Hilarious and blistering social commentary is what this play offers, delving into the hidden, inner lives of those who seem ordinary. David Mamet can be likened to Seth McFarland or Matt Stone in the theatre world. He is not afraid to use comedy as a means to piss off or offend anyone.

This particular play focuses on the concept of “peace”. It explores peace at home, peace of mind, and most significantly, peace in the Middle East. The message is crystal clear. If we could all take a moment to “realign ourselves” and become aware that the imbalance in our lives often exists more in our minds, then we would all get along so much better.

By highlighting these various aspects of peace, Mamet forces us to think about our own lives and the world around us. His unapologetic approach to comedy makes us laugh while also making us uncomfortable, which is the mark of truly great social commentary. Whether we like it or not, his plays have the power to make us question our beliefs and assumptions, and perhaps even inspire us to make positive changes in our lives and in the world.

Mamet might be attempting to convey a certain message here, yet it becomes muddled within his self-indulgent dialogue. There is an abundance of talking, but not much actual action taking place. Some of it manages to be humorous, such as the defense attorney's unwavering and unchanging plea for a bit of faith in the plan for peace. However, some of it is only superficially caustic, like the man's penchant for using slurs. And then there is some that is painfully unfunny, for instance, the judge has a few good moments, but they are very few and far between.

This might be a rather funny staged production.

When you read it, you might think, "Eh. It's alright."

However, it's not the highly powerful work by Mamet that one was anticipating.

Perhaps there were certain expectations set due to Mamet's reputation, but this particular piece didn't quite live up to those lofty standards.

It had its moments of humor, which could potentially entertain some audiences.

But in comparison to what one might have hoped for from such a renowned playwright, it fell a bit short.

Nevertheless, it still has its own charm and may be enjoyed by those who approach it with an open mind and a sense of humor.

Overall, while it's not the masterpiece some were waiting for, it's still a valid piece of work that offers a unique theatrical experience.

Pretty funny indeed!

The content, however, was a bit on the harsh side and also a little too silly for some tastes.

Nonetheless, the movie was well directed, with the director skillfully guiding the story and creating an engaging atmosphere.

The acting was also top-notch, with the well-known actors bringing their characters to life in a vivid and believable way.

Despite its flaws in the content department, the overall quality of the direction and acting made it an enjoyable watch.

It had its moments of laughter and entertainment, which is what many people look for in a movie.

Perhaps with a bit more refinement in the content, it could have been an even better film.

But as it stands, it still manages to provide a good dose of fun and entertainment.

The play we watched was a bit of a mixed bag.

On one hand, it had some really funny moments that had the audience roaring with laughter. The actors did a great job of bringing the comical characters to life and their timing was on point.

However, on the other hand, it also felt a bit dated. Some of the jokes and storylines seemed a bit old-fashioned and didn't quite resonate with the modern audience.

Despite this, it was still an enjoyable evening of entertainment. The play had its charm and it was nice to see a live performance.

If they were to update some of the elements and bring it more in line with current trends, it could potentially be an even better show.

Overall, it was a funny play that had its flaws but still managed to provide some good laughs.

For a comedic play, it's largely devoid of humor.

It starts off rather flat, with not many laughs to be had in the early going. However, it does pick up a little at the midpoint with some good jokes that manage to bring a few smiles. But other than that brief moment of levity, I found this play a bit disappointing.

This was my first time reading David Mamet. I was really looking forward to experiencing his comedic genius, but unfortunately, this particular work didn't quite hit the mark for me.

Nevertheless, I'm still eager to dive into his other works. I'm hoping that with better luck, I'll be able to discover the true brilliance that I've heard so much about. Maybe the next play will be the one that really makes me laugh out loud and leaves a lasting impression.

Only time will tell, but for now, I'll keep my expectations high and see where this literary journey takes me.

After seeing the play at the Taper in '05 (with the fabulous Ed Begley, Jr.), I was truly intrigued.

I simply had to read this and attempt to understand the mind from which these characters emerged. Mamet is, without a doubt, a pure genius. (Just think about "Glengarry Glen Ross" - it's a masterpiece!)

All I can say (without spoiling anything) is that the entire comedy unfolds in a courtroom. It involves racial slurs, perhaps some drug use, and an insane misuse of justice. But astonishingly, it also seems to offer a resolution for the Middle East peace process. Who would have thought it could be that simple?

It's truly amazing. I highly recommend reading it. And if you never have the opportunity to see it performed live, don't despair. You can even create your own puppet show and bring it to life. It is one of his very best works. It demonstrates that Mamet will endure the test of time with his literary works of art, just as beautifully as Tennessee Williams did.

His talent and creativity are truly remarkable and continue to captivate audiences and readers alike.

A farce on people’s hatred of the other.

This kind of farce is a reflection of the deep-seated animosity and prejudice that exists within society. It shows how easily people can be divided and pitted against each other based on differences.

