The first in the 2009 MTC season, and not a bad one, though not one that overly impressed me either; it stages the playing out of the response of Grace, a committed atheist (though she disavows the label on the basis that it still presupposes the validity of theism, preferring 'naturalist'), to the news that her son intends to become a priest.
I'm not sure quite why I didn't like it as much as everyone else seemed to (no one seemed to love it, but the general response was pretty positive); at first, it struck me as overly programmatic, but some of the turns it took in the second half pretty much shook that off (though not completely so), and I didn't feel that the characters were too much mouthpieces for particular points of view (though they kind of were at points), nor that any particular agenda was being pushed upon me.
The main thing, I think, is that I found it a bit trite and kind of uninteresting - at a purely intellectual/abstract level, it didn't have anything especially profound to say (the early stages in particular, as some very familiar examples are laid out - the indeterminacy of legal concepts of truth, proof and doubt; the old 'blind watchmaker' argument and response; 'why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast'; made me wince), and at the level of investing abstract ideas with a specific/personal dimension and thereby illuminating them, which is really the province of the play (as opposed to other forms like the philosophical essay), there simply wasn't a strong enough thread to hold it all together (though to be fair, "Grace" does take the form, I think, of a conversation in openness, rather than seeking to run any particular line)...as to that latter, I mean that the play itself wasn't lacking a certain something that would have really brought it to life, or made it genuinely about life (though the actors were all solid - I don't think any blame could accrue to them for the failure).
A couple of personal resonances - Philip Larkin, my favourite poet in high school, and Ani Difranco's song "Untouchable Face", also a favourite during my school years, both feature prominently (indeed, the copy of Larkin's Collected Works that was used is the same edition as mine, green with the yellow and white text on the cover). Also, the juxtaposition of Grace's hardline rationalism with religious faith made me wonder for the first time about possible similarities between continental philosophy and religious belief - the one obviously far more rigorous and, for mine, more, plausible than the other, of course, but both founded on a rejection of any narrow (I would say, 'artificially narrow') understanding of concepts like 'knowledge', 'proof' and 'truth'.
* * *
[Edit: As usual, Alison Croggon is spot on about this one (her blog is rather excellent).]
* * *
[part of an MTC subscription with Steph, Sunny & co]
I'm not sure quite why I didn't like it as much as everyone else seemed to (no one seemed to love it, but the general response was pretty positive); at first, it struck me as overly programmatic, but some of the turns it took in the second half pretty much shook that off (though not completely so), and I didn't feel that the characters were too much mouthpieces for particular points of view (though they kind of were at points), nor that any particular agenda was being pushed upon me.
The main thing, I think, is that I found it a bit trite and kind of uninteresting - at a purely intellectual/abstract level, it didn't have anything especially profound to say (the early stages in particular, as some very familiar examples are laid out - the indeterminacy of legal concepts of truth, proof and doubt; the old 'blind watchmaker' argument and response; 'why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast'; made me wince), and at the level of investing abstract ideas with a specific/personal dimension and thereby illuminating them, which is really the province of the play (as opposed to other forms like the philosophical essay), there simply wasn't a strong enough thread to hold it all together (though to be fair, "Grace" does take the form, I think, of a conversation in openness, rather than seeking to run any particular line)...as to that latter, I mean that the play itself wasn't lacking a certain something that would have really brought it to life, or made it genuinely about life (though the actors were all solid - I don't think any blame could accrue to them for the failure).
A couple of personal resonances - Philip Larkin, my favourite poet in high school, and Ani Difranco's song "Untouchable Face", also a favourite during my school years, both feature prominently (indeed, the copy of Larkin's Collected Works that was used is the same edition as mine, green with the yellow and white text on the cover). Also, the juxtaposition of Grace's hardline rationalism with religious faith made me wonder for the first time about possible similarities between continental philosophy and religious belief - the one obviously far more rigorous and, for mine, more, plausible than the other, of course, but both founded on a rejection of any narrow (I would say, 'artificially narrow') understanding of concepts like 'knowledge', 'proof' and 'truth'.
* * *
[Edit: As usual, Alison Croggon is spot on about this one (her blog is rather excellent).]
* * *
[part of an MTC subscription with Steph, Sunny & co]
