medea’s last dance
by Douglas Messerli
Tennessee
Williams In Masks Outrageous and Austere
/ New York City, Culture Project / the performance I saw as a matinee
production on Sunday, May 6, 2012
On Sunday, May 6, I attended, with Charles
Bernstein and Susan Bee, the premiere of Tennessee Williams’ last play, In Masks Outrageous and Austere—uncompleted
at the time of his death—at Bleecker Street’s Culture Project. Despite rather
dismissive reviews—David Finkel in The
Huffington Post, for example, describing it as a “turgid” and “ludicrous”
cauldron of
"picked-over Williams obsessions” and Ben Brantley of the New York Times summarizing it as
inhabiting a “tepid, in-between realm”
that permits neither “audacious sincerity” or the permission to “go ahead and
laugh,” I found the play and production utterly fascinating and far less
problematic than almost all the reviewers had determined. Williams himself,
while still working on the text (which he continued to do up until is 1983
death), described it as “important,” “extremely funny,” and “bizarre as hell.”
It is, in my estimation, all three of those assessments—but then, one might
describe almost any Williams’ play in the same way.
True, with the exception of Knight and Alison Fraser’s absurdly comic
Mrs. Gorse-Bracken (channeling a slightly hysteric version of Bernadette
Peters) most of the young actors of the cast have not yet mastered the sort of
anti-naturalistic unmelodramatically-driven voices so necessary to properly
perform Williams’ lines (a problem as well for the language-driven playwrights
such as Mac Wellman, Len Jenkin, Jeffrey Jones, Richard Foreman and numerous
other contemporary playwrights). But then, except for Babe and Gorse-Bracken
none of them truly matter, their characters serving merely as examples of
sexual variations upon which Babe and, occasionally, her spiritual opposite,
Gorse-Bracken, serve as commentators.
Despite
many critic’s assertions that In Masks
Outrageous and Austere was simply a restatement of all of Williams’
previous themes, I’d argue that in this play that, even if Williams has
returned to all of the themes of his previous plays, he took them much further,
almost laying all his cards on the table so to speak, in the process, creating
a far more straight-forward and, yes, honest, statement of his sexual obsessions than
he previously had. And for the first time in memory, Williams seems to
reference various literary antecedents, including Jean Genet and Harold
Pinter—not so much enfolding them into his structure as referencing them, as
Bernstein describes it, in flashes.
There’s
no question that behind every Williams male and many of his females is a
homosexual, lesbian, or “perverse”—by the general societal standards—sexual
being! It is hard to think of the few “normal” individuals (although no such
word is truly possible in Williams’ canon, since it is those who believe
themselves “normal” who are the most abnormal beings): Stella, perhaps, the
gentleman visitor of The Glass Menagerie,
maybe. After that, it gets difficult. Even the Big Daddy’s and Big Momma’s of
Williams’ world have suffered incomparable torments in their sexual relationships.
But in most of Williams’ works, up until his final short and longer plays,
these figures were kept somewhat in the shadows, their true sexual identities
exposed, certainly, but just so ever slightly blurred that they could escape
the deficient attentions of many middle class Americans and even the harsh
lights of Hollywood movies. Most viewers certainly comprehended that in the
motion picture version of Cat on a Hot
Tin Roof, for example, Brick’s real problem was his homosexual attraction
to his high school football companion Skipper; but people like my parents and
their friends, had they even ventured out to that film (they were not adventurers)
might have easily believed Burl Ives' assertion that his son’s problem was
immaturity, an inability to grow up and out of his idealized friendship with
his former “buddy.” They might even have convinced themselves that Blanche was
a subject of small-town gossip and was just terribly misunderstood.
Such
white-washing, brain-washing slips of imagination are quite impossible,
however, in this last Williams work. There is Babe, full-face to the audience,
announcing one by one the sexual peccadilloes of nearly every figure in the
cast: from her gay—and in this Williams play, it is “gay,” not “homosexual”
behavior that is the proper description of the character’s acts—husband Billy’s
(Robert Beitzel) abandonment of her bed for his ship-board dalliances with
his Harvard-bred “secretary,” Jerry (Sam
Underwood) to her own lesbian past (which she characterizes, humorously, in the
old-fashioned expression of “acts of Bilitis”). She, a pure sensualist,
determined to “gratify everything in me as the luna moth dies at dusk,”
announces to us that, as the wealthiest woman in the world, she has purchased
her current love-interest to fulfill her needs. But he has failed her, just as
her endless cocktails of vodka and champagne have failed her, her dying father
has failed her, her nerves have failed her, and, now, even her guardians, the
nefarious Gideons—a security force made of up of internally-loving gay boys
hired by the Kudzu-Clem corporation watching over her wealth—have seemingly
failed her. She, in short, is the perfect exemplar of Mick Jagger’s and Keith
Richard’s lyrical wail: “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction.” So too does she
announce, in case the audience has turned a blind eye, that her neighbor Mrs.
Gorse-Bracken, living in an invisible nearby house, is obviously engaged in a
incestuous relationship with her forever-masturbating son, Playboy; that her
maid, Peg Foyle (Pamela Shaw) is a slut; and determines that Peg’s current
boyfriend, Joey (Christopher Halladay)—whom Peg has met in a local church—is a
stud worthy of her attention. Babe, in short, is the Chorus to Williams’
ridiculous Greek-like tragedy, where the masks fall from the character’s faces
as quickly as they might attempt to attach them. Despite its lugubrious title,
there are, in fact no “outrageous masks” possible given Babe’s revelatory
announcements.
As a comedic-romantic Williams has always secretly equated love with
suffocation, desire with greed, the sexual act itself with self-immolation; and
in this play, all these tropes become quite visibly apparent. Pumped up on
drugs, perhaps satiated beyond his capability to accept any further love, Williams
created in Babe a startling rendition of Medea’s dance of death, a song of
vengeance for all those who so disappointed this man’s, and every man’s like
him, insatiable desires. For Williams’ last lover, the play’s director David
Schweizer, the recreation of this text can only have been a painfully poignant
reconstruction, one I, at least, felt honored to have experienced.
Los Angeles, May 10, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment