Miracle Workers: Masquers Playhouse’s “The Marriage of Bette and Boo”

Love and Marriage: From left, Paul (David Weiner), Bette (Michelle Pond), Joan (Anne Collins), and Margaret (Ellen Brooks). Photo: Adam Telfer.

Christopher Durang’s 1985 play The Marriage of Bette and Boo deserves to be considered a classic of American theater, yet many people have never heard of it, let alone seen it.  Even folks who love Durang’s other work are likely not to have encountered it, or having encountered it, are likely not to comprehend it. This is somewhat understandable given its surprising tonal shifts from comedy to tragedy, its comic non sequitor dialog, and the highly stylized portrayals of the extended family of the show’s narrator, Matt “Skippy” Hudlocke.  (In my first encounter with the play, reading the script, I didn’t much understand it myself.) Frank Rich’s respectful but ultimately negative review of the original New York production, in which Durang himself portrayed Matt, compared the show to The Glass Menagerie, mainly due to its autobiographical nature and the narrator/son being the playwright’s alter ego.  I’ve seen a videotape of that original New York production with its amazing cast—in addition to Durang, it starred Joan Allen, Mercedes Ruehl, Olympia Dukakis, and Richard B. Shull—and it’s clear that Rich missed how the comedy and the sorrow work together, how the broad strokes with which the characters are at first painted coalesce into a vivid reality, and that what Durang achieved was nothing less than an absurdist Long Day’s Journey Into Night.  This thinly disguised portrait of Durang’s own dysfunctional family, troubled by unhappy marriages, alcoholism, and broken dreams, looking to the insufficient, even deleterious, balm of Catholicism to ease their pain, is an uproariously funny, profoundly moving, and achingly beautiful act of both compassion and forgiveness.

So someone please tell me what the hell a small amateur community theater in sleepy little Point Richmond is doing putting on this play? What, pray tell, is The Marriage of Bette and Boo doing in a season that features such crowd-pleasers as The Musical of Musicals, The Hot Mikado, and The Mystery of Irma Vep?  And how could it possibly be any good?

The Masquers Playhouse production, despite its tiny budget, its amateur actors, its rough edges, is, unbelievably, astonishing.  This can be largely credited to the skill and love lavished on the show by its two directors, Peter Budinger, who also portrays Matt, and DC Scarpelli.  Budinger and Scarpelli fell in love with the show as undergraduates at Yale and somehow convinced the Masquers to take a risk that very few would.  Bette and Boo will be puzzling to many and offensive to some, qualities that most community theaters go out of their way to avoid.

Matt, called Skippy by his mother after her favorite Jackie Cooper movie, narrates the story of his devout Catholic family: his mother Bette (Michelle Pond), desperately trying to have another child but suffering stillbirth after stillbirth; his father Boo (Craig Eychner) turning to drink as a respite from the horrors of his marriage and each failed birth, paternal grandmother Soot (Nancy Sale) who nods and smiles as her husband Karl (Jerry Telfer) mocks and insults her; maternal grandmother Margaret (Ellen Brooks) who strides confidently through the chaos around her as if unaware of the miseries of her life, which include a husband who makes noise but can’t speak (David Weiner) and two other daughters besides Bette: Joan (Anne Collins) trapped in a miserable marriage of her own, and the sweet and awkward Emily (Vicki Zabarte), who has so subsumed the lessons of Catholicism that she’s crushed by her own sense of guilt.  (She apologizes for everything, even her own existence, going so far as to prepare apologies in advance, for future wrongs.)

The show does start out on slightly rocky footing.  The timing of the comic bits doesn’t always work as it should, and cues aren’t always picked up as quickly as they could be.  Not all of the actors have sufficient technique and training to carry off Durang’s unique absurdist style, but the production begins to settle into its own rhythms, and the amateurish quality of some of the acting, incredibly, begins to work.  In using people who aren’t professional actors (though many in the cast have extensive credits), people who look like normal people, people who are normal people, you stop seeing actors on the stage, and you begin to see the folks you know: You see your neighbors, you see your family.  It also helps that as the two title characters, Michelle Pond and Craig Eychner are better than anyone has a right to expect.  Pond’s Bette chatters breezily and voluminously as she repeatedly tries to give her life purpose by giving birth to more babies, all of them, save Matt, stillborn.  Craig’s Boo suffers stoically, turning to drink for some small release from his unbearable life, and begging Bette to stop trying to have another child.  His Boo dies a little more with each new stillborn birth.  When he finally breaks down, it’s almost unbearable, like the first time you saw your own father cry.

