Open Letter

Dear Berkeley Rep:

Just wanted to let you know that I didn't walk out of The Pillowman last night because I was offended by the material. I walked out because I was mind-numbingly bored by what should have been a terrifying, surreal, beautifully written, absurdly funny play.

When I did laugh, your-oh-so-righteous-subscribers (All at least 50 years old or older - not to be ageist or anything. But I also noticed that there was no one in the audience my age or younger. I had lot's of time to look around.) shot me cutting glances and frowned and shook their heads at me. I mean-come on. It's clear by looking at me that I am great with child (eight months, thank you). So yeah, I realize that I'm laughing at something that's completely inappropriate. I get that. Oh. I also realize the play is about the artist's place in society and torture and totalitarianism and other heady stuff like that, but, jeezus, do we have to be so precious about it? Does the experience have to be so anesthetized for the PC crowd?

FYI: I drove home and bought the play at my local independent bookstore and finished reading it over soup and dessert at my favorite cafe while I'm sure the rest of you were having your own liberal humanity reaffirmed in the darkness of an otherwise lifeless institution. Sorry I missed out on that. Maybe I'll catch it next time.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth

P.S. I know that I'm in the minority here. I read the reviews and other people's blogs (all of whom work for the rep or are associated with it). So I know it's really just me - my taste and all. I think theater should be alive, not DOA. I find psychologically-based acting styles over-wrought and technically deficient and that was especially the case here (for me, I know, not for the institution or those that support it). Plus, the fact that the actors were playing their subtext left no room for suspense- which is kinda crucial, given the action of the play, don'tcha think?

Which is not to say that the play isn't psychologically complex. But the script does most of the work - simply talking to each other, creating some real, live moments onstage would have gone a long way here. McDonagh admits he was influenced by Tarantino, Scorsese, and Lynch - ever see any of those films? They're kinda verbally and physically violent. People talk really fast and don't justify their actions. Things just kinda happen and often there's no logical, psychological reason for the action. Come to think of it - kinda like Beckett.

Oh, and you know, speaking of violence, that style of theatrical fight choreography where they don't make any attempt at contact or convincing the audience that they're making contact - not the best choice here. Really castrates the sensibility of the play. I know- that's just me. And as I'm becoming all too painfully aware - I'm in a minority here.

Or maybe that's the reason McDonagh quit writing plays. He says he found London theater to be "dull." I don' think anything about this production would have changed his mind.