As part of a high school tech crew, I’ve seen my fair share (or, honestly, more than my fair share) of bad plays, and I was worried that the theatre unit of our Arts seminar may duplicate some of these experiences. Never a fan of Greek mythology or Shakespeare, I was not looking forward to either our visit or the performance. However, Rodney and the people involved in Penelope took topics I had previously dismissed as arcane and made them feel relevant. These two experiences superseded my expectations and I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed them.
While it happened a while ago (I got that goldfish memory), what I remember most about Rodney Gutierre, aside from his hatred of Margaret Thatcher and his lack of socks/shoes throughout the entirety of his talk, was that he made Shakespeare fun. While aware of innuendo being present in most of Shakespeare’s plays I had no idea how frequent dirty jokes were; I had always imagined the Elizabethan era as far more conservative and puritanical than present day and figured that it’s media would correlate, apparently I was wrong. I also learned that attendance of Shakespearean dramas and comedies was not the esoteric high-brow activity it is often considered today; everyone went to watch. Rodeny’s tales of audience involvement during the plays were very amusing, and I was glad he came to talk to us because he made Shakespeare a lot more palatable to me and I will now look at Shakespeare’s writings with a more approachable lens.
Penelope is anachronistic from the outset: with both the title and the concept originating from ancient Greek myth, it is presented by Irish actors with Irish brogues and placed in a modern day setting. The entirety of the play is situated in the bottom of a drained swimming pool. Penelope is not an action-oriented play, and Walsh’s characters often mosey about making no significant movements at all. This is fine, because the focus of the play is on the dialogue; Walsh shows an adeptness with language that is uncommon even amongst playwrights. Through a mixture of character interaction and individual soliloquies Walsh is able to weave ideas and construct personalities simultaneously.
Ironically, the over-arching theme of this verbose play is that talk is cheap, but then again so is everything. Existing in a land similar to any of the numerous dating competition reality TV shows currently clogging the airwaves, the character’s of Walsh’s play are selfish backstabbers. By creating this analogy, Walsh has set the stage for a biting critique of our modern world.While they all share the mutual goal of winning Penelope’s love, the operative word for them in this idea is not love, but win. Odysseus’ homecoming and the impending doom that accompanies it is the only thing that can even start to change them; a direct facing of their own mortality spurs revelations in two of the characters, making them not only men to care for (none of the characters were previously) but also setting them as juxtapositions for the greediest elements of human nature.
My favorite part of the play was Burns’ monologue. It’s occurrence right after he has stabbed Quinn is, in my opinion, excellent timing: he is almost naked, hysterical and covered in blood, making the scene seem almost like a reversion to the primitive. Clawing at each other for the duration of play, Burns has turned to clawing for a sense of authenticity, and his killing of Quinn is not a result of unethical ambition (as previous deaths mentioned were) but of a need to destroy all the falseness Quinn represents, to tear away the artificial elements people have created to get to the heart of human feeling and emotion. His desire for the real carries such impact because it is the only thing in the play, at that point, that really connects with the idea of true love, because the concept of ‘true ‘ love, is that of an emotion not swayed by outside influences or ulterior motives but something raw and organic and integral to the good side of human nature.
