It's 1921, and an amnesiac Great War veteran has become the German Chancellor under the name "Siegfried," adopted from Germanic legend.  He intends to transform the country by building a modern centralized government.  But a political opponent with a more folksy vision for Germany discovers that "Siegfried" was once "Jacques"...

GIF found here.

GIF found here.

This play is self-reflexively metatheatrical.  Like, a lot.

Take this Act 3 passage.  Baron Zelten is about to be banished for fomenting an unsuccessful revolt against Siegfried.  Generals Waldorf and Ledinger are ready to escort him to the border (though they'd rather do worse). But before he goes, Zelten alludes to the secret that Eva, the field nurse who rescued Siegfried, has been keeping all these years.

ZELTEN: Dismiss your generals.  I have something to say to you alone.
SIEGFRIED: I am not in the mood nor do I have the right to have a private conversation with you.
ZELTEN: Let them stay then.  You are the only one who will suffer.  In any case it is quite right that they should be here.  Every time destiny prepares to strike she has a rush of blood to the head and crowds her target with men in uniforms.  When Oedipus learned that he was married to his own mother and that he had killed his father, he tried to rally around him all the senior officers of his city.
WALDORF: We are general officers, Zelten!
LEDINGER: May I put an end to this farce, your Excellency?
ZELTEN: Look at Eva's face, Ledinger, and you will see that this is no farce.  The lips of the heroine are pale, a minute wrinkle runs across her brow, her hands are joined but they do not seem to know each other---these are the marks of tragedy, not comedy.  Why, this is the moment when the stagehands fall silent, and the prompter lowers his voice, and the spectators, who naturally have guessed everything before Oedipus and before Othello, shiver at the prospect of learning what has been known from the beginning of time.

Zelten is summoning the most awesome play about discrepant awareness in the final moments of Siegfried's ignorance.  Then Zelten drops the mic ("Germans love metaphor.  However, I shall avoid it henceforth with you.")  and leaves Eva to explain herself to Siegfried.  Once enlightened (though still suffering from amnesia), Siegfried/Jacques faces the choice of how to proceed with his newfound knowledge.  Eva argues for Siegfried to stay, to revitalize the post-war nation that has embraced him as a hero.  Genevieve, the fiancée who had thought Jacques dead before Zelten put her wise, argues for Jacques to resume his quiet life as a poodle-loving French journalist.*  She's the lampshade-hanging voice of a Jean Giraudoux (1882-1944) who doesn't even care:

I don't deny that it's dramatic that one man should epitomize the conflict between the only two nations which stand not only for two different ideals of beauty and two different ways of doing business but for two different concepts of good and evil.  But dramatic as your situation is, Jacques, it does not matter for the moment.

I wonder if these and other self-consciously metatheatrical moments can trace their lineage back to Giraudoux's process of adapting his 1922 novel Siegfried et le Limousin into Siegfried, his first play.

Obviously, there's an interesting geopolitical angle here, since Siegfried is an interwar piece involving Germany and France before anyone knew the other shoe was going to drop (talk about discrepant awareness!).  But I'm more interested in what the play has to say about identity.

In Act 1, Siegfried presents himself to a group of German parents whose sons went missing in the war.  It's a regularly scheduled event---an opportunity for Siegfried to be recognized and claimed.  His servant explains that Siegfried will be downstairs as soon as he's finally done dressing.

He can't make up his mind.  He doesn't know whether to cut off his mustache, as he did last time.  I left him standing in front of the mirror.  I know he's wondering which way he'd look more like himself.

Whereas Genevieve, afraid of waking a sleepwalker, actively avoids self-resemblance upon having gained an audience with her former lover in Act 2.  She explains to her linguist friend Robineau (through whom Zelten had gotten in touch):

I didn't have the heart to put on any of the jewels he used to know or one of the ones he gave me.  I didn't choose the perfume he used to love.  Fortunately the fashions this season do not have any specific character.  Never before have the couturiers dressed us as they have this winter, for eternity.  I've had my hair cut short since he saw me.  This is the first time I've been reduced to looking so little like myself.

And after warmth, protection, and cultural standards of modesty, isn't that what we usually dress for?  Looking like oneself?**

Geography makes a person, too.  Siegfried/Jacques, distressed upon learning the truth, laments Eva's lack of persistence in the German hospital where he regained consciousness.

Ah, when I lay there, why didn't Eva force me to ask again and again for water!  Why didn't she force me to repeat it, even if my thirst became unbearable, until she could tell if I pictured a blue sea when I called for water or a mountain torrent or a lake and thus revealed my native country.

When I picture water, it is the narrow creek running through the woods behind the school I attended as an eight-year-old midwesterner.  It's so strange to imagine that one day I'll have an eight-year-old to whom water will mean the Reservoir or the East River.

There's a lot of literature out there (scholarly and less so) about multilingualism and identity.***  While the play often pits stereotypical Germany against stereotypical France, language doesn't necessarily come to bear.  I mean, whether Siegfried is speaking German to Eva or French to Genevieve, it's all English to me (because I read the Phyllis La Farge and Peter H. Judd translation).  Practically speaking, does this mean a multiplicity of accents in performance, in addition to more subtle shifts indicative of the different cultures?  Wouldn't it be something to see a multilingual production (with supertitles)?

One last thing, because it's so late and there's a yoga class in the morning that I'm perilously close to skipping... Giraudoux's style here is a bit much, but I do treasure the Act 1 scene when Zelten and Robineau meet again for the first time since their days at university together.  It captures something of warfare being personal (as it may never be again in an age of armed drones).

The two men remain apart for a moment, studying each other in silence.
ZELTEN: Is it you!
ROBINEAU: Is it you!
ZELTEN: Is it you, Robineau, Hippolyte-Amable?
ROBINEAU: Otto-Wilhelmus von Zelten-Buchencach, it is I.
ZELTEN: Is it you, O dark brachycephalic, overweighted with lorgnettes and knitted vests, terrible in the attack?
ROBINEAU: Yes, O essence of culture, distillation of carnage, son of Arminius, it is I.
ZELTEN: I feel as if I were talking long distance on the telephone, Robineau, with a a very bad connection---Speak right into the telephone!  Still, I see you.  You haven't changed.
ROBINEAU: Nor have you---But what have you been doing these last twelve years, Zelten?  You, who loved springtime, music, joy, peace---what have you been doing?
ZELTEN: I have been fighting.  I made war against thirty-five nations, but I was locked in combat with only one.  And you---mild, bespectacled, freedom-loving inhabitant of imperial or royal libraries--you, my dearest friend, what have you been doing?
ROBINEAU: Fighting, making war against you---
ZELTEN: Fortunately we were so unskillful, Robineau, that we missed each other.  Were you aiming at me?
ROBINEAU: Several times, during an attack, I raised my gun, thinking of you, and fired at the sky.
ZELTEN: So you did that too!  It's probably still over Germany, your bullet, pursuing its course.  But, you know, I had an idea you weren't intent on killing your old friend.  Every time a bullet missed me, I said to myself---that's good old Robineau firing!  I couldn't help thinking that every bullet which hit an object for which it wasn't intended---such as a bottle or a pear still on the tree---was yours.  That's what your words used to do.  My adjutant was hit in one cheek of his buttocks; everyone laughed---I thought of you.  [He approaches, and assumes the tone of ordinary conversation.]  Hello, Robineau!
ROBINEAU: Hello, Zelten.
ZELTEN: How are you?
ROBINEAU: All right.  And you?
 

 

*It's übermensch vs. Clark Kent, a decade before Detective Comics brought us Superman!

**This week, a friend asked if I'd mind if she bought a shirt that she knows I own.  I told her to go ahead.  Our affinity for each other springs from the parts of ourselves that appreciate this shirt enough to spend money on it.  I would not be less myself for her wearing it, anymore than I am less myself for her friendship.  That said, of the two people who went to Homecoming sophomore year in identical flocked taffeta column gowns, I definitely wore it best (you know who you are, copycat).

***Here's a recent blog post on the topic by Arturo Hernandez.  Anecdotally, I know my mom is more likely to hug somebody if she's operating in Spanish than if she's operating in English.

This past Saturday, Jonathon brought me along to a friend's family farm for an annual weekend party that...well...

TAKE ME HOME The brand new album out now! Featuring Live While We're Young and Little Things. iTunes: http://smarturl.it/takemehome1D Amazon: http://amzn.to/OXqkoD Official Store: http://myplay.me/vxl Music video by One Direction performing Live While We're Young. (C) 2012 Simco Limited under exclusive license to Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited

Okay.  Jonathon came back from this party last year and told me how he spent his weekend.  "Lies.  All lies," I insisted.  And when we arrived this year, I was so pissed that he was right (and he kept laughing at me in my incredulous wrongness).  Look, I can try to describe it, but it will save us all a lot of time if you just trust that 99% of what you see in this music video actually transpired in real life (somebody else said it was like living in a CW show).  

Oh, but with more fireworks, both purposeful and accidental.

