First off, let me say that this play was the most mind-stimulating play I’ve ever been too. Following the dialogue they were having was so difficult! Their conversations didn’t make any type of sense and when they started screaming at each other, I gave up trying to get it. The humor in the play was the dysfunctional-ness of their relationships. I mean, the Martins didn’t even realize they were married! The repetitiveness in their conversations worked well to both confuse and frustrate me. However, at one point it was no longer funny, just really annoying.
Reflecting on it now, I see that the playwright intended for the dialogue to be the way that it was, but at the time I was incredibly confused. I had read the director’s note beforehand, which had given me insight as to why these strange people were being portrayed this way. The one thing I definitely agree with is that yes, the characters are completely interchangeable. At one point the men seemed to switch partners; Mr. Smith sort of sticking to Ms. Martin (woman in blue) while Mr. Martin took to Ms. Smith (woman in red). I saw this as symbolic of the upper class people; their partners change every couple of days and it doesn’t seem to phase them in any way, though it is pretty ridiculous. I could see easily see that though Ms. Smith kept repeating the location of their lovely home, the playwright was referencing all societies with such pretentious people and silly conversations. The point where the actors lost their accents a little bit seemed to bring the audience back to reality and remind them that this does happen in your home town, it is not a foreign concept.
The big argument “scene” was where things really got crazy. Confusion to the max. It looked like little kids throwing tantrums rather than rational adults. Which makes me think, if these people are supposed to portray humans in general, does that mean that we’re just as irrational when we’re angry? It is certainly possible, but what does that say about us and about our nature? Can we ever be rational? Also, the content of their more coherent conversations seemed to be about nonsense, just like that of small children. For example, the Fire Chief’s stories that never really led to the point; they were just meaningless words said to keep the focus of the room, especially in the case of the relationship story.
I realize now that the set had a huge significance in telling the story, but I had not realized everything at the very beginning. I knew the clock had a role because though it kept chiming, they did not use it for its purpose. As for the sky carpet, I did not notice it until one of the actors made a reference to the sky being above while pointing down and the floor being below while pointing up. The paintings were more observable and they did hint that the events of the play were not to be expected, making it a bit more exciting. The theater itself was a little too intimate. It was nice to be a little closer to the actors, but being able to see the rest of the audience as well took away from the play and didn’t allow me to focus as much. Had it been a less satirical I would have definitely lost the meaning or the intention.
Ionesco did get his point across, he made fun of language very well and managed to make a fool of the actors, but there were some choices made in way of the staging that did not aid in telling the story. As a result, I probably would not go see something of this sort again. I want to laugh, but at a clever joke not at the nonsensical conversations of what were made out to be children.
