THE CRYPTOGRAM. (1995). David Mamet. ***.tI was half-way through the first act before I began to realize what might be going on in this drama. You know Mamet and his ways…you gotta be there. Mamet has a style that is vibrant. It is like listening to real people talking on the street. Characters interrupt each other, to the point that whole acts consist of one run-on sentence. This is a drama with only three characters: Donny, a woman in her late 30s; John, her son – of no specified age, but probably eleven to twelve; and Del, a man also in his late 30s. Del and John are in the living room, talking. John cannot get to sleep. He is too excited over a camping trip that he is taking tomorrow with his father. Del is trying to give him advice on how to fall asleep, when Donny walks in. She learns of John’s troubles and kicks in here two cents on how to fall asleep. Soon, the conversation turns to brief tales of Del’s background and what he did as a kid. We aren’t sure what the relationship between Del and the other two really is. We aren’t given any clues until the second act. It turns out that Del is there to break the news that Donny’s husband, and John’s father, isn’t coming home. He has left Donny and his son. By the second act, you can see it coming and Mamet tells us for sure through his characters’ voices. Finally, everything makes sense, and you gain some retroactive sympathy for Donny and John, and are ready to kick John’s butt as the messenger. This would be a great play to see performed. The need for a strong boy actor is essential, however. This is well worth the read.
داستان نمایش در اتاق نشیمن خانه «دانی (زنی سی و چند ساله)»، و در سال 1959 می‌گذرد. گفتگوهای نمایش بین «دل (مردی سی و چند ساله)»، «دانی» و «جان (پسر دانی، تقریبا ده ساله)» است. «دل» از یکسو برای «جان» چاقویی هدیه آورده که از یک خلبان آلمانی گرفته، همچنین کتابی را برای «دانی» آورده. در همین باره به نقل از متن کتاب: «... این یه کتابه. کتاب خودته. برات نیگرش داشتم. همه ی این سالا. شاید برا همینه که روحم گندیده، می‌دونی، می‌گن گناهایی که مرتکب می‌شیم، داغونمون نمی‌کنه، این که بعد از ارتکاب‌شون چه غلطی می‌کنیم ترتیب‌مونو می‌ده. بخش مفید علم همینه.»پایان نقلو نقل از متن: جان: خوابم نمی‌برهدل: دیگه به خودت مربوطهجان: من یه صداهایی می‌شنوم. منو صدا می‌کنندانی: آره مطمئنم. همینطورهجان: صدام می‌کنندل: چاقو رو وردار بروجان: اسم منو صدا می‌کنن. مامان. اسم منو صدا می‌کنن
Do You like book The Cryptogram (1995)?
My inner jury is still out on this play and I think the reason for it is that like many plays it doesn't read well. It's meant to be performed. It begins with so many have finished sentences, statements that seem like they should be questions, questions that seem like they should be statements that I was left wondering if anyone was actually paying attention to punctuation or if it was just being inserted randomly. When I got used to the style I started enjoying the dialogue more, but the ending just felt so "so what?" I think this is a potential setback into anything where someone is speaking in "code". Perhaps the code that is familiar to the author is not a code familiar to me and so I am missing things just like the child in the book. Then there is the ever present specter of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Is this deep and insightful because we want it to be deep and insightful when it is potentially meaningless? There's nothing there at all but people want it to be great so they start inventing the reasons why it is so great? Everything is art because we say it is? I don't know, but until I see this played out my inner jury will remain in doubt.
—Brendan