Around one AM, with the ridiculously large bonfire finally losing its novelty and with no tent to our name, Jonathon and I retired to the finished loft above a garage, where several people had already sprawled out on air mattresses and sleeping bags.  At 6:15, I woke up to abundant sunshine and chirping birds.  I thought about grabbing a change of clothes and heading out for a solitary stroll, but more people had settled in around us after we'd dozed off, and I was effectively marooned on our sleeping bag.  My phone still had most of its charge, and I briefly checked email and the news.  I wasn't really feeling it, but neither did I feel like I could go back to bed.  Then I realized I could reach my book* without noisily disturbing the sleeping crowd, so that's what I did.

Sometimes my mind would wander from reading, and I'd stare out into space.  But the hissing of ripstop polyester tossing and turning often crescendoed over the ambient sounds of a rustic morning, reminding me that I ran the risk of creeping people out by being wide awake without any task.  So I'd bring my awareness back to the book in my left hand and the hi-liter in my right.  And every once in a while, another person did wake up.  They'd tiptoe through the maze of flannel-clad humans, go downstairs to use the bathroom, then return to their bedding for more shut-eye.  Eventually I felt my own eyelids becoming heavier.  Because it seemed a shame to stop only ten pages from a new chapter, I willed myself to finish the one I had started.  And once I was done, I conked out 'til midday.

There's a lesson here for times I find myself lacking motivation: read like I'm surrounded by casual acquaintances who could wake up at any moment.

I'm still a little miffed about the implausible perfection of these outdoors.

I'm still a little miffed about the implausible perfection of these outdoors.

 

 

*Someone asked me later in the day what I had been reading.  It took my a good ten seconds to come up with Marvin Carlson's The Haunted Stage: The Theatre as Memory Machine (an excellent book I've long been meaning to read more of, and not simply because it was written by one of my professors).  Reading may have been the best use of my time in this particular situation, but I don't think I'm at my most efficient at six o'clock in the morning.

Posted
AuthorMaria Cristina Garcia

My mother was visiting New York, and she asked me to get us tickets for a show or two.  She was inspired after seeing a commercial for Broadway theatre.  What was it called...?  Oh, yes, the Tonys (some other time, I'll go on interminably about how the national broadcast of the Tony Awards has not actually ever existed to recognize excellence in theatre).  Once again, TDF came through.  We saw a matinee performance of Harvey Fierstein's Casa Valentina this past weekend, and an evening performance of Terrence McNally's Mothers and Sons on Tuesday, and both plays were truly something.

Yes, Program Insert, it is.

Yes, Program Insert, it is.

Casa Valentina

In a simple sentence, the play is about homophobia among transvestites in the early sixties.  But more broadly, it dramatizes something easily taken for granted: that even small subsets of society are not necessarily homogenous.  These men rely on each other for everything from emotional support to beauty tips (sometimes one and the same), and yet, highly charged differences of opinion end up marring this particular weekend together and changing relationships forever.  The most impressive element of the production is how every character is somewhat sympathetic, no matter how they score on the villainy spectrum.  Whether it's someone insidiously blackmailing an acquaintance, a daughter spitefully confronting strangers, or a husband breaking his wife's heart, each person is clearly motivated by an understandable pain.  There are no easy reconciliations, and it's tempting to watch a scene and disapprovingly marvel at how very bitchy someone's being.  But an audience member (if not a fellow character) can at least appreciate the hurt wrought by a character's lived experiences.

Scott Pask's sets and Justin Townsend's lighting worked well together to evoke a Catskills lodge while also providing flexible playing areas.  The given circumstances of the play set the costumes, wigs, and makeup designers up for the biggest challenge, however.  Rita Ryack did a fantastic job of dressing the men for the time period, their tastes, and their varying levels of expertise at their secret hobby, and Jason P. Hayes' hair and makeup were just as beautifully spot-on.

By the by, here's an informative blog post on the founder of the real Catskills getaway that inspired the play.

Mothers and Sons

In this play, a mother unexpectedly visits her son's old boyfriend, now thriving in an upper west side apartment with his husband and son twenty years after her son's death from AIDS.

It's a tense situation, for sure, and such an encounter in real life would most certainly be awkward.  But too many of the production's transitions have a clunkiness that just cannot be excused by claims to verisimilitude.  The text also suffers from some heavy-handed didacticism, but this feature tries to make a case for itself by emphasizing how the AIDS epidemic of the 80s and 90s has been criminally forgotten.

And so the best part of this production is Tyne Daly.  I'm so glad I got to see her perform in this.*  My favorite detail, of almost anything I can remember seeing lately, is her business with a pair of gloves for the first half hour.  Her son's boyfriend repeatedly asks if he can take her coat, and you know she's going to stay once she let's him.  But long before that she removes her gloves from her purse...and a little later puts one on...and a little later takes it off...and a little later returns the pair to her purse.  And Tyne Daly makes it look entirely subconscious.

