Comments on Wild Abandon and No Exit

While I do like some works that would be considered post-modern and existentialist literature, particularly that of Albert Camus (although his work is more closely associated with the Theatre of the Absurd), Wild Abandon will never be one of them. Someone could easily call the play “pretentious” or dismiss it as the product of a pseudo-intellectual, but both statements would be too harsh (and misleading) while saying absolutely nothing of the play itself. In my opinion, the play is just the opposite: too naive and simplistic in its portrayal of the existentialist crisis of Steve as well as in its facile resolution. The play’s writing was also not very strong and it felt like the writer was cherrypicking (or regurgitating) already overused existentialist themes while incorporating them into his play and hoping for the best. After delving considerably into Steve’s existential ennui and pessimistic view of life (which revolves around Shit), the play offers an idealistic exit from the isolated void within himself through a free and fluid embrace of the external world and everything (through his “fourth” dance). Steve’s sudden conversion to this philosophy is so abrupt as to appear like an unconvincing character shift created merely to resolve the play’s dilemma (or Steve’s) and leave the audience with a hopeful ending (unless one could interpret it negatively). I also couldn’t help thinking that Steve waiting for the egg to hatch was merely a symbolic substitute for Estragon and Vladimir’s waiting for Godot (the theme of waiting for a revelation that will never occur) and that I’ve seen it before in a much better play (I love Beckett). In fact, while I was watching Wild Abandon, I wished that I was seeing Beckett’s play instead of the one presently on stage.

On a side note, the choice of music in the scenes varied from good to abysmally poor (personal opinion, once again). The use of the screen was an original addition to the play, although it did nothing to increase my interest in the play (still, got to give it points for originality, I guess). Lastly, the actor’s dedication to the material was admirable and he did a respectable job with it (I am being very lenient here and this last sentence may tinged with a form of unconscious sarcasm or it could be genuinely sincere. I’ll leave it up to you to decide).

On a side note, the reader of the above review should be aware that my snobbish pose is just that a pose and the review is not a serious critique of the play, but a joke to please my fancy. If I was seriously reviewing the play, it would, in fact, be much worse (I kid, I kid).

 As for Jean-Paul Sartre’s No Exit, I really liked it and enjoyed all the performances within it. As Garcin, Tim Turnell was quite good, although I’ve seen him do better. Dr. Bell and Jones were likewise fun to watch and delivered good performances as Estelle and Ines. The setting was minimalist (three Second Empire seats and a mantelpiece with an aesthetically displeasing statue) and this minimalism was suitable for the play because it focused the audience’s attention on the play’s characters and thus the performances at hand. However, the main reason that I enjoyed No Exit more than Wild Abandon is the superiority of the writing (“Hell is other people,” great line) and the development of its themes (overall, Sartre’s play is just better constructed and structured than Wild Abandon). Now, I know that post-modern works like The Wild Abandon are intentionally fragmented, but often there is an underlying structure that makes it all work. Despite Wild Abandon’s attempt to cover many diverse themes of existentialism and fill the play with an excess of content, No Exit seemed a better expression of the themes often linked to existentialism, even though it appeared a simpler play (in my opinion, it is a more complicated play than Wild Abandon). 

Occasionally, a simpler structure or approach to a theme can produce a better artistic product than the mental mastubatory musings of a bad playwright (no, I am not referring to Daniel MacIvor here, even I would find that a bit much). An example of this would be Vittorio De Sica’s The Bicycle Thief (it’s a very simplistic neo-realist film, but also an amazing film).   

I would write more on Dr. Moore’s No Exit, but there is very little to criticize. However, I may write some more on the play later or talk in specifics about the play’s themes. I will eventually post something on Susanna Centlivre’s A Bold Stroke for a Wife. I’ve been too busy trying to decide where to go for graduate studies to post about it earlier. So, that is all for now. Unfortunately, I just realized that I only had to review No Exit and not Wild Abandon, why do I bother?