"It can be
argued that Neil Simon is not only America's most successful
playwright, but
also the most successful playwright in the history of theatre."1
Despite being
criticized for lack of substance, his hugely successful comedies
are consistently
revived, whether on Broadway or in other community or
dinner
theatres. Last week the University of
Notre Dame's Mainstage season
opened with the
departmental premiere of Barefoot in the Park.
Though
the play
originally opened more then thirty years ago, the themes of
compatibility and
compromise that it presents are still relevant today. Simon
masterfully
manipulated the plot of Barefoot in the Park to include all of the
elements of a
fine play (intrigue, credibility, surprise, etc.) and to create a
viable playscript
that both emphasizes the play's major themes and, just as
importantly,
makes the audience laugh.
Simon has skillfully constructed the plot of
Barefoot in the Park to
showcase and
emphasize his themes of compatibility and need for
compromise. The plot itself starts out fairly
simple. In the first act, Paul
and Corie
Bratter, wed but six days, move into their new apartment on the
top floor of a
brownstone in New York City. From the
very first, the
audience can see
that these are two very different characters that have very
different values,
and yet Paul and Corie are very much in love.
The plot
progresses as
other characters are introduced. First
to visit the newlyweds is
Corie's mother,
Mrs. Banks. The relationship between
Corie and her mother
also involves a
clash of very distinct personalities.
With the appearance of
the Bratter's
eccentric upstairs neighbor, Victor Velasco, Corie sees the
opportunity to
play matchmaker and inject a little romance into her staid
mother's
life. The first act concludes with
Corie's plan to bring the two
together at an
upcoming dinner party, much to the chagrin of her husband
Paul. This creates intrigue--"that quality of
a play which makes us curious
(sometimes
fervently so) to see 'what happens next'"2--because the audience is
left wondering
whether Corie's plan will work. Thus the
first act provides
exposition,
creates a feeling of suspense, and begins to showcase the
compatibility
problems in the relationships of several of the characters.
The second act takes place in two parts: the
first before Corie's dinner
party, and the
second in the aftermath. Throughout the
first part of the act,
Simon emphasizes
the enthusiasm, spontaneity, and lack of forethought with
which Corie
approaches her matchmaking task. Paul,
on the other hand, acts
like "a
stuffed shirt"3 and tries to show Corie the foolishness of her plan.
The evening, he
says, "has fiasco written all over it!"4 In addition to the
widening gulf
between the newlyweds, this scene also re-emphasizes the
complete
opposition of personalities between Mrs. Banks (Ethel) and Victor
Velasco. Velasco cooks extravagant and exotic foods
(despite not having any
money) and
doesn't even wear a coat in the middle of February. Mrs. Banks,
on the other
hand, sleeps on a board. The audience
feels that the two of
them are
completely incompatible and that the evening is destined to be a
disaster.
The second part of act 2 begins when Corie and
Velasco come tango-
ing through the
door of the Bratters' apartment. The
audience's interest is
immediately
captivated as they wonder what has become of Paul and Mrs.
Banks. The suspense doesn't last long, though, as
Paul soon enters carrying
his
near-unconscious mother-in-law. As the
evening winds to a close, Velasco
offers to escort
Mrs. Banks home to New Jersey, with presumably more
licentious
motives in mind. Meanwhile Corie and
Paul begin the first major
argument of their
wedded life. Though Simon handles the
fight with a light
touch, the
disagreement nevertheless shows the way that some couples can
become blinded by
differences and reluctant to compromise.
Also, the events
of the second act
have led naturally to this point, creating an element of
credibility (also
known as the "internal consistency of a play"5. The second
act closes with
the rift between the Paul and Corie at its widest; Corie wants a
divorce and Paul
is left to sleep out on the couch under the broken skylight.
The third act begins rather quietly, as Corie
and Paul avoid each other
and silently
carry on their argument from the night before.
The tension
suddenly erupts
when Corie receives a phone call from a relative explaining
that Mrs. Banks
never arrived home the night before.
Fearing the worst,
Corie climbs up
to Velasco's "apartment" to ascertain her mother's
whereabouts. Paul is surprised to see his wife return in
tears minutes later.
With perfect
comic timing, the cause of Corie's outburst is revealed when her
mother comes
running in dressed in only Velasco's silk bathrobe. The
injection of this
element of surprise proves the skill with which Simon has
constructed his
plot: "Surprise is an essential ingredient of intrigue: a play that
is truly
intriguing is one that leads us to expect surprises and then
appropriately
rewards our expectations."6 As Mrs.
Banks tries to explain the
awkward situation
to her hysterical daughter, Paul finds opportunity to leave
the apartment,
clutching a liquor bottle in one hand and a suitcase in the
other. At this point the narrative seems at its
darkest; it seems as if every
relationship in
the play has self-destructed. The
audience still expects a
happy ending, but
the plot has made the possibility of it actually happening
seem small indeed.
Enter Victor Velasco. Though Mrs. Banks doesn't receive him warmly
at first, her
demeanor rapidly becomes friendlier as he relates the previous
evening's events
to her. This is almost a kind of
denouement in the Banks-
Velasco plot
line. All the hidden events have been
revealed, and the two
characters
reestablish their relationship. Velasco
leaves after inviting Mrs.
Banks to dinner;
she accepts. Thus the resolution of her
situation with
Velasco teaches
Mrs. Banks the worth of compromise and she can now help
her daughter win
back the love of Paul. Persuaded by her
mother's
impassioned
advice, Corie is rushing to go look for her spouse when the
audience is
surprised again--Paul has returned.
Corie is astonished to find
that Paul is completely
drunk, and she becomes even more astonished at the
outrageous way
her "stuffed shirt" of a husband is acting. In the hilarious
climax of the
play, Paul answers Corie's inquiries about his lack of socks with
the answer,
"I've been walking barefoot in the goddam park!"7 The audience
is pleased
because Paul and Corie have both demonstrated an ability and
willingness to
compromise, and therefore the expectation of a happy ending
has been
fulfilled. Corie has recognized the
error of her impetuous
meddling and the
need for forethought, while Paul has shed some of his
inhibitions and
managed to "let loose" for once in his life. Mrs. Banks' advice
to Corie to
"give up a little of [herself] for him"8 has become applicable to
both her daughter
and her son-in-law. Thus the resolution
of the play has
fulfilled the
audiences expectations, made them laugh, and reemphasized the
major themes of
the play.
Though the compatibility problems of two
newlyweds, a crotchety old
woman, and an
eccentric pauper do not seem to generate much "substance"
in a play,
nevertheless Neil Simon manages to arrange the events that make
up the plot of
Barefoot in the Park in such a way as to include all of the
elements of a
fine play (intrigue, credibility, surprise, etc.). America's
premiere
playwright also creates a viable playscript that emphasizes the
show's major
themes of compatibility and compromise.
And, perhaps most
importantly,
Simon's skill as a playwright is revealed in the wonderful way
Barefoot in the
Park makes the audience laugh.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cohen,
Richard. Theatre. 3rd ed.
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield
Publishing Company, 1993.
Donnelly, Richard
E. The Play Structure. COTH 205, 5 September 1996.
Simon, Neil. Barefoot in the Park. 1963.
No comments:
Post a Comment