Some Things Are Better Left Said, a review of "3" by Eric Samuelsen

I recently attended Eric Samuelsen’s latest installment of #seasonoferic at Plan-B Theatre: 3. Three signifies the number of short plays within this evening of theatre: Bar & Kell, Community Standard and Duets. May I begin by taking-off my metaphoric hat before such an important and dedicated playwright? Now that #seasonoferic is officially over, I would propose Eric Samuelsen’s voice never die out in Utah theatre. It is rare to come upon someone so sincere and bold enough to tackle delicate and immediate circumstances. All of this praise came out of a struggle I found within myself while I watched all of Eric’s plays at Plan-B (minus Radio Hour). From Nothing Personal, which brought me vis-à-vis with waterboarding and torture techniques, to Clearing Bombs, a timely discussion about economic impacts and the importance of engaging with the direction by which we continue to take this country, Eric’s platform took us through both emotional and logical sequences from an abyss of intolerance and ignorance towards the light of understanding and catharsis.

However, nothing could have prepared me for 3. And may I stop for a brief moment to congratulate all involved within Plan-B that made this season possible. I have to admit, I thought I might not see this show. I stood in stand-by Friday night, rejected; only to return Friday and get in. I am so thankful to that Spirit which moved me to see this show, even after initially being turned away. And after attending the show, I walked the streets of SLC pondering what exactly I had just seen. Three different shows; one theme of understanding and honesty. I hope that through this, not only will you gain a sense of the tremendous work Eric engages in, but that I will somehow wrap my head around the thoughts impressed on both my heart and my mind.

Bar and Kell, a play of two dedicated members of the LDS church who befriend a very less-active member that moves to their neighborhood, opened the show. Stephanie Howell, a tremendous actress, played Brandie, a mother with lots of baggage, moves into a pro-active LDS community. Almost naïvely, Brandie accepts gung-ho help from Kell and Bar, whose assertiveness overwhelm Brandie’s family and make them question their motives behind such charity. At one point, as Brandie progresses into church activity and marriage, she asks Kell, played by Christy Summerhays, why she became interested in helping her. This sudden prompting allows Kell a mental space to reflect on the meaning behind her charity. Was it all from her heart, or do societal customs dictate the way she leads her life? After all, Bar’s sometimes overbearing personality takes the community by the reigns and leads it down her own path, no matter how destructive it may be or become. And, if I might add here, my sincere gratitude to Teresa Sanderson who portrayed Bar with such effectiveness and strong choices. Never once did I doubt Bar’s pummeling character, and she even made me like her, despite her disregard to others’ thoughts. And this play leaves us with important questions. Don’t we all sometimes stop and question the motive behind our actions? This first piece gave me a space to think generally about from where my motives sprout or, at times, spurt.

 In the linguistic pedagogy world we are taught about the importance of scaffolding information to our students for more effective learning. This means we must begin with something simple, generic even, to activate previous knowledge, and then we introduce more difficult concepts. Finally, we guide our students towards a more focused yet open dialogue which allows them to receive and retain new concepts. In this way I feel the progression of the show allowed us to start with something generic like questioning motive, towards themes much more difficult and focused: the objectification of women and the difficult position of understanding homosexuality, both within the LDS community.

The second vignette, Community Standard, took us on another journey discussing such issues as pornography, how to determine standards and the implicit objectification of women through patriarchal systems, to name a few. Stephanie Howell, playing Janeal, led us on this emotional rollercoaster as she turned down time and again an easy conformist position against the person in their community who viewed pornography, as well as the subsequent call for removing such films. Her fellow jurors felt the question of what is decent was as clear as black-and-white, siding with the traditional views that pornography destroys women’s’ imagery and marital relationships. However, what Janeal reveals later, the reason she can’t accuse this man who was caught with pornography, left my mouth agape. While watching several films to see some of the pornographic elements in each of them (and the three actresses were incredibly funny as they distorted their faces from nonchalant professionalism to outright disgust), she caught the glimpse of a woman faking an orgasm. Immediately she connected with that woman, arguing that she occasionally faked her emotions with her husband during their intimate interactions. Ironically, she realized how her emotionally abusive husband treated her with the same obscenely irresponsible attitudes that men treat women in these pornographic videos. Bam! This connection absolutely blew me away. And in some ways, isn’t it the truth? While we want to better society by simply throwing away material objects, what about the personalities that aren’t as easy to rub off, and that, within a marriage. Bravo Stephanie for sincerely portraying something that touches too many damaged lives and homes.

