What makes human language any different to that of a clucking chicken? Why do humans strive to to make social interactions? What makes a conversation deep and meaningful? These are all questions that the play The Bald Saprano supposedly grappled with, however, I unfortunately did not realize this till long after the show was over and my memory of the lines and scenery had somewhat faded. Although I do not think that a show should always have overt and obvious messages, I also believe that an audience should not walk away thoroughly confused, wondering what the purpose was behind all the unintelligible outbursts and animalistic behavior. Don’t get me wrong, I thought the play was hilarious and I enjoyed the awkward humor, but for me, I always need something more than just a shallow laugh.
Sometimes I like to think of artwork as people. Usually I like to surround myself with people who have a good sense of humor, can easily make me laugh and are uplifting. Yet, more importantly to me, my closest and most cherished friends need to be deep, meaningful and have the ability to hold conversations that make me think about my life, and challenge my ideas. The same goes with a piece of work (whether it be plays or paintings). If a piece is aesthetically pleasing or funny in the moment, yet holds no deeper value to me, I will enjoy its company for however long it lasts. Yet, I will not hold onto the piece for very long, and my memory of it will fade with time. I will not value it and appreciate the artwork, the same way I do with my close friends. It will simply be something that I crossed paths with at one point, and will soon be forgotten.
Unfortunately, this will probably be the case with The Bald Saprano. I really did enjoy it. I found the actors very intriguing and I was constantly laughing. Yet, I can’t say that the play brought any valuable ideas or provoking views. Like some people stated in class, I may have been able to appreciate the play more if there was a description explaining the meaning of the play. However, I am still undecided as to whether I believe a artwork should be self-explanatory or not. I think it may depend on the type of artwork being presented.
Why do I think the director/author was unable to portray the message they were trying to send? I think a lot of it has to do with the script itself. There is so much jargon and incomprehensible ramble, that many times it was hard to wrap my mind around the meaning of the lines. If there was any meaning at all. The characters mostly go off on rants and tell stories that are unrelated to one another, but there doesn’t seem to be any purpose in it. With hindsight, one may be able to ascertain that it was mimicking the upper/middle class life in a British town. Yet, when it comes to the message that language can be meaningless and the themes of alienation, I feel that there is no way of knowing about it without a directors note. The connections between those themes and the play seemed too far stretched in my mind. I may not be the best interpreter, but a chicken noise to me is not the most thought-provoking sound I have ever heard someone mutter.
