Neil Simon

’s ‘Barefoot In The Park’ Essay, Research Paper

“It can be argued that Neil Simon is not only America’s most successful

playwright, but also the most successful playwright in the history of theatre.”1

Despite being criticized for lack of substance, his hugely successful comedies

are consistently revived, whether on Broadway or in other community or

dinner theatres. Last week the University of Notre Dame’s Mainstage season

opened with the departmental premiere of Barefoot in the Park. Though

the play originally opened more then thirty years ago, the themes of

compatibility and compromise that it presents are still relevant today. Simon

masterfully manipulated the plot of Barefoot in the Park to include all of the

elements of a fine play (intrigue, credibility, surprise, etc.) and to create a

viable playscript that both emphasizes the play’s major themes and, just as

importantly, makes the audience laugh.

Simon has skillfully constructed the plot of Barefoot in the Park to

showcase and emphasize his themes of compatibility and need for

compromise. The plot itself starts out fairly simple. In the first act, Paul

and Corie Bratter, wed but six days, move into their new apartment on the

top floor of a brownstone in New York City. From the very first, the

audience can see that these are two very different characters that have very

different values, and yet Paul and Corie are very much in love. The plot

progresses as other characters are introduced. First to visit the newlyweds is

Corie’s mother, Mrs. Banks. The relationship between Corie and her mother

also involves a clash of very distinct personalities. With the appearance of

the Bratter’s eccentric upstairs neighbor, Victor Velasco, Corie sees the

opportunity to play matchmaker and inject a little romance into her staid

mother’s life. The first act concludes with Corie’s plan to bring the two

together at an upcoming dinner party, much to the chagrin of her husband

Paul. This creates intrigue–”that quality of a play which makes us curious

(sometimes fervently so) to see ‘what happens next’”2–because the audience is

left wondering whether Corie’s plan will work. Thus the first act provides

exposition, creates a feeling of suspense, and begins to showcase the

compatibility problems in the relationships of several of the characters.

The second act takes place in two parts: the first before Corie’s dinner

party, and the second in the aftermath. Throughout the first part of the act,

Simon emphasizes the enthusiasm, spontaneity, and lack of forethought with

which Corie approaches her matchmaking task. Paul, on the other hand, acts

like “a stuffed shirt”3 and tries to show Corie the foolishness of her plan.

The evening, he says, “has fiasco written all over it!”4 In addition to the

widening gulf between the newlyweds, this scene also re-emphasizes the

complete opposition of personalities between Mrs. Banks (Ethel) and Victor

Velasco. Velasco cooks extravagant and exotic foods (despite not having any

money) and doesn’t even wear a coat in the middle of February. Mrs. Banks,

on the other hand, sleeps on a board. The audience feels that the two of

them are completely incompatible and that the evening is destined to be a

disaster.

The second part of act 2 begins when Corie and Velasco come tango-

ing through the door of the Bratters’ apartment. The audience’s interest is

immediately captivated as they wonder what has become of Paul and Mrs.

Banks. The suspense doesn’t last long, though, as Paul soon enters carrying

his near-unconscious mother-in-law. As the evening winds to a close, Velasco

offers to escort Mrs. Banks home to New Jersey, with presumably more

licentious motives in mind. Meanwhile Corie and Paul begin the first major

argument of their wedded life. Though Simon handles the fight with a light

touch, the disagreement nevertheless shows the way that some couples can

become blinded by differences and reluctant to compromise. Also, the events

of the second act have led naturally to this point, creating an element of

credibility (also known as the “internal consistency of a play”5. The second

act closes with the rift between the Paul and Corie at its widest; Corie wants a

divorce and Paul is left to sleep out on the couch under the broken skylight.

The third act begins rather quietly, as Corie and Paul avoid each other

and silently carry on their argument from the night before. The tension

suddenly erupts when Corie receives a phone call from a relative explaining

that Mrs. Banks never arrived home the night before. Fearing the worst,

Corie climbs up to Velasco’s “apartment” to ascertain her mother’s

whereabouts. Paul is surprised to see his wife return in tears minutes later.

With perfect comic timing, the cause of Corie’s outburst is revealed when her

mother comes running in dressed in only Velasco’s s

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать