Reading Plays.

Hey,
This is long delayed due to tech delays and the busyness of the world. Enjoy!

Reading Plays: Pitfalls and Epiphanies

As I've written before, ever since I was a high school theater geek I started reading plays. Now conventional wisdom does say that plays are meant to be seen rather than read. However I live in a place where often it's a few years before I'll get the chance to see a play. Ever since I first heard of it during it's Broadway run, I was desperate to know what Angels in America was all about. But I also knew that it was going to be a long while before I got a chance to see it. Luckily I was able to find a copy at the library. This was where I began to critically see plays as literature that can exist outside of their performance.

Playwrights such as Shakespeare, Kushner, and Stoppard write complicated plays that require careful attention. When I started this blog I read Stoppard's Utopia trilogy and it was way over my head intellectually. I can only imagine what it would be like to experience a staged production. I think my head would spin from the philosophical references alone. Without any background information or intellectual insight a Stoppard play can be pretty inaccessible. I still love them though. And as long as I know what I'm in for, I can actually enjoy it better when I do see the play performed eventually.

I bring all this up as context to my re-reading this week of the play Copenhagen by Michael Frayn. Frayn centers the plot around a mysterious meeting between physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. in Copenhagen in 1941. The primary mystery that the 3 characters in the play debate is deceptively simple: Why did Heisenberg come to Copenhagen? The three characters in the play, Heisenberg, Bohr, and Bohr's wife Margrethe speculate openly amongst each other. Frayn allows himself incredible flexibility by having them exist in past and present. Anger, resentment, and forgiveness all play out amongst these former friends. According to Frayn, Bohr and Heisenberg are separated by the scientific ethics and responsibilities regarding the atomic bomb.

Frayn is brilliant in his conception of these characters and the high stakes of their discussion. Before reading this play I had no idea who these men were. I do understand the stakes of the weaponization of atomic energy, but really that's only half the play. By reading the play I was able to delve even further into the scientific concepts of Uncertainty and Schrodinger's Cat. I'm positive that I would have been lost while watching the play performed, no matter how great the actor's ability might be. This is a prime example where I feel that "reading" the play is necessary to gaining even more appreciation for what the playwright has created.

On the other hand I also read Bash: Latter-day Plays by Neil Labute. I've been meaning to pick this up for sometime because Labute is somewhat local. He went to Brigham Young University (BYU) in Provo, which is very surprising. BYU is known for it's rigid conservatism and uber-religiosity. In Bash Labute discusses the effects of violence on that culture. He uses three monologues made directly to the audience to steer us towards the ugliness inherent in human nature. Of the three I was most affected by Medea Redux. In this monologue a young woman details her seduction and revenge on a high school teacher. The medea reference should give you an idea of how this story ends up. Labute brilliantly is able to capture the exuberance of love but refuses to ignore the consequences. As a writer Labute takes a lot of criticism for his focus on the ugly, but I respect the fact that he refuses to pull any punches.

Unfortunately I think that any empathy or compassion for these characters is lost on the page. His work relies on talented actors to release any sympathy that I may feel towards these characters. Bash is a play that is written to be seen. I think it loses it's power when it is read without the actors as reference. Because of this I'm going to reserve judgment on it until it's possible to see the play in my area. Unfortunately that could be awhile since the LDS don't take kindly to criticism.

In the end what is the conclusion here? It's important to realize that true understanding requires a combination of both reading & watching. If I really want to get at the author's complexities I need to take into account what performance brings to the table.

Have a great week! Book Slave.