Budinger gives a very smart performance as the observant, perceptive Matt.  When playing the child Matt, he simply sits on the floor, and watches the peculiar unhappy adults around him.  He doesn’t change his voice or adopt any childish mannerisms and you accept him as the 10-year-old Matt completely.  You see the direct connection between the bewildered 10-year-old and the bewildered adult.  When his mother asks the now-grown Matt if he thinks God is punishing her, he responds, ”I don’t believe that God punishes people for specific things.  He punishes people in general… for no reason,” probably the most succinct statement of absurdist philosophy ever written. As Matt, Budinger puzzles out the drives and desires that lead the adults around him to grief and despair, watching but never condemning.

As Matt’s paternal grandparent’s, Telfer’s Karl drinks and insults his wife, accusing her of “not saying one sensible word in thirty years of marriage,” while Sale’s Soot (the origin of the nickname is a running gag) grins and laughs, trying to pass off his remarks as being all in fun. Telfer and Soot look like someone’s grandparents, and though it’s sometimes hard to hear Telfer’s foggy growl of a voice, you believe that this couple stays locked in their unhappiness because they can’t conceive of anything better.

On the distaff side, Brooks is a marvel as Bette’s mother.  Margaret is in some essential way immune to the suffering of others, even confessing to us that she’s glad of her adult children’s failures because it keeps them at home with her.  That her husband makes incoherent noises (possibly due to a stroke, but never really explained) and literally can’t communicate (in a family where even those who speak clearly still can’t make themselves heard) isn’t really a burden to her.  She’s found her way through life and doesn’t need anyone challenging her near-pathological approach.  But Brooks also makes Margaret charming, probably the only one of the four grandparents that you could actually stand to spend time with in real life, and it’s clear that her self-assuredness and self-deception is what allows her to survive. In one of the final scenes, she receives her life’s awful reward of senility, and Brooks makes your heart break for Margaret as well.  Weiner and Collins are used extremely well, and Robert Love in the dual roles of the priest and the doctor—the two external authority figures that reign over Bette and Boo’s lives, one sacred and one secular, both of no use whatsoever—has some very funny moments.  As the priest conducting a marriage counseling session, he flops on the floor and imitates a piece of bacon sizzling.  (It’s as helpful as anything else the priest does.)

As the ever guilty, ever responsible Emily, Vicki Zabarte is probably the least experienced actress on the stage. But under the directors’ gentle guidance, her own apparent sweetness and gentleness become Emily’s traits.  She’s the family’s holy fool, giving up her own life to minister to them, convinced that other’s woes are brought on by her own spiritual lapses: she hasn’t prayed hard enough or often enough.  Zabarte eventually makes Emily’s devotion as unbearably tender as it is ineffectual.

In conceiving this production, Scarpelli and Budinger use enlarged old-style snapshot borders, scalloped by pinking shears, cornered by those old gummed picture holders found in many a family album, as the primary scenic elements.  Sometimes they exist as empty frames that surround the characters, and at other times, they are filled with a two-dimensional background that defines the setting. It works brilliantly.  Durang’s play has 22 scenes in its two acts, most of them short and quick—figurative snapshots. The directors also handle the play’s crazy, mixed-up chronology with extreme lucidity.  You’re never confused about where you are in these characters’ stories despite Durang’s purposeful hopping around in time.

But it’s difficult to know whether to shower more praise on the directors’ deep understanding of this play or on their amazing work with the actors. Durang’s miraculous script uses humor and compassion to tinge the miseries of his characters’ lives with beauty.  Budinger and Scarpelli have done the same in this miraculous staging.  You may see a better and more skilled production of this play. You’re not likely to see a more heartfelt one.

