Trip To Bountiful

Carrie Watt is the prototypical Southern woman. She begrudgingly lives with her busy, overprotective son, Ludie, and pretentious daughter-in-law, Jessie Mae. She needs them and they need her because neither of them can make ends meet without the other, but it is not a match made in heaven. She is no longer able to drive and forbidden to travel alone, but she wishes for freedom from the confines of the small cramped one bedroom house and begs her son to take her on a visit to her hometown of Bountiful. When he refuses, Mrs. Watts is undeterred and makes an escape to the local bus station, where she befriends Thelma, a young woman traveling home. When Ludie and Jessie Mae discover she is gone, they call in law enforcement to help, but Mrs. Watts is one step ahead of them and convinces the local sheriff to help her on her journey home to Bountiful. The underlying themes ring true in the 21st century, even though it was written in the last one--the idea of home as a place of safety and comfort runs strong in Mrs. Watts memory, but the reality is that the town is deserted and her house will soon collapse are the realities that she is confronted with when she finally gets her wish.

A Night with Janis Joplin

Yes indeed, it is the 50th anniversary of the summer of love, and guess what?  San Francisco is celebrating.  We were there for other reasons, but we decided to partake in some of the merriment.  After all, I spent about 25 years following the Grateful Dead around, literally criss crossing the country to do so.  It was not Haight Ashbury in 1968, but it was pretty great. So spending a couple of hours listening to the music of Janis Joplin and the blues singers who influenced her was very fun.  The lead singer could belt it out, the band was very competent, and while they didn't completely sugar coat her downward spiral, they did not focus on it like the movie The Rose did.  It was mostly about bringing the blues to rock and roll and keeping them there, even after Janis was gone.

The Matchmaker by Thorton Wilder

I had my first vacation in a while recently and one of the things that I did was go to a play at the Goodman theater in Chicago.  A matinee, to be sure, but a whole play.  We all enjoyed it very much, and by going to the theater on the day of the play we got very inexpensive seats that were as good as they were reasonable.
I have not seen anything by Thorton Wilder with the exception of what everyone has seen and that is Our Town.  This is a very funny play about a woman who sets matches up, including one for herself.  Wilder wrote the play in the mid-20th century, but it is based on a play from the mid 19th century, and the situations serve to remind one that women have always had challenges when it comes to both business and society at large.  The recent election rhetoric has served to remind me that not everyone thinks that having given women the right to vote, much less own property and run businesses was perhaps a mistake.  So fun to watch someone who manages to get what she wants without raising any hackles in the meantime. 

Oedipus at Colonus by Sophocles (406 BCE)

When you are thinking about the Oedipus trilogy specifically and Greek tragedy in general it is hard to say which play is sadder than the others, but for some reason, of the Oedipus stories, this one is a downer (which is not to say that 'Antigone' is a light play, but this one really shows just how messed up Oedipus' family has become, and that the ties of family are not strong enough to overcome other pervasive human emotions, like jealousy, pride, grappling for power, and to some extent, severe sibling rivalry).

The play opens with Antigone, Oedipus' daughter, and he in a sacred ground outside of Athens.  Oedipus is at the end of his life, and while it has been more or less a disaster, he is unwilling to admit that or repent, which has led to some difficulties with his legacy.  The prophesy that the city where his bones rest has led to some haggling over his body between Theseus and Creon.  Theseus wins in the end, but again, the whole tug of war over an elderly blind man is a bit of a downer.

Then there is the schism with his two sons.  One of them has usurped control from the other, and Oedipus not only refuses to take sides, but he renounces them both.  They are behaving badly, there is no question about that, but then he wasn't what you might call the model parent.  Not to mention that their mother committed suicide upon learning that she was their mother and their grandmother.  The play ends with thunder, signifying his death, but not the end of the difficulties for his family.

Oedipus the King by Sophocles (429 BCE)

The story of Oedipus was well known to the audience that Sophocles was writing for.  The play opens in the middle but everyone in Sophocles time knows the background.

The story that predates the play is that Jocasta and Laius have a son who is predicted to kill his father and marry his mother.  They do what any sensible Greek family at the time appears to have done--they nailed his feet together and gave him to a shepherder to leave on the mountainside.  They did not factor in the shepherder's free will--he gave the baby to the childless king of Corinth, and Oedipus (which apparently means 'swollen feet') survives.  As a young man Oedipus is told of the prophesy that prompted his parents to abandon him to the elements--but no one tells him these are not his real parents, so he makes the fateful mistake of leaving Corinth, where upon he indeed kills his father, marries his mother, and fathers four children with her.

How does it all come to light?  Those are the events that this play focuses on.  A plague has befallen Thebes and in order to end it, the oracle tells Creon the murder of Laius must be expelled--Oedipus, not realizing it is he, vows to get to the bottom of the story, but as each witness to a different piece of the story is brought in, there is a slow dawning, first to Jocasta and then to Oedipus himself that the prophesy that they both worked to avoid has indeed come true.  Jocasta kills herself and Oedipus scratches his eyes out with Jocasta's pins.

Trojan Women by Euripides (415 BCE)

Euripides is not a big fan of war if 'Trojan Woman" is any indication.  It takes place at the end of the ten year war between the Greeks and the people of Troy.  The Greeks have prevailed--it is very hard to way 'won' because at some point mid-war, almost everyone of note has been killed.  But Odysseus did manage the final nail in the Trojan coffin with a large horse filled not with adoration to Athena but with Greek soldiers, who killed the men and raped the women.  Oh that those aspects of war are behind us, but we know quite well that they are not.

This is the third in a trilogy of plays about the Trojan War, and it is told from the perspective of the Trojan women, who are learning their ultimate fate--who will they go with, in what role, and where will they end up.  While Cassandra correctly foresees the outcome, no one believes her (the curse of Apollo), the interesting part comes after Hecuba chastises Helen for leaving her husband, traveling with Paris to Troy and starting the whole thing.  Never mind that she was cursed by Aphrodite and had no free will.  Never mind that Paris made the choice that brought about the ruin of Troy.

 Helen fights back.  She reminds Hecuba that she knew the prophesy when Paris was born that he would bring about the defeat of Troy and yet she could not bring herself to end his life.  Who is to blame for that?  Surely not Helen.  In addition, Helen claims that she is actually the savior of Greece. Paris had been the judge of a beauty contest between Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite. Each of the three goddesses bribed the judge by promising to reward him if he gave her the prize. Hera promised to make him the ruler of Europe and Asia. Athena promised to make him a mighty commander who would conquer Greece. Aphrodite described Helen's beauty and promised Paris that Helen would be his wife. Paris decided in favor of Aphrodite, so he married Helen instead of conquering or ruling over Greece. In this way, Helen makes the case that Paris is to blame, and that she has in some way saved Greece.  She was a wily woman.

Hippolytus by Euripides (428 BCE)

Euripides is not a playwright known for his happy endings and Hippolytus is no exception.  They don't call it tragedy for nothing.  I have not read Euripides since high school, but have been immersed in Classical Mythology with my youngest son this past several months, and it is well worth revisiting these stories later in life.  I had forgotten just how brutal they are, and how little people have changed over the last 3,000 years.

Hippolytus is the son of the great Athenian hero Theseus.  He is like Adonis, not much for the women, and more focused on the hunt.  Artemis is his godess of choice.  Aphrodite does not take kindly to men who are not easily woed by sex, and she takes offense at his disdain for the pleasures of the flesh. 

Aphrodite's revenge is to make Phaedra, Hippolytus' stepmother, fall desperately in love with him.  She is literally sickened by her lust, and is torn beween starving herself to death and a vow of silence.  Her nurse is worried about her, and managed to get her to confess the etiology of her illness.  This is where the story goes wrong--the nurse, rather than keeping her moth shut and stopping at giving Phaedra a potion to end her infatuation with Hippolytus, decides to tell him, saying that showing it to the light of day will cause it to go away.   No such luck and Phaedra is so embarrassed she kills herself--but not without first leaving a note for Theseus that Hippolytus raped her.

Oh, the Greeks leave trouble in their wake.  Theseus confronts Hippolytus, who tries to reason with Theseus, stating he is a virgin, and not stupid enough to think that raping the King's wife would be a good idea, but to no avail.  Theseus uses one of Poseidon's curses to mortally would Hippolytus as he exited on horses.  Artemis tells Theseus the truth, and vows to take revenge on Aphrodite, but it is too late for Hippolytus.

Medea by Euripides (431 BCE)

Even by Greek standards, Medea was a complicated woman for whom her magical powers were both a gift and a curse. 

The ever troublesome Aphrodite got Eros to cast a spell on Medea so that she would fall in love with Jason when the Argonauts came to town--which worked like a charm, as the saying goes.  Hera then convinced Medea to help Jason capture the Golden Fleece that her father had dominion over.  So Medea double crosses her father, Aeetes, and contributes to the death of her brother Apsyrtus, making it virtually impossible for her to return to her homeland.  She had burned quite a few bridges, and had demonstrated to Jason that she had some powerful magic at her beck and call.  That is the background to the play.

