StagenMamet’s Toying with RealismnDavid Mamet: The Woods; St.nNicholas Theatre, Chicagonby Neil Thackaberryn”Psychology, which works relentlesslynto reduce the unknown to the known,nto the quotidian and the ordinary, is thencause of the theatre’s abasement and itsnfearful loss of energy.”n— Antonin ArtaudnIvavid Mamet, a Chicago playwrightnof talent, young, upcoming andnalready a focus of attention, seems tonbuild his works on a tacit acceptance ofnArtaud’s premise. He is perceptivenenough, though, to recognize the dangernof violating audiences’ expectations. Innspite of the absurdists and those whoncame after, psychological realism is stillnthe style of choice for would-be playwrightsnwho wish to succeed. Mamet’sntask is therefore to present somethingnfar more complicated than realism whilenmaintaining the essential external elementsnof that style. This is precisely whatnhe accomplishes in his most recent play,n”The Woods.”nTwo persons are cast into an apparentlynrealistic situation. A young man,nNicholas, has invited his current femalencompanion, Ruth, up to his family cottagenin the woods for a weekend of isolation,nconversation, and assorted intimacies.nA conflict arises from a misunderstandingnof intentions, Nick asks Ruth to leave,nthen changes his mind and she ends upnstaying. There is nothing in this seriesnof events which breaks with acceptednstandards of reality.nThe excursion beyond those criterianbegins when we notice that in spite ofnthe psychological realism which conditionsnthe incidents, the play is chargednMr, Thackaberry is an inveterate man ofntheatre—actor, director, and teacher—nand serves as Chairman of the RockfordnCollege Department of Theatre Arts.nsoinChronicles of Cttlturcnwith tensions which can’t be explainednaway with habitual logic. The source fornmost of these tensions lies in the characters’ndesperate attempts to understandnone another. Understanding becomes anneed and the latter is made evident in annumber of ways. Storytelling, directnappeal for communication, and demonstrationnof the consequences of misunderstanding—theynall determine the importancenof intelligibility as a conditionsine que nan of humanness.nAt this point Mamet makes it clearntheir communication conflicts are pronouncednnot by immediate circumstances,nbut by the essential differencenbetween the mind-sets of the two peoplenon stage. However, instead of individualizingnit, the playwright grounds thisndifference in the attitudes of culture andncurrent mores—a familiar dramatic device.nIf a weekend of sexual activitiesnbetween consenting adults is a currentlynacceptable recreation, Ruth’s seeing innsuch a weekend a commitment by Nicknto a long term relationship becomes andisplay of her bad manners. Nonetheless,nthroughout the first act and portions ofnthe second, Ruth speaks eloquently ofnthe benefits of commitment, using asnher primary example the relationshipnbetween her grandparents. Nick readsnnothing into these references, failing tonperceive the preparation which Ruth isnattempting. He certainly is entitled to anlot of confusion: Ruth uses frank sexualnlanguage and in principle is not aversento premarital sexual activity. But she isnsearching for a relationship characterizednby virtues of an earlier time, a quitenincredible endeavor, taking into considerationnour epoch and the very situationncreated by Mamet. When she presentsnher lover with a bracelet inscribed withna promise of lasting love, no one eithernon stage or in the audience knows whatnto do with the incongruousness of bothnthe gift and its symbolism. What actuallynhappens at that moment is Mamet’snnninversion of the ideas of conformity andnnon-conformity. He exercises the timehonorednprivilege of theatricality for hisngeneration’s sake. Nick, whose posturenwould have been termed libertine onlyntwo decades ago, is now a representativenof an official morality, thus a realist, althoughnhis stance would have previouslynbeen a challenge to the realities of thensociety and its routine conduct. Ruth, anconformist from a not too remote past,nsuddenly becomes a challenger of thenestablished realism of human rapport:nshe desires erstwhile fixtures of love—nbracelets, promises, vows, commitments—whichnnow have become symbolsnand seem to grate against the veryntexture of regular life.nOo effectively is Ruth’s angle presentednand interpreted that Nick’s rejection ofnher and her gift becomes another surprise.nIt should not. He is reacting withnappropriate shock, a tremor generatednin the inner depths of his new sociomoralnformation. She has violated thencultural code of behavior under whichnhe had invited her. She has actually askednhim to commit himself, to restrict hisnfuture flexibility, an action which offendsnhis sense of propriety. Mamet balancesnthe conventionalities with precision,nendows them with dialectical weightsnthat exceed the comedy of manners,nmaking out of the crisis of the second actnan exercise in moral sophistry, or impartiality,nwhichever comes first to a predisposednmind.nThe essential weakness of Nick’s positionnescapes the audience until later.nInstead of the smooth, bittersweet resolutionnof a relationship gone sour whichnmight have been expected, in the finalnact Mamet presents a searing, nearly fatalnbreakdown on the part of Nick. It becomesnapparent that Ruth is the healthiernhuman being. In spite of her seeminglynold-fashioned notions, in spite of Nick’snblistering attack on her for her lack ofn