Several times, over many years, have I tried to understand what Antonin Artaud was trying to achieve with his "Theatre of Cruelty" and what exactly that phrase might mean. I think that The Pitchfork Disney just may fit into that category!
Certainly, this play bubbles with a sense of foreboding. Terror looms. Tragedy threatens to strike at any moment. Or if not tragedy, perhaps love. Perhaps lust, or maybe a conscientious meeting of the minds. I expected at any moment to be shocked, and the suspense was gripping. Time and again though, this piece manages to ratchet up the tension and then let it dissipate without fulfillment. It is masterful in the way it teases and then skirts away from every threat it makes. In the end, though, I found this suspense too much to bear. Without any satisfying moments of release, one is faced with the choice to either continue their investment, and continue to hope for the fulfillment of a hastily made promise, or cut one's losses and give up. Well, the many shifts in energy and changes in direction managed to maintain my commitment most of the way through, but towards the end I caved. I gave up on the piece and wished it to be over. It kept my attention - the stellar production and capable acting were more than enough to entertain me - but I lost interest in the story because it became clear it would not reach any dramatic high point. Or a low point. Or a conclusion. The story is possibly not even something that should be classed as a story.
So, with such a hollow script to play with it is all the more remarkable that Sophie Roberts and her cast achieve such a delightful night out. From the moment we set foot in the theatre, we are immersed in the world of the play. The connections between our leading man and his supporting cast are electric. Often scintillating, sometimes disturbing. Always, though, I felt something about what was happening on stage. I was tickled, impressed, endeared, repulsed, bothered. So this piece reached me. Until the point where it didn't, and I can pinpoint when that was.
In the final quarter of the play (which was too long at 105ish minutes), our leading man tells of a nightmare in which his biggest threat in life, and the ultimate cause of his demise, is a character known as The Pitchfork Disney. He tells this to a character we know as Mr Disney. We know Mr Disney's work associate to be called Pitchfork. This would appear to be some remarkable coincidence, yet it is never referred to. It suggests more sinister elements to the story - but these are not fully developed. To me, it just reeked of fake symbolism. It certainly sounds like it should be very meaningful! To me, though, it just wasn't. And if it was a subtle reinforcement of one theory I have about the relationship between the characters...then that would be most disappointing. If the relationship is that which I suspect, then the story is revealed to be far less inspired and original than its style.
What was it really trying to say? I could probably figure it out, but unfortunately I stopped caring.
See this play if you enjoy clever staging and a well crafted production. Hopefully you won't mind that the script presents a succession of red herrings.
No comments:
Post a Comment