I’ve been in a mood to see – and to read – some plays. Here’s one of them…

This is a truly mad play – a mad, mad, mad play. Mad in the old-fashioned sense, before we had specific names for every kind of mental illness, perhaps like before 1980 or thereabouts. Mad as in ‘he’s going mad,’ or ‘what, is he mad?’ The characters in this play act outside of all acceptable moral and societal expectations, way outside.

Teddy is coming home to his working-class roots, to his family in England. He’s a professor of philosophy in the US and has brought his wife with him. Max, his father, is crazy-mad. One moment he’s doling out lovey-dovey-ness and even ‘cuddling’ with his sons (though I don’t think it means what it does today), and in the next, he’s calling them every profane and sickening curse he can think of. (So what is his mental illness, do you think?) His other two sons, Lenny, who’s described as a pimp but doesn’t do much pimping in the play, and Joey, who’s training to be a boxer, are just the same. They give it right back to Max, word for word, swearing and cursing, but then suddenly asking if he’s going to make supper. There’s also Sam, Max’s unmarried brother, a chauffeur who likes to brag about who he’s chauffeuring around, including Max’s late wife.

It’s a house full of mad people, I tell you – and that’s true with the other definition of the word as well. These guys are really, intolerably angry with each other. There are barely two among this group of all men who can stand one another. But then there’s Teddy, soft and sensitive, who brings into all this his wife. And she’s – well, she’s something else altogether. Gorgeous and very forward, and Teddy’s manly family is quite taken with her.

It’s a short play, but intense. It sort of rocked the theater world back in the 60’s, and that was a time when many ‘shocking’ plays were being written and staged. Truthfully, I think if I were one of the first to see this play, and hadn’t read about it, I’d have been shocked myself. I’m fairly tolerant (or perhaps blasé?) when it comes to language, politics, the whole shebang. Anyhow, it’s something to think about long after reading – or viewing it, I’d imagine.

Four stars.

Beware! The name of the title might deceive you.

Homecoming is centered around a guy who returns home with his new wife, and his other family members are completely unaware of her existence, not to mention the marriage. However, the true essence of the play lies in its dialogues, which can be quite confusing upon the first reading.

The dialogue is simultaneously hilarious and absurd. One can't help but ask the question: Is this even possible? Then again, the entire plot is a parody, and one comes to accept the story as a spoof of the superficial life we lead in the modern world.

Joey, the youngest in the family, reminds me of Joey from the American sitcom FRIENDS. The line where Joey says, 'I was able to appreciate it on another level' and then discards this level when he 'gets his sight back' comes to mind while reading the play.

This play offers a unique and entertaining perspective, challenging our notions of reality and making us laugh at the same time.

This was a most baffling play.

Called a masterpiece in Absurdist theater by some, I simply found it unbelievable.

Wait a second, you kind reader might be saying? But isn't Absurdism partially exactly about that? Well, I guess it turns out I don't get Absurdism... or at least not this particular example.

OK, so here's the basic set up. A house in North London, with a missing wall which some critics have taken to symbolize blah, blah, blah. Yeah, I'm not buying that particular line of thought. So onwards.

We have Max, the 60-something patriarch, his bachelor 60-something brother Sam, and his two 20-something sons, Lenny and Joey.

Max is a retired butcher who now seems to fill up most of his time by cooking everyone's din-din. Sam's a well-respected chauffeur. Joey works in demolition during the day and moonlights as a boxer and Lenny, well Lenny is a pimp.

Ah, happy family.

Into this wondrous family unit, drop in Teddy, the prodigal son gone to America to become a Philosophy Professor and his wife Ruth. Just on their way back from Venice for a delayed honeymoon (they already have 3 sons), they pop by unannounced. Have I mentioned Teddy hasn't contacted his family for six years? But he still has a key to the house and so lets himself in for the evening and settles in upstairs with Ruth for the night.

And then hilarity ensues.

No, not really.

I read a quote by a critic about how in this particular play, the pauses are of all importance, as well as the position of chairs and the symbolism for a demolished archway. OK, sure. But here's the thing, I read the play. I didn't watch it. So maybe if I watched a performance of it, a whole other layer of amazingness would appear.

Once Teddy and Ruth come down those stairs on the next morning, the whole thing just goes a bit wobbly. Up till then, we'd been treated to the foul-mouthed diatribes of Max directed at the rest of his family. Some of it might seem shocking, unless you've grown up in a severely dysfunctional family. But I could still buy all of it.

But within moments of meeting the family, Teddy's wife Ruth, is being man-handled by the brothers and called a "stinking pox-ridden slut" by the father. Teddy doesn't object to his family's treatment of Ruth and even more importantly, neither does Ruth.

Although it stretches the imagination, I could understand Teddy being overwhelmed by his Alpha-dog brothers and father, and so remain passive while they practically make love to his wife on the living room floor.

But the idea that Ruth would welcome this attention and encourage it just defies any sort of believability and understanding of women.

And maybe that's the point. That it's completely ridiculous that eventually the family is talking about putting her 'on the game' (prostitution). But I guess I'm just a simple reader when it comes to certain things, and Ruth's reaction and actions just didn't ring true in any way, absurd or not.

I'll likely try to hunt down a filmed version of the play (or even better, see it in person) and if I do so, I'll update this post. For now though, I have to admit 'The Homecoming' wasn't quite for me.

"I Get It" - Core

"I get it" is a simple yet powerful phrase that holds great significance. It indicates understanding, comprehension, and realization. When we say "I get it," we are expressing that we have grasped the essence, the meaning, or the concept being presented.

