All Aboard Fugard’s Riveting Performance!

Through his play The Train Driver, Fugard coerces his audience to focus on the issue of apartheid in South Africa. The entire play revolves around an event where a black mother commits suicide, with her child, by standing in front of a train. The Protagonist, a white train driver, Roelf (Ritchie Coster) has his life torn apart when the guilt of the incident consumes him. The mental trauma of the accident builds fury in Roelf and forces him to find and confront the woman’s at the graveyard where she was buried, which is where he meets Simon (Leon Addison Brown).

The setting of the play was in itself an appropriate representation of the influence apartheid had throughout the divided country. A dull graveyard, where tombstones were replaced with debris, was used as a fictitious resting ground for blacks and served as the epicenter of Fugard’s play. The sand was polluted with dirt, shards of glass, and rusted metal. In the middle of the entire land stood a humble little shack, which Simon, the black caretaker of the graveyard, called home.

Interestingly enough, Fugard decides to omit the presence of a physical antagonist in his play. One might say that the unnamed woman who committed suicide or the briefly mentioned gang took on the role of the antagonist. However, Fugard still refrained from including the conventional presence of an antagonist, perhaps to stress on the effect the accident had on Roelf and focus instead on how he would ultimately confront the situation.

To tackle the issue of apartheid, Fugard incorporates several subtle, but effective, fragments into the story. Other than the issue of race in the graveyard, Fugard includes a scene where the local gang may be angered with a black man and a white man interacting. He also reveals a little about Roelf’s life before the accident and leaves it to the audience to juxtapose that one with that of Simon’s. Unfortunately, Fugard doesn’t relate the situation of apartheid in Roelf’s time to present day, where it has improved but many question to what level.

Fugard throws his audience directly into the center of the story by providing a limited amount of background information. The audience is left engaged, wondering, “What is going on?” As the play continues, we are able to peel away at the story. We find that, before the incident, the characters come from rather stereotypical backgrounds but change throughout the play.

Fugard elaborates on the characters and the story line with the use of costume design. The ragged clothes reflect the endless suffering that Roelf has endured. His spoiled attire mixes with his sweat and obvious intoxication to bring a powerful presence on the stage. While Simon’s bulky and grubby coat mirrors his modest lifestyle.

In an attempt to shed light on Roelf’s frustration, Fugard makes frequent use of profanity and vulgar language throughout the entire play. Instead of pointlessly throwing around adulterated language, Fugard shrewdly uses it to engross the audience and simultaneously convey Roelf’s rage. The power of the script resonates throughout the theatre.

Unfortunately Ritchie Coster’s acting was unable to keep pace with the intensity required for Roelf’s character to be properly portrayed. Leon Brown maintained a more tranquil quality, required for Simon’s character. To dilute sometimes silent and stretched scenes, Fugard adds portions of humor to Simon’s character, making him rather enjoyable to watch.

Fugard concludes the play with finally bringing Roelf to peace with what has happened to him. Although certain parts of the play may seem confusing and unconnected at times, Fugard brings the play full circle. I left the theatre, shaken by a powerful and riveting performance.