This play was extremely confusing. It is filled with ambiguity
and complexity. It seemed as if answers are expected to be created in the minds
of the audience rather than found in the context of the play. Throughout the
play I had no idea who the ‘buried child’ was or even if there was one at all.
There were a few times that I had an idea of who it was but I was never sure.
Everything with in the play seems to be a little off. Nothing seems for sure.
The family doesn’t even seem to know one another. It is hard for me to
understand and know characters that don’t know and understand themselves. The two
characters that were even close to being credible are Shelly and Preacher Dewis.
These two characters are already singled out because they do not live in the
crazy house. Even though it is naturalistic in that there is a house, they are ‘real’
people and nothing is extremely exaggerated or theatricalized, the whole piece feels
really abstract. It is different from the worlds of other plays we’ve read
because it is drastically more ambiguous. Not much is apparent and even less is
spelled out for you. This play is far from black-and-white. Everyone can
interpret this play differently and for different reasons.
Haha. This play is definitely filled with ambiguity and complexity, but sometimes I like those. I agree there were a few times that I was confused but it didn't take long for me to figure out who or what the 'buried child' was. Shelly is definitely the only character that seems 'normal' in the world, but I took Father Dewis to be part of the world since he isn't exactly performing his job as a priest very well. He's a coward and having an affair with Halie. He doesn't even make an attempt to control the outbursts of the family. He just hangs back and let's thing get crazy. But people can definitely find reasons to justify the characters choices and interpret it differently.
ReplyDeleteI like that you chose to use the word "abstract" to describe the tone of the play. This play is definitely abstract in that there are so many events and lines that readers can feel differently about. I actually didn't think about Father Dewis being a part of "reality" (like Shelley) until reading your comment. However, he still could be considered somewhat similar to the crazy family members simply because he's a priest who is a.) seeing a woman romantically and b.) seeing a married woman romantically. But also, I liked the statement that it is hard for readers to understand characters who don't even understand each other; it's definitely something to think about!
ReplyDeleteyup. shepard is really abstract in that he presents characters that are archetypes who affect the realistic ones. such as everyone in the household (including dewis- the archetype of failed [religious] institutions as the answer) affecting Shelly and Vince. I played Vince in a show and the director had many takes on this play, he was a little psychotic but Shepard's great, and i agree, a little ambiguous. -btb
ReplyDeleteI agree with your perspective of Buried Child completely. It almost stressed me out how oddly things would jump in and out of the story line with no explanation or justification. What especially bothered me was not only how poorly the characters treated themselves and one another, but by how it was viewed as normal and accepted. The whole time I read I was thinking of how the characters are in desperate need of reform. I also relate to your point about feeling like you, as an audience member, are expected to rationalize random ambiguous events.
ReplyDelete