November 23, 2005
At the heart of this short piece is a struggle between good and evil, with a suggested twist. It opens, however, with an unnamed male character asleep on a table. He wakes unsure of his surroundings. Thanks to the arrival into his room of a young woman, we soon discover this is because he has lost his memory. At first, the woman’s role is ambiguous. She could in her first few lines be a young professional therapist – albeit one lacking in confidence. It soon turns out that she is the young man’s ex-partner. This is revealed when by an unprompted miracle his amnesia is cured. In fact he has more than recovered. He now has full recollection of all that went before and of the events and differences that caused him/them to be where they are now. The young man is suddenly enraged and in the ensuing argument kills his one time lover with a knife which has been conveniently left on the table - along with a packet of cigarettes, matches and an ashtray.
Needless to say anger turns to guilt. Enter a man in search of a symbol; a man who wants to be a shepherd of people. This godly figure is a little unsure of himself but almost manages to persuade the murderer that he can be saved in spite of his crime. Unfortunately, salvation involves a second murder – that of the shepherd himself. This will not only bring back the dead girl but allow all three of them to live as one big happy family. The thought of killing for a second time, not surprisingly, causes revulsion and doubt in the young man. Cue a man who preys on doubting souls. He enters only to introduce himself as Jesus. This devil (for he surely is one) has all the best lines - a factor which unfortunately has no bearing on the outcome of the play.
The battle between good and evil can provide a sound basis for drama. Unfortunately, in this case it is not as well executed as it might be. In the first instance, the circumstances of the rift between the male and female characters is vague and never spelled out. There is a sense of a power struggle, but the audience has to suspend a considerable amount of belief in order to accept that murder was a likely outcome. Apart from that, none of the characters is solidly defined. This is partly the problem of the acting, which with the exception of the devil, was pretty unremarkable, and partly due to the language of the play. While there has been an attempt to give the shepherd and the devil individual voices, the whole production is confused by what appears to be unrefined improvisation. During last night’s performance there must have been well of 200 utterances of ‘OK’; many of them in quick succession and sometimes meaning different things. There was also a repetition of lines which suggested the actors didn’t know where to take the characters next. Consequently, the language just didn’t work hard enough and, in the first half in particular, it lowered rather than heightened the drama. Inside there is probably a good play waiting to get out, but for the moment it needs a lot more work.
Needless to say anger turns to guilt. Enter a man in search of a symbol; a man who wants to be a shepherd of people. This godly figure is a little unsure of himself but almost manages to persuade the murderer that he can be saved in spite of his crime. Unfortunately, salvation involves a second murder – that of the shepherd himself. This will not only bring back the dead girl but allow all three of them to live as one big happy family. The thought of killing for a second time, not surprisingly, causes revulsion and doubt in the young man. Cue a man who preys on doubting souls. He enters only to introduce himself as Jesus. This devil (for he surely is one) has all the best lines - a factor which unfortunately has no bearing on the outcome of the play.
The battle between good and evil can provide a sound basis for drama. Unfortunately, in this case it is not as well executed as it might be. In the first instance, the circumstances of the rift between the male and female characters is vague and never spelled out. There is a sense of a power struggle, but the audience has to suspend a considerable amount of belief in order to accept that murder was a likely outcome. Apart from that, none of the characters is solidly defined. This is partly the problem of the acting, which with the exception of the devil, was pretty unremarkable, and partly due to the language of the play. While there has been an attempt to give the shepherd and the devil individual voices, the whole production is confused by what appears to be unrefined improvisation. During last night’s performance there must have been well of 200 utterances of ‘OK’; many of them in quick succession and sometimes meaning different things. There was also a repetition of lines which suggested the actors didn’t know where to take the characters next. Consequently, the language just didn’t work hard enough and, in the first half in particular, it lowered rather than heightened the drama. Inside there is probably a good play waiting to get out, but for the moment it needs a lot more work.