...
Show More
Oh look, a play featuring a bunch of dysfunctional people won the Pulitzer. How very shocking.
"Buried Child", the 1979 winner of the Pulitzer Prize, underlines my belief that the Pulitzer Committee should stop recognizing plays about dysfunctional families for a decade or two. I understand that families can be strange. They were strange in the ’60s with "A Delicate Balance". They were strange in the ’80s with "Crimes of the Heart". And indeed, they were still strange in the 2000s with "August: Osage County". For that matter, they were strange way back with "Hamlet" and that whole Ghost Dad thing.
Weird, dysfunctional families can have their place in drama, but they should be the side dish and not the main course. There needs to be a greater conflict, a more intense tension than just "families are weird and let’s watch messed-up people talk at each other for two hours." "Proof" is a great play, in part because the dysfunction emphasizes a story about mental illness. "Side Man" is another that prominently features a dysfunctional family but uses it as a springboard into a deeper narrative. And, of course, "Hamlet" also uses the dysfunctional family as the backdrop rather than the primary focus, which should perhaps serve as a lesson to playwrights.
"Buried Child" hints at the idea of a larger story, but it never quite gets there. In fact, that’s the shortcoming of all three plays in this collection. They feel like the jottings of a college freshman who wants to be seen as extremely brilliant but doesn’t want to take the time to revise. All three plays have potential, but all three are also受限 by the modernist, deconstructionist tendencies of mid-century American theatre. Intellectually and artistically, I can appreciate the desire that playwrights had to push the boundaries and structures of drama. It’s just that I don't think this exercise has withstood the test of time. Not recommended.
"Buried Child", the 1979 winner of the Pulitzer Prize, underlines my belief that the Pulitzer Committee should stop recognizing plays about dysfunctional families for a decade or two. I understand that families can be strange. They were strange in the ’60s with "A Delicate Balance". They were strange in the ’80s with "Crimes of the Heart". And indeed, they were still strange in the 2000s with "August: Osage County". For that matter, they were strange way back with "Hamlet" and that whole Ghost Dad thing.
Weird, dysfunctional families can have their place in drama, but they should be the side dish and not the main course. There needs to be a greater conflict, a more intense tension than just "families are weird and let’s watch messed-up people talk at each other for two hours." "Proof" is a great play, in part because the dysfunction emphasizes a story about mental illness. "Side Man" is another that prominently features a dysfunctional family but uses it as a springboard into a deeper narrative. And, of course, "Hamlet" also uses the dysfunctional family as the backdrop rather than the primary focus, which should perhaps serve as a lesson to playwrights.
"Buried Child" hints at the idea of a larger story, but it never quite gets there. In fact, that’s the shortcoming of all three plays in this collection. They feel like the jottings of a college freshman who wants to be seen as extremely brilliant but doesn’t want to take the time to revise. All three plays have potential, but all three are also受限 by the modernist, deconstructionist tendencies of mid-century American theatre. Intellectually and artistically, I can appreciate the desire that playwrights had to push the boundaries and structures of drama. It’s just that I don't think this exercise has withstood the test of time. Not recommended.