This phrase can be used in various situations. It could be in a classroom when a student finally understands a difficult math problem or a complex scientific theory. It could also be in a conversation with a friend when they share their feelings or experiences, and we show that we empathize and understand.

The core of "I get it" lies in the ability to connect, to make sense of things, and to have that moment of clarity. It is a moment of achievement and growth, where we expand our knowledge and our perspective. So, the next time you say "I get it," remember the power and the importance of that simple phrase.

You can go home again, but maybe you shouldn't. The concept of going back to one's roots, to the place where it all began, often holds a certain allure. There is a sense of nostalgia and familiarity that can be comforting. However, there are also many reasons why it might not be the best idea.

For one thing, things may have changed significantly since you left. The people, the environment, and the circumstances may no longer be the same. What once felt like home may now seem foreign and unfamiliar. Additionally, going home again can sometimes bring up old memories and emotions that you may not be ready to face.

On the other hand, there are also some benefits to going home. It can give you a chance to reconnect with old friends and family, and to see how they have changed. It can also provide a sense of closure and allow you to put the past behind you. In the end, whether or not you should go home again depends on your individual circumstances and what you hope to gain from the experience.

Well, that was definitely something.

It was an experience that left a lasting impression. It could have been a moment of great excitement, perhaps a thrilling adventure or a remarkable achievement. Or maybe it was something unexpected that took us by surprise, like a sudden turn of events or a strange encounter.

Whatever it was, it had a certain quality that made it stand out. It might have been filled with emotions, such as joy, surprise, or even a hint of fear. The details of this something are模糊不清, but the memory of it lingers in our minds.

We might find ourselves reflecting on it from time to time, wondering what it all meant and how it might have changed us. It could be a story we tell others, a tale that adds a bit of color and excitement to our lives. In the end, that something was a unique and unforgettable part of our journey.

What on earth was that?

I am completely confused.

I am also disgusted.

However, strangely enough, I also loved it.

It was such a strange and contradictory experience.

The thing that happened was so unexpected and out of the ordinary that it left me in a state of confusion.

At the same time, there were aspects of it that were rather revolting and made me feel disgusted.

But despite all that, there was something about it that also had a certain allure and charm that made me love it.

It's hard to put into words exactly what it was that made me feel this way.

Maybe it was the element of surprise, or the fact that it pushed the boundaries of what I thought was possible.

Whatever it was, it was a truly unique and unforgettable experience.

The painter is not a realist.

The painter puts aside the superficial layers of life and sees the issues that society has not decided.

The painter delves deeper into the essence of things, exploring the hidden emotions, conflicts, and aspirations that lie beneath the surface.

By doing so, the painter is able to offer a unique perspective on the world, one that challenges our assumptions and makes us think differently.

The painter's art is not just about creating beautiful images, but about揭示truths and引发思考.

It is through the painter's work that we are able to see the world in a new light and gain a better understanding of ourselves and those around us.

In this way, the painter plays an important role in society, helping us to see beyond the obvious and discover the beauty and complexity that exists within.

WTF? This abbreviation is often used to express surprise, confusion, or disbelief. It has become quite popular in modern communication, especially in online platforms and text messages.

The origin of WTF is not entirely clear, but it is believed to have emerged in the early 2000s. It quickly gained popularity due to its简洁性 and ability to convey a strong emotion in just three letters.

However, the use of WTF should be used with caution, as it can be considered offensive or inappropriate in some situations. It is important to be aware of the context and audience when using such abbreviations.

In conclusion, while WTF may be a convenient way to express our emotions, we should always be mindful of how it may be perceived by others. We should strive to communicate effectively and respectfully, even when using abbreviations.

What the frick! This phrase might seem rather bold and perhaps a bit of an exclamation. It could be used in a moment of surprise, frustration, or even just when something unexpected occurs.

For example, if you were to open a door and find a completely different scene than you were expecting, you might exclaim "What the frick!"

It's a phrase that can convey a range of emotions, from mild annoyance to genuine shock.

However, it's important to use such language appropriately and be mindful of the context in which it is used.

In some situations, it might be considered inappropriate or disrespectful.

So, while "What the frick" can be a useful expression to let out a burst of emotion, it's always a good idea to think before you speak and make sure your words are suitable for the situation at hand.

To be honest, I'm really not sure how I feel about this. It's a bit of a mystery to me. There are so many different emotions and thoughts swirling around in my mind. On one hand, there's a sense of confusion. I can't quite put my finger on what exactly it is that's bothering me or what my true stance is. On the other hand, there's also a glimmer of curiosity. Maybe there's something more to this that I haven't fully understood yet. I keep going back and forth, trying to figure it out. But for now, I'm just left with this feeling of uncertainty. It's like being in a fog, not knowing which way to turn. I guess only time will tell how I'll ultimately feel about this whole thing.

This is not my kind of thing.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. However, angry and absurd family dramas don't really have much appeal to me, either emotionally or intellectually. I think I would have preferred there to be a lot more anger and a lot more absurdity in it.

The story of an oppressive, emotionally and physically abusive father domineering over his sons is hardly an original one. What makes the play unique is its ending, with the sudden announcement of Ruth's choice. (I won't explain it here to avoid spoilers.) I assume the absurdity of this plot twist is intended to shock the values of the bourgeois middle class and send the simple-minded people home giggling. But shocking the values of the bourgeois middle class isn't really that hard, and I'm skeptical of such attempts.

There are many people who claim this play is among the classics of late twentieth-century theatre. But it's just not the kind of play that I enjoy. C'est la vie.