The focus on this hatred explains why abuse and stereotypes are often used to drive the humor. By making fun of others in a derogatory way, some people try to feel superior and boost their own egos.

However, this kind of humor comes at a cost. It can further fuel the flames of hatred and division, leading to more conflict and misunderstanding.

We need to be more aware of the impact of our words and actions and strive to build a more inclusive and harmonious society. Instead of using humor to tear others down, we should use it to bring people together and promote understanding and acceptance.

Only then can we truly overcome the farce of people’s hatred of the other and create a better world for all.

Once upon a time, there was a person who was really quite silly.

He would do the most absurd things without even realizing how ridiculous they were.

One day, he decided to wear his shoes on the wrong feet, thinking it would be a unique fashion statement.

As he walked down the street, people couldn't help but laugh at him.

But he just smiled back, completely oblivious to the fact that he was the butt of the joke.

Another time, he tried to catch a bird with his bare hands.

He chased it around the yard, tripping over himself and falling flat on his face.

But still, he didn't give up.

His silliness was more than humorous; it was endearing in a strange way.

People couldn't help but like him, even though he was constantly doing things that made them laugh.

And so, he continued to be silly, bringing joy and laughter to those around him.

Madness in a courtroom.

It is a scene that is likely not stageable today.

In a courtroom, there is supposed to be order, respect for the law, and a rational process.

However, the idea of madness entering such a solemn and formal setting is both shocking and perhaps a bit unthinkable in modern times.

The courtroom is designed to be a place where justice is served, evidence is presented, and decisions are made based on facts and legal principles.

Madness would disrupt this entire process, causing chaos and confusion.

It might involve a defendant or a witness behaving in an erratic or unpredictable manner, perhaps shouting, crying, or even becoming violent.

This kind of behavior would not only be a distraction but could also undermine the integrity of the courtroom and the legal system as a whole.

Today, with strict courtroom procedures and security measures in place, it is highly unlikely that such blatant madness would be allowed to occur or be staged.

The legal system strives to maintain a sense of decorum and professionalism to ensure that justice is administered fairly and efficiently.

David Mamet's play Romance is both highly amusing and, in its own manner, quite pointed. However, it doesn't particularly delve deep or conduct a thorough exploration. With a running time of an hour and a half (including an intermission), it feels overly long, as if a really sharp 20-minute sketch has been stretched out to an excessive degree.

The play centers around a Judge who is meant to be presiding over a trial, the precise nature of which is never revealed (nor does it really need to be). But he is afflicted with hay fever, and his medication isn't working properly. He keeps popping pills despite the Bailiff's warnings that he doesn't need any more. On the first day of the trial, the pills cause him to be distracted, and he suddenly interrupts to make an observation about the prospects for peace in the Middle East. Different pills make him giddy on the second day of the trial, leading him to ask a series of impertinent questions such as "Was Shakespeare a fag?" He also makes some disturbing allusions to having abused children and dallied with the Bailiff on Ibiza, and eventually loses his pants. (Romance is a farce, and he's not the only one in such a situation.)

He symbolizes what I believe Mamet is attempting to convey to us: that the System (not just the justice system specifically, but the entire American polity in general) is severely broken, in a state of chaos, and topsy-turvy (or another body part that I'm too polite to mention; though Mamet, being Mamet, isn't so inhibited). Does a courtroom comedy that transforms an ordinary proceeding into a travesty and a circus have resonance? Absolutely.

The other characters in Romance also play with expectations. A buttoned-down prosecutor is having a tumultuous affair with an effeminate gay boy who cooks, apparently, wearing only a skimpy thong and an apron. A Christian defense attorney gets into a nasty name-calling match with his Jewish client. The point of all this shouting, I assume, is more of the same: we can't get along, our infrastructure is deteriorating, and our national psyche is heading towards meltdown.

In any case, the nastiness and anarchy - very much in a Marx Brothers meets Monty Python atmosphere - quickly become tiresome. My interest in what was happening fizzled out a good 15 or 20 minutes before the play finally concluded. It's taut, tough, and distinctly Mametian; but it's too slight to make for a truly satisfying afternoon or evening of theater.

In 2007, I saw this in Chicago and immediately obtained a copy to read.

It lampoons nearly every sacred cow in that oh so special Mamet way.

Mamet's work is known for its unique style and boldness. His ability to take on the established norms and traditions with a satirical edge is truly remarkable.

The way he dissects and mocks the so-called "sacred cows" forces the readers or viewers to question their own beliefs and assumptions.

It makes us think twice about the things we hold dear and often take for granted.

His works are not only entertaining but also thought-provoking, challenging us to look at the world from a different perspective.

This particular piece that I came across in Chicago was no exception. It had me laughing out loud while also making me reflect on the deeper meanings and implications.

Overall, it was a great read that left a lasting impression on me.