The Real Thing

I picked this up after s.penkevich's review. I had not read a play in a while, and was immediately intrigued.

It is such a joy! For the amount of hurt in there, it is amazing how Stoppard is able to cover it up with satirical cynicism. Great commentary on love, trust, friendship, and infidelity. Highly recommend.

There’s something scary about stupidity made coherent. I can deal with idiots, and I can deal with sensible argument, but I don’t know how to deal with you.

Another few lines on a similar note ...

HENRY Don’t get too good at that.
DEBBIE What?
HENRY Persuasive nonsense. Sophistry in a phrase so neat you can’t see the loose end that would unravel it. It’s flawless but wrong. A perfect dud.

I also really like how it show more explores the duplicity of love. It can be so complete that it borders on selfless, and at the same time so utterly selfish!

The trouble is, I can’t find a part of myself where you’re not important. I write in order to be worth your while and to finance the way I want to live with you. Not the way you want to live. The way I want to live with you. Without you I wouldn’t care. I’d eat tinned spaghetti and put on yesterday’s clothes.

Another fun read! Will definitely check out other plays from Stoppard. I like his sense of humour and witty spews. show less

While this does bear the hallmarks of a Tom Stoppard play, it is not up to his usual standard. There is very little hilarity in the jokes, and the dialogue is rather uninspired. The short pieces of a play within a play were written to be deliberately bad, and he did achieve that to some rather hilarious results. The problem is that the plot feels contrived, and the characters are not sympathetic, nor are the unlikable in a particularly interesting way. They are flat. The premise of adultery wrapped up in more adultery, and the inability to maintain a constant, faithful relationship with one person is banal by virtue of being overdone. Overall, a work not worthy of a genius, and one wonders why it won prizes.

Two couples negotiate marriage, creativity, love and infidelity in 1980s London. A beautifully clever scene involves a cricket bat vs. a plank of wood as a comparison of good writing vs. bad.

I forgive a lot for the cricket-bat metaphor. This starts out being one play, a truly fascinating one, about metafiction and the nature of belief and the power of context, but turns out to be a different one, with politics visible and Stoppard's weakness with writing women on full display. It's still good and interesting, but it's a simplified Arcadia, and I'm sorry for that.

This play about love (when is it the "real thing"?) & jealousy doesn't age as well as some of Stoppard's other plays. That said, it is still a fun play to read & I would love to see it performed. The Stoppard touch is evident with certain scenes & pieces of dialogue repeating throughout the play, with differing emphasis or characters. The strength of the play (in my humble opinion) is in the exploration of how couples react to the infidelity (real and imagined).

I wasn't a huge fan of this play, but that's probably due to my lack of interest in romantic themes in literature. The Life Imitates Art angle had potential, but didn't engage me enough to make a difference, and there was never a point that I really felt invested in any of the characters. Not a bad play, but not really for me.

Wow - what a great play. I was fortunate enough to see this on Broadway a few years back with the incomparable Jennifer Ehle.