One more thought, that I hesitate to share because I'm afraid it borders on a potshot, but here goes...  With so many charming (if frighteningly talented) children on Broadway recently in everything from Annie to Matilda, I was disappointed by this play's child actor, who seemed stuck on a one-note version of precociousness that I found insufferable (and some of my favorite people are kids).  He's in so few scenes that one might shrug him off, if not for the fact that he's meant to trigger a moment at the end that has the potential to be beautifully poignant...but it rings a little false.  Tyne Daly's character is reacting this strongly to...him?** 

Seeing Theatre with my Mother

Before this week, the last thing I'd seen with my mom was Hugh Jackman's one-man show.  It was my birthday, but she picked it out because...Hugh Jackman (and sure, it wouldn't have been my first choice, but I'm not really complaining because...Hugh Jackman).  Before that, my undergraduate self took her to see my college's production of Six Characters in Search of an Author so that I could point out the costume pieces I worked on.  And that was really all she got out of it, not because it was a college production, but because it was Six Characters in Search of an Author and she was herself.

So I was unsurprised that she responded positively to the realism of both plays.  But her potential reaction to the content of the plays was not something I had considered beforehand.*** 

She raised us in the Roman Catholic Church, and was affectionate but very conservative in her parenting (just ask Jonathon about how challenging it was to date me).  Despite this relatively strict upbringing, and while we haven't had many conversations about sexuality or gay rights, I've always had the sense that she's open-minded, compassionate, and liberal.  And our play-going bore that out.  After Casa Valentina, she said that she had known gender and sexuality were on a spectrum, but now she understood more about what that might mean for a person.  And after Mothers and Sons, she told me she'd still love me even if I'm gay (I'm sure she was telling the truth, but I'm also sure she said it mostly to rib Jonathon, who was right there).

My own reaction to seeing Mothers and Sons with my mom was not something I had accounted for.  If I had given it any thought, it would have occurred to me that the show features an outspoken woman...not unlike the one who was now spending the most time with me since the years I lived under her roof. The husband in Mothers and Sons tells the mother, "You're prickly."  And after the show, considering those words and how desperately she had wanted a reciprocal relationship with her deceased son, I started crying.  Yes, my mom can be prickly.  But when we're together, and she's being embarrassingly familiar with strangers, or she's saying politically incorrect things because she thinks it's okay if she means it innocently, or she points out a salon's color-correcting services in a dig at my hair...I become prickly.  And at this point in our adult relationship, that's just not fair to her.  I can do better for the eccentric lady who was a darn good single mom for most of my childhood...and who would love me even if I'm gay, Jonathon.

 

 

*But not so glad that I joined in the thunderous applause as soon as the curtain rose.  What's that about?  Is the audience congratulating her on her celebrity?  Really, it would seem this only disturbs the start of the performance, especially with this particular show.  When the audience went wild at the appearance of Alan Rickman's character in Seminar at the same theatre, at least it was somewhat appropriate since he was playing a celebrity author, and his entrance was made in a very elaborately visible and audible scene transition.

**See Michael's reaction to George Michael's girlfriend Ann on Arrested Development.

***I really was just happy she could see something.  She spent most of January 2013 hospitalized after a serious concussion, and she's still recovering from brain damage.  She's not quite up to the lights, sounds, and movement of a musical yet, but being able to sit through a play is a big improvement.

Posted
AuthorMaria Cristina Garcia
CategoriesI Saw a Show

I'm conflicted about neutering Gilbert.  Nooooo---I have to say "getting Gilbert neutered" or else I imagine myself performing a surgery for which I am woefully undertrained.  Reset.

This.  This is the guy.

This.  This is the guy.

I'm conflicted about getting Gilbert neutered.

There are so many reasons why getting him neutered is a good decision.
--It's in compliance with the law (New York City requires all shelter adoptees to be sterilized; Gilbert was too ill for surgery when we adopted him off the euthanasia list, but he's all better now and his waiver is expiring soon).
--Should he ever be on the lam, he'll be less likely to get into a rumble.
--He won't ever develop testicular cancer.
--Maybe he'll stop scratching the one piece of Crate & Barrel furniture we own.
--I will always be the only female in his life.
--I can check an item off my to-do list.

However, I worry about making such a life-changing choice for someone who is fairly autonomous but unhappily lacks the language skills to discuss the procedure and its outcomes.

It's going to happen (in about half an hour); I'm just saying I'm surprised by how uncomfortable it makes me.

Posted
AuthorMaria Cristina Garcia
CategoriesHome Life