posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
connielane at 10:22am on 24/07/2008 under theater
connielane at 10:22am on 24/07/2008 under theaterLast night I went to see some straight theater, finally utilizing my former workplace's generous gift of a theater voucher to see the Pulitzer-winning, Tony-winning play August: Osage County, written by Tracy Letts. Estelle Parsons was replacing Tony-winner Deanna Dunagan as the matriarch of the family. My seat was in the orchestra section, very close to the front but far off to the side, and my right-side neighbor was an elderly woman who kept fiddling with her hearing aid - so the play was peppered for me with the sounds of her turning up the volume and occasionally fishing through her very squeaky leather purse for the controls. She also spent the two intermissions complaining about how the play was too heavy on hysterics and she didn't know or care about the characters, which I suspected was a problem with her hearing device, not the play.
But despite that mild annoyance, and despite the fact that it was a three-hour-plus production, I found the play to be an enjoyable experience. Very darkly comic, occasionally quite powerful ("Thank God we can't see the future; we'd never get out of bed!"), and worthy of comparing - as several critics have - to the works of Eugene O'Neill.
Except for one thing.
There seemed to be an egregious wealth of the F-bomb. Now, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the F-word. I've seen loads of movies and some plays that use it, sometimes in huge doses. I love Quentin Tarantino's writing, which contains a good amount of it, and I'm not put off by the Apatow comedies that use it in abundance. Heck, I've even used the word myself.
However, I think it's used too much and not for the right reasons in this particular play. The F-word is a power word. It's essential intent is to shock and to undo whatever context into which it is inserted. If we say it to another human being, our intent - whether we realize it or not - is to take control of the conversation or situation. If we say it to ourselves, I think it's still an act of taking control. I think this idea also applies, perhaps especially applies, to young people who use it, because so many things in their lives are not in their control that sometimes they feel the need to play that card and have control, even if it's just in that small way.
But when you use the word (or any word) too much, it starts to lose meaning and just become noise. And that's what I think happens in this play. Maybe that's what Tracy Letts is going for. Maybe these characters (especially Barbara) are so desperate for control of their own lives that they try too hard to take that power back. But I can't help feeling that that's reading too much into things and that the simplest explanation is that the writer is the one trying too hard.
I know I probably sound like a fuddy-duddy to some of you, but plays are supposed to be literature and it frustrates me to see writers who obviously have an immense amount of talent and imagination show such an apparent (to me) lack of imagination in their vocabulary. Again, I'm not saying that the word itself is useless and shouldn't be a part of Serious Theater. Just that the repetition (abundant repetition in this case) takes away from what might otherwise be a powerful experience.
But despite that mild annoyance, and despite the fact that it was a three-hour-plus production, I found the play to be an enjoyable experience. Very darkly comic, occasionally quite powerful ("Thank God we can't see the future; we'd never get out of bed!"), and worthy of comparing - as several critics have - to the works of Eugene O'Neill.
Except for one thing.
There seemed to be an egregious wealth of the F-bomb. Now, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the F-word. I've seen loads of movies and some plays that use it, sometimes in huge doses. I love Quentin Tarantino's writing, which contains a good amount of it, and I'm not put off by the Apatow comedies that use it in abundance. Heck, I've even used the word myself.
However, I think it's used too much and not for the right reasons in this particular play. The F-word is a power word. It's essential intent is to shock and to undo whatever context into which it is inserted. If we say it to another human being, our intent - whether we realize it or not - is to take control of the conversation or situation. If we say it to ourselves, I think it's still an act of taking control. I think this idea also applies, perhaps especially applies, to young people who use it, because so many things in their lives are not in their control that sometimes they feel the need to play that card and have control, even if it's just in that small way.
But when you use the word (or any word) too much, it starts to lose meaning and just become noise. And that's what I think happens in this play. Maybe that's what Tracy Letts is going for. Maybe these characters (especially Barbara) are so desperate for control of their own lives that they try too hard to take that power back. But I can't help feeling that that's reading too much into things and that the simplest explanation is that the writer is the one trying too hard.
I know I probably sound like a fuddy-duddy to some of you, but plays are supposed to be literature and it frustrates me to see writers who obviously have an immense amount of talent and imagination show such an apparent (to me) lack of imagination in their vocabulary. Again, I'm not saying that the word itself is useless and shouldn't be a part of Serious Theater. Just that the repetition (abundant repetition in this case) takes away from what might otherwise be a powerful experience.
thoughtful
(mystery)
(mystery)