What a really dysfunctional family!

In a dysfunctional family, there is often a lack of communication and understanding among family members. Arguments and conflicts seem to be a regular occurrence, and instead of resolving issues, they tend to escalate.

Parents may not provide the necessary support and guidance to their children, leaving them feeling neglected and abandoned. Siblings may also have a strained relationship, constantly competing with each other or engaging in unkind behavior.

The atmosphere in a dysfunctional family can be tense and uncomfortable, making it difficult for anyone to feel at ease. This can have a negative impact on the mental and emotional well-being of all family members, leading to problems such as anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem.

It is important to recognize the signs of a dysfunctional family and take steps to address the issues. This may involve seeking professional help, such as family therapy, or simply making an effort to improve communication and build stronger relationships within the family. With time and effort, it is possible to turn a dysfunctional family into a healthy and loving one.

I didn't really have a liking for it.

It began in a rather fine manner, but then it devolved into an absurdist chaos that didn't hold much interest for me. This is not the case with Beckett, and evidently not with Shepard either.

"Buried Child" seems to be more focused on the form rather than on what it is attempting to convey. In fact, I'm not even certain if it is trying to say anything at all.

This is the issue with expressionism and absurdism. The art piece itself becomes the center of everything. In the case of "Buried Child", the mystery and illogicality draw the attention of the audience or the reader, while the characters and the theme of the play, or the art piece, go unnoticed.

These types of plays give me the impression that it is all about the play itself, about the art, when I firmly believe it shouldn't be. If there is something to be said, why not just state it plainly without enshrouding it in a metaphor? Because the audience struggles to connect with it when they are constantly striving to figure out what it is about, and this should be clear right after the exposition.

I have no objections to heavy subjects, but they better make some sense.

True, I'm only two-thirds of the way through, but this is one of the most ridiculous plays I have ever read.

Drama is essentially about people, and while Shepard's writing is undeniably vibrant and his dialogue is great, none of his characters seem even remotely real.

These people - fathers, sons, and grandsons - don't even recognize each other. It's complete nonsense.

The entire play hinges on the absurd premise that none of these individuals know who the others are and don't even seem bothered when one character claims to be the grandson of another, isn't recognized, and yet continues as if it's not a big deal.

For example, the exchange like "Hi Grandpa, I haven't seen you in six years." and "Who are you?" and "I'm your son's son. I stopped off before driving 5,000 miles to see him."

At this point, one would expect Grandpa to mention that his son is right there, but no. Instead, he says, "Really? Is he my son? I can't remember."

One might think it's a play about dementia and memory loss, but it really isn't.

It's just a hopeless attempt to imitate Arthur Miller without ever truly understanding the human condition.

And there's the added aspect that Shepard really seems to hate actors.

Dodge gets his hair shaved at the end of Act 1, just to make staging difficult. Bradley has a wooden leg, just to make casting challenging.

You can almost envision Shepard sitting at his typewriter, grinning to himself at how unstageable his play is.

It's truly ludicrous. I can't believe this nonsense won a Pulitzer Prize.

Maybe it was a staging post on the way to freeing drama from its classical chains, but we've long since passed that point.

Buried Child is a failed, outdated experiment.

Buried Child, Sam Shepard



Buried Child is a remarkable play penned by Sam Shepard and first presented in 1978. This play not only won the prestigious 1979 Pulitzer Prize for Drama but also catapulted Shepard to national acclaim as a playwright.



The play delves deep into the fragmentation of the American nuclear family. It does so within a context rife with disappointment and disillusionment regarding American mythology and the American Dream. The backdrop also includes the rural economic slowdown of the 1970s and the breakdown of traditional family structures and values.



Act I: The stage is set in an old farmhouse on a failed plot of land in Illinois, where the characters Dodge and Halie are introduced. The scene commences with the couple engaged in a conversation, reminiscing about events of their past. Dodge, often seen sipping secretly from a hidden bottle, reveals his alcoholism. Halie, though not physically present in the scene initially, shouts from upstairs, adding to the tension and mystery. They discuss their son Ansel, who is not seen in the play.



Act II: The scene then shifts with the introduction of Vince and Shelly. Vince was on his way to meet his father Tilden in New Mexico but decides to stop at his grandparents' house along the way. Shelly tags along for the ride. Vince is shocked when he enters the house and Dodge fails to recognize him at all. Shelly, believing they have entered the wrong house, tries to persuade Vince to leave, but he is resolute. Tilden then enters the room with a bundle of carrots, showing little interest in the newcomers. Vince manages to get Tilden's attention, yet Tilden also fails to recognize him.



Act III: The scene begins with Dodge assuming that Vince has run away and left Shelly. He reassures Shelly not to be afraid of Bradley, who has only one leg. After some time, Halie enters the house with Father Dewis, and it is later revealed that she is having an affair with him. Halie sees Dodge and Bradley lying shamelessly on the sofa and smiles awkwardly at Father Dewis. A yelling match then ensues between Halie, Dodge, and Bradley, with several exchanges of words until Shelly intervenes. In frustration, Shelly grabs Bradley's wooden leg and waves off the rest of the family, expressing her anger with them and Vince. Father Dewis attempts to calm Shelly down and places the wooden leg on the table.



The play "Buried Child" was first read on July 30, 2008. It has been published in different editions with various titles and translations. It is a three-act play that starts with a poem by Pablo Neruda. The play's exploration of family dynamics, disillusionment, and the breakdown of traditional values makes it a thought-provoking and significant work of American drama.

I'm still extremely angry that I had to read this. It really made me frustrated and annoyed.

