered down in the bathtub, with water and becomes by turns, petulant, poetic and uncommunicative. To Joy that is. He has a lot to say to himself and the audience. He speaks in long rambling monologues barely acknowledging Joy. Many friend come by to have a party, offstage, celebrating Joy's new job. Joy leaves and in a probably arresting visual finale, the guests cast fishing lines into the audience while Stu delivers a monologue about loss.
I admit that after reading lots of traditional narrative plays encountering this one annoyed me a bit. Why make an audience work so hard?, I thought, There are good reasons. The predictability of so many scripts does need to be refreshed now and then. One should strive to find a voice different from than those that came before. Something profound and moving is definitely communicated by this text and the lack of clarity forces one to pay more attention. I liked this play the more I thought about it.
RSS Feed