Perhaps it’s an
indication of our shift in socio-cultural thinking, that a lot of the narrative
tropes we take for granted in popular culture are being turned on their head
and examined in the theatre, on film, in books and comics and other mediums. Like
All
About Medea recently, SUDS’ Manic Pixie Dream World (henceforth MPDW) draws on the
manic-pixie-dream-girl trope and problematises it like it deserves, making recent
filmic forays such as Ruby Sparks look rather mild
and clumsy by comparison.
MPDW is the story of Joe and Sierra. After an awkward
meet-cute in an aquarium (“Did you know the glass is bullet-proof?... I used to
think it was because the sharks had guns…”), they both realize they like each
other, and it seems almost as if they were made for each other. Billed as “part
lofty romantic comedy, [and] part horror story,” MPDW is about “what happens when we’re too busy making dreams
reality to question whether they should be.”
There is a raw and
affecting honesty to SUDS’ functional and economically-frugal Cellar theatre –
a couch, table, bookshelf, and sheet-cum-projector screen are the only items of
set we need to effectively create time and place, and ensure that the focus is
on the writing and the story. Written and directed by Tansy Gardam, MPDW takes the idea of a person creating
their ideal girlfriend (or, less specifically, partner), and stretches it,
pushes at the boundaries of its normally-saccharine contents, and plumbs it for
its darkness and the depths of its logic, and takes the story to some
disturbing and quite alarming places along the way.
Along the story’s
route, there are several signposts that keep us guessing (and sometimes recoiling
in discomfort) which we can choose to pick up on or discard as we please, but together
they point to a much darker notion of the ‘ideal partner’ than we would like to
be comfortable with. If the characters of India and Charlie seem to be dream-girls
themselves, that is precisely the point; it’s only when we hold a character
like Beth and, perhaps, Sierra, up to them that we see them for what they are –
dreams, dream-like projections of what we want someone to be for us.
With the help of some
gentle purple light, Gardam has a neat device of playing two scenes with Joe’s
ex-girlfriends India
and Charlie twice, in turn, from two different perspectives. The first time we
see each scene, we might assume it is the idealised version of the scene (or,
in Charlie’s case, the meet-cute), but the second time around, while still
using the same dialogue (the scenes are identical in this regard), the mood is
very different, and we might consider them to be the reality, considering what
we find out in the following scene. There are more echoes here of Mary Shelley’s
Frankenstein than you
might at first think, and further depths to the story that Gardam could
consider exploring if she wanted to develop the story further. What would
Sierra do to Beth if she really wanted to hurt Joe? Why is Joe very much a
modern Prometheus – why did he start? What is it about India and
Charlie that prompts Joe to resurrect them as it were? Might we see more of Joe’s
relationships with Beth , India , and Charlie? What about Beth
and Sierra’s relationship – we are told they get along well, but might we be
able to see it in more than the glimpses we are afforded? These are not so much
problems with Gardam’s play because it is a rather strong play as it stands (even more remarkable in that it only had its first read-through two months ago),
but are rather provocations or nuances that might be explored in any further
development of the piece.
Regardless of what
Gardam does with it in future, Manic
Pixie Dream World is a timely and welcome addition to the exploration of
the dream-girl trope, and will leave you reeling at its conclusion. As in
Shelley’s Frankenstein, perhaps it’s
not our dreams that are the monsters, but us in the first place for dreaming of
them…
No comments:
Post a Comment