I mean, let's take a moment to look at that being laid off thing: does that mark this as a subtle inquiry into marital mores under neoliberalism? I guess. And the firm that hires Tabernacle late in the play is Swedish, so we have some point about the contemporary EU and transnationalism. And, then, maybe that's the point: that life under neoliberalism is so crushingly boring that--I dunno? We need shitty light farce? Or, maybe, that we're doomed to it?
So rote and uninspired as to be nearly avant-garde--I'm still half afraid that I missed the subtle point that would indicate this airless hetero farce, which could have been written at any point since about 1905, was in fact some terribly up-to-date inquiry into gender roles. But no: no-one is gay or trans, or even interesting; and the translation seemed only about 95% idiomatic. If someone had told me this script had been generated by computers, I would have been fascinated: they really can do such an amazing job synthesizing genres these days. And the performers did the whole farce-by-numbers thing, acting exactly as you would expect them to; full points there, even as I would assume robots might hit their lines with slightly more accuracy.
If anyone had ideas here, it was the set designers, from whom I got exactly one idea: that high-end hotels and nice middle-class houses all sort of look the same. That's not exactly Epic Theatre, though.
I fear the audience I was with thought this was fascinating--and, as in (say) reading Foucault translations, I worried that there was some subtle irony (or point of interest altogether) I was missing here. Was I having an off day? Does the Matrix have me?
No comments:
Post a Comment