ALICE: Why did you do this?
ANNA: I fell in love with him, Alice.
ALICE: That's the most stupid expression in the world. "I fell in love" -- as if you had no choice. There's a moment, there's always a moment; I can do this, I can give into this or I can resist it. I don't know when your moment was but I bet there was one.
ANNA: Yes, there was.
ALICE: You didn't fall in love, you gave in to temptation.
ANNA: Well you fell in love with him.
ALICE: No, I chose him. I looked in his briefcase and I found this...sandwich...and I thought, "I will give all my love to this charming man who cuts off his crusts." I didn't fall in love, I chose to.
From the play "Closer" by Patrick Marber. Which, by the way, is fantastically brilliant and beautiful and ultimately sad and tragic -- everything that a rock solid story should be. Prince George is bring their production of it to the Zone festival this year, and sadly I think I'm going to have to skip it, in spite of how much I love the play -- because of how much I love the play. Because I reckon I might very well like to direct this some day, and I'm not big on having my directorial impulses affected by anything other than the text of the script.
But I'm getting off topic.
"Closer" is a play about four people looking for love in every conceivable corner and, ultimately, finding it nowhere at all. Loneliness and sadness are what await them at the close of the show, and I think there's something unfortunately true about that. That for far too many of us, the search for love leaves us with nothing at all to hold on to.
That truth is what ultimately moved me about the play. But there is an extra sense of truth in the bit I quoted above. And I guess the reason it struck me so hard was that I'd never really thought about it before.
I've long believed -- and openly told people -- that we, as people, don't have the luxury of choosing who we love. We dont get to decide who it is that stirs something in our minds, in our hearts, in our souls. These people do, for whatever reason, right or wrong. They do. And so we love them for that, because we have no other choice.
But there is still a choice being made, because we get to choose what we do with that love. We choose to pursue it, or we choose to let it go. We choose to let it destroy us, or we choose to let it empower us.
I'm not sure if that element is something I simply didn't realize, or something I'd forgotten about, but whatever the case, I'm grateful to "Closer' to reminding me of it, because it's an important part of the equation.
14 comments:
Wasn't there a movie recently by this title?
Yep, there was, and it was adapted from the play. Haven't seen *it* yet either (and now I won't, for the same reasons that I won't be going to see the play).
The play is actually set in Britain, and I'm not sure if the film maintained that (or forced the actors to take on British accents) or switched it something else. I don't think it's hugely vital that the production is "british" per se -- there's only a few figures of speech and slang use that even indicate that that their from across the pond.
Is this a play you might do in the near future, or would you wait awhile now that another company is showing it?
I wouldn't wait just because PG is doing it -- it'll only be here for one night, so only about 100 prospective audience members. I would probably be less inclined to do it for festival if I were to do it anytime soon, though.
What does make me inclined to wait is the fact that I suspect it might be a little...risque for these parts. While there have been plays done in the past with some sexual content ("Love, Perfect, Change" springs quickly to mind) in most of those cases, it's light-hearted, even humourous sexual content. The stuff in "Closer" is quite dark. To be expected, I guess, given that the play is about four characters who ultimately aren't capable of making an emotional connection with anyone.
Though that's only my current opinion. I could still change my mind and decide it'd be fun to put dark-ish sexual content on the local stage.
Know anyone who wants to play a stripper?
Michelle? ;) Ha! (Don't even mention I said that!!)
Hmmm . . . these characters sound emotionally paralyzed. Maybe I would blend in . . .
Actually, "Emotionally Paralyzed" is probably a fantastic description for these characters (can't believe I didn't make that connection on my own).
See? You're a natural to play one of them. Though, apparently, not the stripper (as I didn't see you madly volunteering for that role...)
Um . . NO!!!
Hey! Are you implying I'm emotionally paralyzed too?!!!
I can imply that about myself, but it's not allowable for you to!
Touchy, touchy...
Here I thought agreeing with you would be a generally safe approach in conversation. Lesson learned.
So instead I'll just pretend that what I really meant was that, as fantastic a performer as you are, playing the role of an "emotionally paralyzed" character would be an interesting acting challenge for you. And as one who loves to challenge herself, you're a natural to take on a role that's so clearly different from who you actually are in real life.
Much better, thank you! I'm so glad to hear of your confidence in both my emotional stability and acting ability. Wow! I feel so encouraged!!!
I think finding someone willing to play the part of the stripper would likely be the biggest problem. She's not half-naked often, but there is one scene in particular that takes place while she's "working" so you'd need someone who had no problem swinging around on stage half-naked.
Though, now that I think about it, it might be a *fun* part to cast...
I'm not talking to you right now!
What'd I say!?
Post a Comment