About book Sexual Perversity In Chicago & The Duck Variations (1994)
I was, for some unknown reason, moved by and sort of obsessed with the film "About Last Night" when I was a kid. For better or worse (probably worse), this flawed but still unique and underrated Brat-Packer film, set in 80's Chicago - shaped my ideas of adult sexuality. The way Demi Moore (flat as an IRONING BOARD in her many nude scenes, by the way) and Rob Lowe (oh-so teen-vampire-hot in this era, even tho in this movie he doesn't wear the little dangly cross earring from "St. Elmo's Fire") fall in love and fuck and fight about Tampax wrappers and HAAAATE each other's best friends (their best friends are played by Elizabeth Perkins and James Belushi, and retrospectively, these characters and performances are still BRILLIANT, the best part of the movie)and break up and getback together - i thought that's how it would really go down when I fell in love. Of course, that's what I thought about "Singles," too. Anyway, so I finally got around to reading the promisingly-titled David Mamet play that "About Last Night" was based on: "Sexual Perversity in Chicago." Now, my issue with the movie was that the main character, Dan and Debbie, aren't REAL enough. They have no sense of humor and anything "zingy" they say - usually remnants from the Mamet play's dialogue - sounds hollow, like Moore and Lowe are ACTING smart, when they're not; they're just empty-headed, goodlooking Brat-Packers. Plus, the movie is really earnest and NOT snarky, it's hopeful: there's like three different relationship montages set to three different Sheena Easton songs.So I was thinking that all the sappy flaws of the movie that stand out to me when I watch it as an adult would be corrected in the Mamet version. I mean, this is David Mamet. His writing is filthy and mean, you know? And the play's characters certainly are strikingly different from their movie counterparts. For instance, Demi Moore's character Debbie, in the movie, has no sense of humor and is kind of a wet blanket. But in the play, she's a castrating bitch just like her best friend Joan. Problem is, in the play she's got personality, but it's not GOOD personality! It's abrasive and makes you dislike her (there's not really anyone to like in the play, while in the movie you like Joan, played by Elizabeth Perkins, and you find Bernie, played by Jim Belushi, funny) So while I was reading this harsh, painfully real, vulgar play, I kept thinking, "I wish this part were more like the movie...." Like, a little more love and a little less "tits!!! ass!!! broads!!"But I guess that's David Mamet for you. And Brat-Packer movies. The grass is always greener....
I loved 'Duck Variations'. I hated 'Sexual Perversity in Chicago'. DV is a tone poem with lots of wit, lots of invention, lots of surreal stuff, and lots of laughs. SP in C is two sexists being sexist, and two underdeveloped female characters with no real function apart from giving the despicable men a target. David Foster Wallace covers similar ground in 'Brief Interviews With Hideous Men' only Wallace' writing has intention and control that Mamet signally lacks, and Wallace' characters are both horrifying & convincing. And funny.
Do You like book Sexual Perversity In Chicago & The Duck Variations (1994)?
Mamet examines the topics of sex and death, youth and old age in the early 1970s with such honesty that his words do not feel dated at all.I was fortunate to find this edition which contains the two plays, “Sexual Perversity in Chicago” and “The Duck Variations” because they SHOULD be read together. They bookend each other perfectly, since they both deal with how we chose to confront death by living the lives we live. “Sexual Perversity in Chicago” is about how youth and inexperience can cause preconceived notions about members of the opposite sex (and the world/life in general). Being young, we are emotional and many times we tend to seek self-gratifying physical pleasure as an escape from the thought that we will one day not exist. In other words, one remedy for avoiding death is to feel the most alive you can in a given moment of ecstasy by having sex. At the core, the play reveals the way assumptions overtake truth in the games men and women play. It goes without saying that this leads to the destruction of relationships which were once full of promise. “The Duck Variations” counterbalances the first play since it is about reflection and experience rather than the impatience of youth. Two old men sit on a park bench and look at the ducks. It is not sexual and they don’t want to manipulate the other for their own personal gain. As they observe the ducks, they have a philosophical dialogue about life and the world around them. The ducks become a metaphor for a world that is mysterious and full of contradictions. They are impatient with each other at times, but overall they accept their situation: they will perish soon, as they too are part of the universe where all things that live must also die. We can assume they both had their share of life experiences…and now it’s time to move on. Perhaps they were even like the characters in “Sexual Perversity in Chicago” at one time. But now, they have actually “lived.”This collection of plays really helped to put life into perspective for me, showing me how young and old people think about the world and each other. I would recommend it to anyone who likes provocative drama.
—Curtis
David Mamet's first two plays.The first, The Duck Variations, consists of fourteen brief "variations" of a scene in which two elderly men sit on a park bench and discuss ducks. As they bicker and ramble on and on their conversations take an existential turn and transcend the subject matter at hand. It's a cute play, reminiscent of Beckett's Godot in both set-up and attitude.The second, Sexual Perversity in Chicago, is about two male friends and two female friends, and how the more cynical half of each duo undermines the other half's attempt at a healthy relationship. The back of the book quotes one critic as calling the play "utterly believable", which I agree with. Mamet has an ear for rich, earthy dialogue and the cadence with which people interrupt and midunderstand each other.
—Benja