And if this wasn’t enough to leave us pondering, the final piece left me both shocked and grappling for answers. In Duets, Eric brings up a sensitive topic to many: how those who feel homosexual feelings or consider themselves a member of the homosexual community find a way into the LDS church and the familial structure therein. I sometimes find myself grappling with this as well. At times I empathize with those of this community. It’s never been easy for me to connect my doctrinal conscience with my own feelings that at times run counter to the way in which we are told to both think and act. However, I’ve found my niche within my religion as well as in my own family. Yet for others their road isn’t as easy, as portrayed in this final play. What would appear on the surface the most remarkable couple, is actually a relationship of intermittent betrayal, emotional suffering and striving towards understanding. See, Sondra’s husband feels homosexual feelings at times, and not only has these feelings, but ultimately decides to act on those feelings. Similar to All My Sons, the way by which he overcomes this struggle is to take his own life. He wants to live the rules dictated by the LDS church, but he cannot push away his own feelings, all of which is told through Sondra. The emotional stamina with which Christy Summerhays portrays Sondra throughout this piece is amazing, if not heroic. She takes us from a melancholic standpoint to a moment of distress where, when her husband takes his life, she begs for more time to sing together. One would assume that when your significant other takes their life you would most assuredly lose all control over your emotions and react with extreme anger or pain. Sondra doesn’t act this way; rather, she accepts this fate with regret that they won’t have time to continue their duet.

Just like that the show ends and we are left to consider the various ways in which what Eric gave us can be digested. May I take the time here to again thank Plan-B Theatre Company as well as Eric Samuelsen for offering us an important reflection of our own society? I hope these important and well-written plays will not fade away, but rather continue to be produced in order to continue this space for important discussions. Ultimately, these plays are here so that we may both progress as a people towards understanding, as well learn how to demonstrate unconditional love. I think these are worthy goals. Will you join me?

Clearing Bombs

Last night I attended the world premiere of Clearing Bombs, written by Eric Samuelsen at Plan-B Theatre in SLC. The basis of the play revolves around two economic theories: Keynesian vs. Hayekian economics. These arguments, embodied by their proponents Keynes and Hayek, are polar opposite ideas. The former argues for government intervention (think of FDR’s New Deal) in order to help economies recover, while the latter would argue a totalitarian laissez-faire (think of Hoover after the Great Depression) for an eventual recovery. Using a lower-class third-man, these two economists argue their ideas in order to convince him of the correct way to proceed when WWII eventually ends. The play argues that economics both recovered the USA from the Great Depression, but that misunderstood, created the rise of Hitler. In this way, the play’s use of two economists makes their theories relevant to us today as we also look at the recovery from the Great Recession.

The performance itself was incredibly engaging, especially the dialogue. However, having had time to consider some of the details of the play, there are three parts which I found a little disconcerting. First, at the end of the play, Keynes openly confesses his homosexual stint to Hayek. It felt completely out of place, mainly because the argument lasts for maybe two minutes. It seemed more of a space created to profess an openness towards an issue contemporary to our time. Secondly, Keynes mentions his regards to Eccles, a prominent banker from Utah (and Mormon). That small dialogue (maybe less than a minute) felt like it was put there because the play is performed in Salt Lake City. However, it again felt out of place, as if it wouldn’t be something Keynes or Hayek would mention, but rather the playwright. Thirdly, Keynes’s argument seemed to revolve around the same central point throughout the play: feelings towards the poor and destitute which moves him to immediate action. This argument surfaced many times, and it felt overused. However, besides these three aspects, the rest of the dialogue was very tight, and very moving, especially as the two economists sought ways to explain their theories to a commoner.

                                       Photo from Plan-B Facebook Web Site

The setting was very minimalistic, something I enjoyed, since I felt the dialogue really held the play together well. I feel that if the setting had been more elaborate, the play would have lost some of the great actions by the incredible actors who performed their economist's arguments: Mr. Bowles (played by Kirt Bateman), John Maynard Keynes (Mark Fossen) and Friedrich Hayek (Jay Perry). Each had incredible personas on stage, since each character was able to hold their ground and argument skiilfully. Throughout the play, sporadic intervals introduced plane noises, since the plot includes the three men on top of the roof of King’s College Chapel in Cambridge. This addition planted the play within the historical context of WWII and gave an immediate sense to the relevance of the dialogue on stage.

This is definitely a play worth seeing while it’s open, especially for its relevance to how we proceed as a society currently. As talk of socialism/capitalism/communism remains a public discourse even today, this show will help decipher some of the crucial arguments found under capitalism. Also, Eric did an excellent job of leaving the audience to side with one of the two economists. I appreciated that he did not didactically steer us into one direction.

The play runs from Feb. 20-Mar. 2 at the Rose Wagner Studio Theatre in SLC, UT. Tickets are on sale at arttix.org. (Students receive a discounted ticket. I paid $12 with tax) #seasonoferic

                                              Photo from Salt Lake Tribune