What I liked
The whole concept is fascinating. The duality of what White vs Black represents (Religion vs Rationalism; Stasis vs Striving; Poet vs. Literalist; Complacency vs. Fear; Amnesia vs. Memory; Illusion vs. Reality; Acceptance vs. Rage; Fear vs. Courage) cover the breadth of human existence. The stark, plain symbolism of the set is nevertheless mesmerizing to watch. The writing is poetry.
What I didn't like
This is not the first play I’ve written this note to: the actors neither enunciated nor projected like theater actors of old. It must be the creeping influence of screen acting. The result was that I had a hard time understanding some of the dialogue, which is a shame, because the writing is beautiful. Also, in White’s final monologue, I missed a sense of building tension. It seems he starts at the top of his range and stays there; in my humble opinion, it needs to build. It needs somewhere to go.
Also, I think I’d rather never know their names. The hints of “with an I,” “one R,” and “H” are funnier, more absurd, and ultimately, I think, more impactful, if I never know what the playwright intended. On the other hand, naming them humanizes them in an otherwise absurdist impressionscape, so it depends on your ultimate goal.
My overall impression
A lighthearted, frivolous romp through…existential terror. A Brechtian homage to Godot. The writing is top-notch: this is probably the smartest play at Fringe this year. Go. You’ll either be hurt or healed.
White and Black stand under a lamppost in the middle of nothingness. Why are they there? How did they get there? What is out there? Can they leave? The play asks more questions than it answers. Words that popped to mind include fear, absurd, poetry, memory, madness, existential, religion, Godot, Brecht, vocabulary, existentialism, humor, longing, funny, self-referential, cruel, gripping, mesmerizing, nihilistic, Sartrian, philosophy, and hopeless.
Well do this again tomorrow.
