IBJOpinion

LOU'S VIEWS: Thinking magically at the Indiana Repertory Theatre

Lou Harry
February 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Lou Harry

“It will happen to you.”

That’s what Joan Didion tells us right up front in “The Year of Magical Thinking,” the one-woman play based on her memoir of the same name. She’s talking about death. Not your death. The death of those you love.

“I’m telling you what you need to know,” she says. “That’s why I’m here.”

Death isn’t something danced around in Didion’s play (being presented through March 7 as part of the Indiana Repertory Theatre’s “Going Solo” festival of one-character pieces). Death is front and center, infusing nearly every line of the show.  

AE story art Fontaine Syer plays author Joan Didion in the autobiographical one-woman show “The Year of Magical Thinking.” (Photos Courtesy Indiana Repertory Theatre)

Here, death doesn’t open the door to a heavenly reward, it doesn’t make its victims noble, and it doesn’t empower the ones it abandons. It doesn’t cause music to swell.

And it happens suddenly.

“The Year of Magical Thinking” concerns the sudden death of Didion’s husband—which occurred while the family was still in turmoil from the inexplicable illness of her only child, an adult daughter who died within the same year.

It is, of course, impossible to imagine such two-fold grief. For some who have suffered their own losses, it will be impossible to imagine wanting to sit through a play about such a story. The pain that generated the creation of the book and play can’t help but mix with the pain of the memories it evokes in the audience. I doubt if anyone will be able to watch it without thinking about the love ones they’ve lost—and the process it took to continue with their lives.

It took me not only to my own losses, but also to other narratives of grief. For me, those include James Agee’s “A Death in the Family,” which I reread every few years for its remarkable insight, honest poetry and multiple perspectives. And William Wharton’s lesser-known but remarkably gutsy “Ever After: A Father’s True Story,” in which he gives not only his own perspective on the death of his daughter and her family, but also attempts to assume her persona and write as her in the first person. Like I said, gutsy.

And, of course, there’s that final, aching scene in “Our Town.” Only in Thornton Wilder’s play, we get death primarily from the point of view of the dead, not the survivor.

For survivor Joan Didion (here played by Fontaine Syer, from the Indiana University theater department faculty), the process involved trying to think magically—to believe that one’s thoughts can change the physical world. If Didion doesn’t clear the closet of her husband’s clothes, then he can’t be dead. Part of the power of the piece is seeing such denial come from such a seemingly rational woman.

Like a trapeze artist, a solo performer is often applauded just for getting to the end without a major slip. Syer does more than that and is particularly affecting when chronicling unpleasant, very specific details. I’m guessing her cold-ish portrayal is more like the real Didion than Vanessa Redgrave’s approach in the Broadway production (which I didn’t see). Still, there’s a virtuosity missing here that might have helped the play over its rougher spots. Elsewhere, the play has been performed without intermission, and I think that would have helped the piece build toward its not surprising conclusion.

Didion doesn’t do a particularly effective job of painting multidimensional pictures of the unseen characters. I wanted to know more about how this privileged family operated. And more about her daughter’s husband, who barely registers in Didion’s narrative. Is there jealousy in grief? Was the daughter a hostile patient? Had Didion’s husband been ill before?

For a while, I wondered if this were part of the design—perhaps the payoff would come from the realization that she didn’t really know her husband and daughter as well as she thought. But that doesn’t prove to be the case: The play just isn’t interested in painting a clear picture of anyone but Didion. And, even then, jumps in time repeatedly reminded us that Didion is telling about something that happened, not something that is happening.

Perhaps, though, it would have been even more painful to experience it with her, rather than filtered by that not-so-magical-year’s time.•

__________

This column appears weekly. Send information on upcoming arts and entertainment events to lharry@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

  2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

  3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

  4. Send them back NOW.

  5. deport now

ADVERTISEMENT