I know Professor Healey asked that we not summarize the art events we attend in our blogs, but I find it necessary to give a quick summary about The Bald Soprano at the Pearl: Kdaowkewae oaiwkcm aweovkeor, kowoaekvek giej eiejosko. Pkweokawe, wokeaoe ovke? Zkvoekokawem!
What does that mean? Exactly.
When I was asked to review the play by my mom when I got home (or in other words, how was it, what was it about?), I had pretty much no idea what to tell her. I think my words were “ridiculousness, stupidity, and nonsense.” I simply could not see the reasoning behind it all, what it meant, or the message the playwright was trying to get across. What could he possibly be trying to say in a mixup of world garble and barbaric, animalistic craziness? Was I supposed to be this frustrated and annoyed the whole time? Why was I even sitting there? (Oh right, because this was a school event that I could not simply storm out of, [unfortunately].)
When I finally calmed down, I was able to think it through more clearly, and “absorb” as I like to call it. I was used to watching plays and musicals with clearer story lines, and more explicit messages, such as The Sound of Music or The Lion King, so on a basis of comparison, it was reasonable for me to dislike this aspect of the play. I tried to be objective, and said to myself “you just haven’t seen this style before and it bothers you; try to accept new things”. I slowly let go of this problem I had with the play.
Moving onward to the humor, again, my basis of comparison was what I find funny: an episode of Friends, a children’s movie like Despicable Me. Maybe it was time for me to grow up and appreciate adult humor? But I don’t think it was immaturity that held me back from finding it funny. It think it was the type of humor expressed: dry, illogical humor. It was funny because it didn’t make sense. To me, that just was not funny; it was dumb. It was consistent with my reasoning for not liking the plot: I like it when things make sense.
And finally, the message of the play. I turned to my classmates after leaving the theater and asked in exasperation, “do you have any idea what that was about?” and many seemed to have some form of an answer. “It’s about how language is misused all the time, and people don’t understand each other,” I received. “Hmph…” I thought. “Maybe this isn’t half bad…” “Yeah, I read the director’s cut,” they continued. And that’s when the respect I had just half-gained for the play went down the tubes again. How is a playwright supposed to engage his audience if the audience has to read about it beforehand or afterward, and meanwhile during the play, it just makes no sense? Sure, there have been pieces I’ve read and seen before that I didn’t completely understand (The Great Gatsby, for example), but I understood some sort of message on a basic level. I didn’t understand the significance of Gatsby being killed, but I understood some of what he stood for. How could I understand what Ionesco was trying to say if I couldn’t understand what the Smiths or Martins were trying to say? I felt, and still feel that having them make no sense was not an effective way of getting the themes of speech and the lack of listening across. I feel that there needed to be at least something that made sense; if at least one character had a reasonable, clear mind, I could see a lesson being learned in the contrast.
As to speaking to a New York audience, I’m not sure that it made quite a difference who was watching the play, whether from New York or not. I think the perception of the it would be the same to a man from New York or a woman from Texas because the performance was not set in New York. It would probably make a difference to an English person who has the same background as the characters and could relate to the satire. Therefore, speaking to a New York audience would probably only be relevant in that fast-paced New Yorkers would be impatient and frustrated at this nonsense 😉