The play opens in Corinth with Jason announcing that he intends to marry another--Glauce, daughter of Creon, King of Corinth.  He wants to marry up, and he is baffled that Medea would not see this as a big opportunity for their two children.  She would be abandoned, with no homeland to return to and there was no sign that Glauce had any interest in her two children.  So her plan is to muder them, children and all. 

Jason comes off as a clueless and ungrateful idiot.  He would never have been able to capture the Golden Fleece without Medea's magical aid, but he strips her of any role in his telling of his successes.  He also seems to have completely forgotten that she has some powerful sorcery at her finger tips, and she did not hesitate to betray her family, why would he fare any better?  Medea does a wonderful speech about how unfair the gender bias is for women in Greek society (which could have been written at any time for centuries afterwards) and then comlpletely loses our symapthy when she sacrifices not just those who have betrayed her, but also her offspring.  The Greeks do tragedy like no others.

The Bacchae by Euripides (405 BCE)

I have been immersing myself in the Classics (with a capital 'C') and despite a life long avoidance of learning anything to do with mythology, I am enjoying myself.

The story here is a brutal one, but then the Greek gods were not really known for their beneficence.  Hardly.  Smoting was more common than not.  This is the story of the god Dionysus taking revenge on his mother's family for not believing that the father of her baby was Zeus.  Semele, Dionysus' mother was the victim of Hera's revenge (since she wasn't powerful enough to take out physical revenge on Zeus, she made do with eithering cursing, killing, or tricking his consorts in ways that hurt Zeus emotionally).  Her family ruled Thebes, and at the time that Dionysus returns, his cousin Pentheus is the king.  Pentheus' sin is impiety--he refuses to see the writing on the wall, that Dionysus is indeed a god, and that Semele was telling the truth.  His mother and aunts go off to join the bacchantes, as does his grandfather, but no amount of family pressure or miracles moves him, and he is tragically killed by his mother as a result.  I am telling you, these Greek gods show no mercy.  Cadmus, who is Dionysus' grandfather as well as Pentheus', says it best--Pentheus had to be punished, but the punishment fell to the whole family, and that was a bit over the top.  Dionysus was not known for his sense of proportion--after all, he is the god of wine and enjoyment, but he was not an easy going god--do not piss him off.

Coming of Age in Chore Boots

I saw this wonderful one woman play at Riverside Theater last weekend--my only regreat is that I did not get to see it sooner so that I could tell more people about it (although I think it sold out most nights, so that might have just pile on the disappointment.

Janet Shlapkohl is a very talented person--not only did seh write and perform this play, I suspect she created her wardrobe for it as well.  The play is a memoir of growing up in rural America.  She weaves in things like the Vietnam War and the Farm Crisis of the 1980's with things that were happening in her life in a way that is interesting, funny, serious, and thought provoking.  It is very hard to be all of those things at once, but she very successfully pulled that off.  She also managed to talk about her husband and everyone she shares 50% of her genes with in a way that was not embarassing to them--which is really a miracle when you think about the modern approach to memoir writing.

One of the many things that I liked about the play was that there was an excellent use of music to compliment the story--not just during the paly itself, but before the play and at intermission.  The art of telling a story that is at times laden with pain but that is not painful to hear is a balancing act, and the music helped to set a hopeful tone of survival and the power to move forward with your life in happiness, no matter what barriers you might encounter along the way.  If this is ever re-staged, it is a must see.

Opus by Michael Hollinger

I saw 'Opus' in a wonderful small intimate theater in Seattle. The play is centered entirely around an established string quartet, which is successful and changing. They have kicked out their violist and are starting with a new one. There are a number of themes that intermingle in the play, which is one act, and 90-minutes long. I love the format--you get in, you get immersed, it's intense, it's over, you get out. Maybe it is my ADD, maybe it is my age, but sitting still for longer than that is just too hard, and the break is not always good--it allows some of the intensity of the work to dissipate.
The first theme has to do with the creative process. The quartet has had a volatile and brilliant member--who was too unpredictable to be first violin, so he is a violinist turned violist. So not happy, not stable, mercurial and inspirational. As the group ages, they become less able to tolerate his short-comings and ultimately vote him out. But he is not one to go quietly into the night.

A subplot is the relationship between the creative leader and the actual leader of the quartet--which is also going down the tubes (Allen Fitzpatrick and Todd Jefferson Moore). Their personal tribulations intermix with the group's problems, and the tension is palpable. Finally, there is the role playing that occurs within any group--we are used to seeing family dynamics, but really, it is group dynamics, and the play is best at depicting the shifting dynamics between each member--the scapegoat, the peacekeeper, the one who suffers in silence until he can take no more. It is a psychologically powerful play, well worth seeking out and seeing.