So this is the show that everyone’s been approaching me, saying, “Oh! You especially are really going to love this show!”
Having now seen it, I’m not sure how to interpret that. I mean, they’re right — I did — but I’m totally blind as to what aspect of it would have made people think of it as a natural fit for me. The obsession with language, perhaps? Nearly every argument the couple gets into is philological in nature. (Even the title, for that matter.)
More fascinating than the show, for me, are the arguments that have sprung up around it — people seem to be quite eager to choose one side or the either, the dude or the chick. (The fact that I’m referring to them as “The dude or the chick” is probably a strong indicator of which side I’m on.) One element that particularly impressed me is the fact that this is a play which portrays characters on varying sides of a debate — and, despite the lip service that’s usually paid to this, in this instance each character is given the chance to have a fair say. The vast bulk of the audience applauded her attack on monogamy; I found myself wanting to applaud the brother’s defense of it (not in spite of, but because of, how fucked-up it is).
Which makes it sound like the real nature of the play is political, but that’s not the case. At core, this play is about the same thing that both Entwined and Yvette were about: asking that frightening question, why do we pursue these things that we know are going to destroy us?
Maybe that’s the reason that everyone was recommending this show to me; but I choose to believe that my friends don’t know me that well.
Comment