Far away from you and me
Caryl Churchill’s Far Away, now playing at the New York Theater Workshop, is typical of Off-Broadway’s strengths and liabilities: high on theatrical invention, low on thought. But wait: Isn’t Far Away supposed to be a disturbing, thought-provoking vision of the world post-9/11? Robert Brustein and others think so. I find its litany-of-horrors evocation of that world too scattered to be trenchant. The play unfolds (or rather, bunches up) in a series of scenes depicting various evils: clandestine, mass kidnappings disguised as freedom-fighting, oppression of blue-collar workers, public humiliation of (political?) prisoners, and a warfare so total that it entangles every species on the planet in ever-shifting alignments and hatreds.
In the most affecting of these scenes, a series of ankle-chained prisoners wearing grotesquely ostentatious hats are paraded before a cheering public (all are later incinerated, we learn). Meanwhile, a panel of judges takes notes, presumably on the quality of the hats. It is unsettling to watch, bringing to mind images of Mao’s Cultural Revolution. But how it relates to other scenes or sheds light with them on a common human pathology is unclear.
The final scene clearly wants to be topical, as characters express shock at a recent military alliance between cats and the French, discourse on the growing menace of butterflies, and lament the elephants’ treason in joining the Dutch. It’s an obvious reference (and a funny one, until ten minutes later we’re hearing about cattle being in league with Chileans) to the War on Terror and how it builds on distrust and shakes up old loyalties. But it fails to be more than superficially relevant or, more importantly, an inevitable development of the previous scenes. What does a determination to be at war with someone have to do with inequitable worker’s pay? With wide-scale abductions? With the windup cowboy-Santa that sings in the first two scenes? In her advancing age, Churchill seems to be tiring of plot construction, wanting atmosphere (the most pleasurable and easy aspect of playwriting) to carry the full weight of her plays. Circularity is the result on this play’s internal logic: because this is a spooky play, anything spooky-seeming belongs in it, regardless of how it coheres with anything else.
As for the allusion to the War on Terror itself, something is clearly more at play than paranoia in current efforts to identify terrorist threats. Were Katyusha rockets fired at a commercial jet last month or not? Does Churchill really think present concerns amount to chimera? I suppose that’s your privilege when success and a ready-made audience pre-empt the need to be in touch with the worries of everyday people. Unfortunately, it does nothing to help the perception of Off-Broadway as an institution that revels in its own elitism.
Posted by Scott Reynolds at December 18, 2002 2:36 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)