Death and Sorrow: Soot (Nancy Sale) comforts Boo (Craig Eychner)

The Marriage of Bette and Boo plays through April 30, at the Masquers Playhouse, 105 Park Place, Point Richmond.  For tickets and other information, call 510-232-4031 or go to http://www.masquers.org.


6 comments on “Miracle Workers: Masquers Playhouse’s “The Marriage of Bette and Boo”

  1. As you requested, I came and read your review. Here is my response: http://www.reviewsbytdev.com/content/Marriage-Bette-Boo-Masquers#comment-958

    As you know, I had rather a different take on the play than you did:

    I look forward to your impressions of future Masquers plays.

    Theresa de Valence

    • joemader says:

      Thank you for your comment. I would like to clarify one thing. It was not me who posted the comment on your blog about your review. Thus I think it is unfair of you to conflate my review and the comment made by another person as if they were all written by me. I am grateful to that person for liking my review and for bringing it to your attention, but I agree with you that the comment should have been more respectful in tone. I do have several points I would like to make about both your review and your response to my review, and I will post them here as soon as I have more available time.

      • A Phantom says:

        Both of you understand this was a misunderstanding and that there is some third party jerk whose precipitated all of this. T de V obviously thought there was a personal attack by you on her and so put her comments against you. What we know now though is that the anonymous comments aren’t you and I just want to encourage you both to NOT descend into a flame war. Both of you are excellent reviewers with a lot to offer in your reviews. Please, let’s agree not to talk trash to each other, ok?

        ~A Phantom

      • Dear Joe,

        The anonymous poster (spammer) who posted on my site referenced your review without much explanation, and so I jumped to the hasty conclusion that you were the original poster. For that I am very sorry and apologise. If you would prefer, I can delete both of my posts, as the first one was certainly in error.

        Your review is a well-written, in depth review which states a specific attitude about the play (the last being one of my cardinal rules). However you two things, one of which I strongly object to. I despise plot spoilers; however, most of the world is full of plot spoilers, so this happens to be my own personal opinion, and shouldn’t reflect poorly on your review. The second objection, which is mild, and also very personal, and also should not denigrate your review, is that I don’t believe the ordinary people have to have any deep history of a work of art in order to be able to appreciate it or voice an opinion about it.

        Both of my objections have nothing to do with your review, which is conscientious and thoughtful.

        My remarks were directed towards the person who wrote on my review site, who does not happen to be you.

        I’m sorry. Would you like me to remove my posts?

        Also, would you like to meet down in town for a coffee and a conversation about one of Masquers’ plays? Either this one or the next one?

        Best regards,

  2. joemader says:

    Dear “A Phantom,”

    Your concern seems a little misplaced. Neither Theresa nor I have trashed each other in our comments, nor are we likely to. Two people who both disagree on a particular piece of theater and on how a theater critic ought to approach reviewing in general, ought to be able to discuss those differences calmly and intelligently, which I believe we’ve done so far.

    Theresa, thanks for your apology, but I don’t see any need for you to remove your posts. As I said before, I am, perversely, grateful to the “jerk” for bringing your review to my attention and bringing mine to yours. I think there are some very interesting issues that you bring up in your approach to criticism that differs from my approach, and as I said before, I’d like to discuss this in a comment when I have more time. Thanks also for the offer of a coffee, but I live in San Francisco, and I’m currently involved with the stage management of a show here that is taking up most of my time, so I have no idea when I might get back to Point Richmond.

  3. Point Richmond Resident says:

    Dear Mr. Mader,

    I am the “jerk” who precipitated the above exchange. I posted a link to your review, saying that I thought it was informed, well-written and displayed an understanding of theater. When prompted, I followed up with some very strong opinions of the other reviewer’s style, which I find to be knee-jerk, ignorant and reactionary, which I find repugnant and a terrible representation of my community.

    It was not my intention to spam or troll, only to post an honest reaction as an anonymous reader, as requested. The other reviewer found my comments incendiary and construed them as a personal attack, which precipitated the above reaction (which I find, no surprise) ignorant, knee-jerk and reactionary.

    I’m just sorry that you got caught in the crossfire. I apologize, and I’m glad to have made you aware of each other’s existence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s