Initially I was put off by the recurring arguments that inevitably turned into claustrophobic screaming matches. Whether in society, or in a play modeling society, the process by which discourse devolves into clamor seems evident of immaturity in thinking and writing respectively. Perhaps in some cases this interaction even bears fruit, however I would question its effectiveness as a literary device as the action became strenuous and in my opinion, the arguments provided little comic relief.
While certain narratives function by requiring an investment up front for a reward during the finale, I was consistently questioning the urgency of the narrative until the father’s death. This could be because the story devotes equal attention to the three children as well, in spite of the fact that their side stories are not particularly interesting. In these interactions the writing occasionally seemed forced and unnatural, especially when attempting to provide the audience with opportunities for laughter. While the stories were already quite minimalistic, I would suggest arranging their presentation to be even more concise, or else developing each character include more dimensionality than a linear change upon resolution.
In spite of the abovementioned flaws, the scenes devoted to resolving the father’s death we’re forceful and impressive. The use of the elongated performance space to show three locales at once was particularly suitable for showing the different dynamics of each child’s corresponding relationship vis-à-vis their reaction to the hospitalization of the father.
Even if I disagree with the presentation, the work itself was both coherent and complete. Leaving the play, one felt an understanding of the emotions of the director, and his underlying rationale for creation.
演出場地：蔡明亮咖啡走廊