I have a slightly different take. "Disgraced" is an extraordinary play, it both explodes and implodes as it charts its protagonist's downward spiral. When I read it, I closed the script, read it again. I was stunned by it. And still am.
But for all its power, "Disgraced" has oddly clunky plotting. Its brilliant set piece -- the Albee styled confrontational dinner party -- has some of the most awkward traffic imaginable in a contemporary, one set drama. It strains mightily just to get the adulterous couple alone on stage together to be discovered (awkwardly), diluting the developing tensions. The two adversaries are sent off to buy celebreatory champagne (hard to accept, and we aren't privy to what they'd say together en route/returning), only to carve out that needed walk-in upon moment, a kiss without which there would be no story. It's a potentially realistic idea -- this man discovers the betrayal and feels further diminished -- handled with soap opera dramaturgy. To make things even more unbelievable, the nephew turns up for no reason, in order to walk in on that scene's final tableau of violence. The play's ideas aren't easily attached to its action, but the ideas are so profound we accept the ways they unfold. Watching it, it's more obvious than on the page (and some reviews around the country have highlighted that.)
So I'm not sure if he's devolved, or if his craft issues are more obvious in plays with less powerful character revelations and thematic elements. Just a thought.
|