However, there was a glimmer of light or a touch of levity within it. But the question that keeps popping up in my mind is why? Why was there that hint of something different? Was it intentional to provide a moment of relief in the midst of the otherwise aggravating content? Or was it just a random occurrence that happened to catch my attention?

I can't quite put my finger on it, but it has left me with this lingering sense of curiosity. It makes me wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, if there are hidden meanings or messages that I might have missed.

Maybe I need to read it again, more carefully this time, to try and figure out the reason behind that small bit of levity. Or perhaps it's just one of those mysteries that will remain unsolved, adding to the overall complexity and intrigue of the piece.

I understand the concept, but at the same time, I'm also left with some questions.

For example, while I can see the basic idea, there are certain aspects that seem a bit unclear.

Maybe it's because the explanation was too brief, or perhaps there are some underlying details that weren't fully explored.

I find myself in a bit of a quandary, as I want to have a more comprehensive understanding, but I'm not sure how to go about getting it.

It's like I have a partial grasp of the subject, but there's still a lot more that I need to figure out.

I guess I'll have to do some more research or ask for further clarification to truly get to the bottom of things.

Overall, I'm in a state of both understanding and confusion, which is a bit of a strange feeling.

But I know that with time and effort, I'll be able to sort it all out and have a more solid understanding.

I have to say - this play is truly MESSED up.

It vividly portrays the gradual destruction of a family from the inside out. The complex web of relationships, the hidden secrets, and the simmering conflicts all contribute to the inevitable breakdown.

As I watched the play unfold, I found myself deeply immersed in the characters' turmoil. Their pain, their frustrations, and their desperate attempts to hold onto something were palpable.

When I finally finished it, I felt a sense of relief. It wasn't because the play was bad - on the contrary, it was so well-written and acted that it had a profound impact on me.

Rather, I was relieved because I couldn't wait to get out of these characters' minds. Their stories were so intense and emotional that they had left me drained.

Nevertheless, this play serves as a powerful reminder of the fragility of family and the importance of communication and understanding.

Oh, this was truly remarkable.

It was almost as if a Greek tragedy had been artfully applied to the very concept of the American dream.

The way it haunted was simply amazing.

It made one stop and think about the ideals and aspirations that so many hold dear in the context of the American dream.

How often do we pursue these dreams with such vigor, only to find that they may not lead to the happiness and fulfillment we expect?

This piece seemed to capture that essence perfectly, delving into the deeper emotions and consequences that lie beneath the surface of the American dream.

It was a thought-provoking and powerful exploration that left a lasting impression.

I read this in my theatrical Lit class and WOW.

The amount of debates we had over the ending of the show was truly amazing!!

It seemed as if every student had a different perspective and interpretation. Some believed that the ending was too ambiguous, leaving too many questions unanswered. They felt that it was a letdown after such a build-up throughout the play.

Others, however, thought that the ambiguity was intentional and added to the overall impact of the show. They argued that it forced the audience to think and engage with the material on a deeper level.

The discussions became so intense at times that it felt like a real debate. We were all passionately expressing our opinions and trying to convince others of our point of view.

In the end, I think we all learned a lot from the experience. It showed us how different people can perceive the same thing in completely different ways and how important it is to consider multiple perspectives when analyzing a work of art.

Overall, it was a great experience and one that I will always remember.

Here we have another work about the cruelty and the decadence of the American Dream. In this case, in its rural version.

"Buried Child" takes place on a farm in Illinois, where a family lives that would be kind to qualify as dysfunctional. The action is intense, absurd, and at times simply disturbing. It's no wonder it inspired the only episode in the entire history of "X-Files" that was prohibited for those under 18 years old.

[I saw the production of this work directed by Scott Elliott and starring Ed Harris and Amy Mardigan in 2016.]

The story unfolds in a rather chaotic manner, with the family members' secrets and dysfunctions gradually coming to the surface. The rural setting adds a layer of isolation and desolation to the narrative, emphasizing the sense of decay and hopelessness.

The characters are complex and flawed, making their interactions all the more fascinating and at times, uncomfortable to watch. The play explores themes such as family, identity, and the consequences of past actions, leaving the audience with much to思考 and discuss.

A forceful, and rather depressing, play about the disintegration of a family in 1970s American farmland

is truly one of Sam Shepard's best works. In this play, Shepard masterfully depicts the complex relationships and inner turmoil within a family that is slowly falling apart. The setting of the 1970s American farmland adds a layer of authenticity and a sense of nostalgia, yet it also serves as a backdrop to the family's struggles and the harsh realities they face. The characters are vividly drawn, each with their own flaws and dreams, and as the story unfolds, we witness their gradual breakdown and the destruction of their once-harmonious family unit. The play explores themes such as love, betrayal, and the loss of innocence, leaving the audience with a profound sense of sadness and a deeper understanding of the human condition. It is a powerful and thought-provoking piece of theater that continues to resonate with audiences today.

Sam Shepard's play is a remarkable exploration that juggles with the concept of madness.

It combines elements of postmodernism, surrealism, and symbolism in a masterful way.

No one can replicate the illusion of a society constructed on corpses with mortar made of greed more effectively than those who exist within it.

And the American playwright Shepard does an excellent job of summing up the collapse of morality and ethics in America.

One might wonder if America has ever truly reached a pinnacle of morality from which it could then collapse.

Shepard's work forces us to confront these uncomfortable questions and consider the state of our society.

His use of various literary devices adds depth and complexity to the narrative, making it a thought-provoking and engaging piece of theater.

Overall, Shepard's play is a powerful commentary on the human condition and the state of our world.

It challenges us to look beyond the surface and see the hidden truths that lie beneath.