"and one man in his time plays many parts"

Well, clearly, we have been big time MIA. What can I say - Life is complicated when you're an international couple of mystery.

....

Anyhow, as we await a much anticipated Guest blog post from my friend who is most like Indiana Jones, today we expand upon our last DC theater recommendation with another suggestion. A few days back we saw Harold Pinter's Old Times at The Shakespeare Theatre Company’s Lansburgh Theatre. Despite the Company's mildly irritating affinity for spam emailing us every three minutes since seeing this play, we very much enjoyed the production and recommend it to readers. It will be showing through July 3, 2011 and discounted tickets are available (in fact, through Gen's sneaky machinations, we saw it for ten bucks).

By the aforementioned "very much enjoyed it," I mean that we were utterly, deliciously, baffled by the play - walked out a bit dazed - immediately I-phone searching various interpretations of Pinter's haunting work - and debated ours and these analyses. It's telling that a week later, I'm still thinking about what it all meant.

Basically, Old Times examines memory and "reality" through a basic story line - three seemingly former friends find themselves together for the first time in twenty years and recall their relationship - both nostalgically and traumatically. Two of the friends, Deeley and Kate, are introduced as a couple currently living together in the country, and the third character, Anna, a visiting friend, was Kate's flat mate in London years ago. From the play's first scene, it is alluded that Anna was in love and perhaps sexually involved with one or both of the now married Deeley and Kate. Through out their evening of conversation together - tensions arise, their laughter/drinking/general charged intimacy both exhilarates and exhausts you, and it becomes clear that - well, at the risk of cliche ... nothing is at it seems! The three freinds' interpretations and recollections of the past and of their past selves differ and blend to the point where the audience is no longer sure that these are even separate individuals and which scenes are occurring in memory, in the present, and/or in the past. In fact, the minimalist stage and the characters' manner leave you feeling sealed in, as if even trapped within someone's psyche or privy to a dream that they are replaying for themselves.

Katie, Deeley, and Anna on set

I don't want to expand too much upon my interpretation because I think it's best to see it as we did with no influence but if you do end up seeing it - I'd love to chat and hear your thoughts!

The one thing that is clear is that whatever really did or did not happentwenty years ago - Anna's visit, her presence and corresponding evocation of Kate's previous, pre-Deeley life, and her complex dual attraction/revulsion to Deeley provokes and threatens some fine balance between Deeley and Kate. The level of tension is high - you know that these people (or arguably this individual's mind that you're in) experienced some great suffering and understand that in one fateful episode (relived at the end of the play and evoked through out) there was a cataclysmic break through of sorts.

Perhaps, Pinter's one failing is that Deeley is written almost too opaquely as a Mad Men era esque businessman - an example of male ego and entitlement, completey uncomfortable with female friendship. Although, I suppose his weakness, discomfort, and ensuing aggression in the face of Anna and Kate's closeness makes a lot of sense depending on how you interpret the story. After all, some would argue that he may have lost the love of his life to her personal demons and/or be losing her again to mental illness once put to rest. In this context, his frantic battle to put a stake on Kate, his angry need to out do Anna and chase her out, makes more sense.

As vague and dreary as that all sounds, I should note that the play is also quite funny. Much of the dialogue consists of Deeley and Anna practically competing for Kate's attention and for the accurate recollection of a collective memory - both of which make for laugh-out-loud moments.

I'm also especially impressed with the actors because the task before them was to be both intriguing and elusive and to demonstrate how these fraught relationships both sustain and eat away at all involved.

So, in sum, see this disorienting, fascinating piece if you can. It really was a thoughtfully rendered, interactive, choose your own [theatrical] adventure, and we enjoyed "figuring it out."