Checked out “Man or McEnroe”. So-so show, the idea is good, but undeveloped. Just as it gets interesting, the play is over. Initially I thought it was just a bad play. But, towards the end, it turned into a self-reflection on part of the artists, but, just as it was in All Wear Bowlers, the self-reflection doesn’t bring resolution – it’s as if the writers didn’t really know what they wanted to say and got lost in their own thoughts… There is no feeling of completeness afterwards. But I have to say, the presentation is excellent. Both actors make you believe that, in fact, McEnroe is a petty, unpleasant, sorry man that they judge harshly in an almost comic fashion… which is what initially made me angry – I mean WTF? Who are they to judge a public figure so harshly? And it’s not until the end of the play that I realize that the judgment is, in itself a facade…
This made me remember the idea for a play/movie that I had a while ago and that I would really like to implement – the main point is that all assumptions can be wrong. The performance would consist of several vignettes that would each add on a piece of information that would invalidate the model that the user build based on the previous segment. For example:
A girl (B) is standing stage right. A guy (A) enters stage left.
B: (pleads) No… no…
A (walks towards her throwing the chairs to the side)
B: Please… please… don’t do this…
A: walks up to her, slaps her across the face, walks out
B: MONSTER! (yells sobbing)
A guy (A) is sitting at the desk stage left and is rummaging through papers.
A: No… please… this can’t be. I trusted her. How could she do this. That is almost all my money. How am I going to take care of my family? No, this is not right. (stands up, starts walking stage right)
And so on. Although I think something other than a domestic-money conflict should be used – something not quite as cliche or as trivial.
Basically, amplify the idea that was pretty well presented in Hilary & Jackie’>Hilary & Jackie’>Hillary and Jackie.