Satan was Given the Best Poetry
I've just been to see a production of Freud's Last Session; it was beautiful, humorous and warm. Although Freud and CS Lewis never met, St. Germain imagines that they did, which is the basis for the play. The meeting of two people so convinced they are right is captivating. The two actors set the scene for each other, Lewis presenting Freud first. And then London, at the cusp of World War 2 seeps in through the radio, as Chamberlain and then King George speak. Lewis wonders why Freud asked him to come, Freud seems only to want to provoke him and see what happens. They spar, neither ever quite getting the upper hand.
I didn't know it, but Freud loved Paradise Lost. I took a course on PL a few semesters ago, and read Lewis' famous analysis. To hear it referred on stage felt like vindication: finally a use for my education. But, my moments of triumph aside, it was a well balanced match between Freud and Lewis. It was a joy to watch. The choice to present Freud as a provocateur seemed astute, it must have driven him, at least in part. It made me want to dig up the Freud biography my grandfather gave me years ago. Perhaps it'll seem slightly less daunting when I can imagine Freud as a Norwegian with a blunted Bergen accent?
I'm enough of a traditionalist that I appreciate an actual set, with props and costumes. (Worst play I've ever seen was a highly experimental production of The Wild Duck, where no one had set lines, and half of it happened in complete darkness.) I don't believe two men on wooden stools would have evoked Freud's office the way a reproduction of his office did. Unless it's a familiar play, it is difficult to strip the mise en scene down to a single component, and expect the theatre spell to hold. That spell is so important; Broken only when the actors step out of their role for their bows, remove their character's glasses and straighten to full height.
I didn't know it, but Freud loved Paradise Lost. I took a course on PL a few semesters ago, and read Lewis' famous analysis. To hear it referred on stage felt like vindication: finally a use for my education. But, my moments of triumph aside, it was a well balanced match between Freud and Lewis. It was a joy to watch. The choice to present Freud as a provocateur seemed astute, it must have driven him, at least in part. It made me want to dig up the Freud biography my grandfather gave me years ago. Perhaps it'll seem slightly less daunting when I can imagine Freud as a Norwegian with a blunted Bergen accent?
I'm enough of a traditionalist that I appreciate an actual set, with props and costumes. (Worst play I've ever seen was a highly experimental production of The Wild Duck, where no one had set lines, and half of it happened in complete darkness.) I don't believe two men on wooden stools would have evoked Freud's office the way a reproduction of his office did. Unless it's a familiar play, it is difficult to strip the mise en scene down to a single component, and expect the theatre spell to hold. That spell is so important; Broken only when the actors step out of their role for their bows, remove their character's glasses and straighten to full height.