Light in the Piazza

[sistermagpie]

I went to see Light in the Piazza last night. Good performances. The music left me completely cold, which may be a sign of my poor taste, I guess. I just wasn't that interested in any song, and some of them I really didn't even get a sense of what they were saying. Perhaps I was just too distracted by the

...bizarre-ness that is the story.

It's just surprising to me somebody would want to do this story in this day and age. Or rather, I shouldn't be surprised. The story is about Margaret Johnson, who is traveling in Italy with her daughter, Clara. Clara was kicked by a pony when she was ten. Not to get angrily feminist, but it's hard to watch this play without thinking that as far as many people are concerned all women should get kicked by a pony because Clara's just darling. She's somehow mentally undeveloped but in a way that makes her seem sweetly childish, never tiresome, embarrassing or unlovely. (My friend said early on, "Is she retarded?" and I said, "Yes," not realizing she hadn't known the story. Then when it's revealed she does have some sort of problem my friend said, "Oh! You were serious? I thought they were just trying to make her charming.") She's adult in all the right ways--hot body, interest in men, eager for sex, yet childlike in all the right ways--unsophisticated, needing to be cared for, easily frazzled, incapable of deception. Many people throughout history would probably have enthusiastically paid to find exactly what place in Clara's brain a pony kick produced such results--they ought to call it "The Bimbo Spot."

While out walking Clara (who's a babe) catches the eye of a young Italian boy who follows her and woos her and eventually marries her. Mom's torn--she keeps missing her chance to explain to Fabrizio's family that Clara's got some kind of impairment and given her looks and the language barrier they never get it themselves. Papa at one point seems to get it and call off the wedding, but then it turns out he's freaking out because he's learned Clara is 26, which is too old for his 20-year-old son. Yes girls, even if you're mentally 8 years old you're too old at 26.

It's just hard to not want to ask why Clara's impairment seems so obviously romanticized. It comes and goes, really. She can't at all understand her future sister-in-law Franca’s warnings about how men can break your heart after marriage, but later announces to her mother that her own husband no longer loves her, which Margaret could see by "looking in his eyes." She's sort of a romantic savant, you see, but only in a way that flatters regular people. Why would this girl be able to understand that her parents, who get along fine, in fact are suffering from a dead love? Isn't that a bit sophisticated given the things she can't understand? Later, overhearing her mother tell her father on the phone, "Just because she's not normal doesn't mean she should have to live in isolation," Clara divines that there's something "wrong" about her, that Fabrizio "shouldn't love her" because she "doesn't know" how to fix it. Clara has before noticed this "something" where people suddenly don't look her in the eye, like there's something wrong with her.

Again, this is convenient. She's blissfully unaware of plenty of other social cues but can sense when people are uncomfortable upon finding out she's got mental development issues? And why are these issues such a mystery to her anyway, given the level of development she does have? Will she ever mention this serious accident to her husband? The trouble is she doesn't really have any mental problem, she's really just a literary device, a soul too innocent to understand all the things the intelligent playwright thinks mess up us "smart" people. "Our reason is our problem," Clara's mother tells her husband. Oy.

Something that's also awkwardly missing is what I'd call the "Being There" factor. In case the movie doesn't ring a bell, it was a film starring Peter Sellars about a man named Chance, a gardener who was also at sort of a child's level of development. Kicked out of his father's house upon the old man's death he stumbles into the world of high-powered politics and is mistaken for Chauncey Gardener, wise truth teller. His former caretaker, who sees him on TV and describes him as having "nothing but rice pudding between the ears" concludes that "all you have to be is white in America and you can get anything you want." And the thing is, she's right because the point of Being There (or the cruel joke for many people) is that people create Chauncey for themselves. Had he not been white they probably wouldn't have recognized him as "one of us" and so re-interpreted all his simple utterances as Deep Thoughts. Had he been black, Hispanic or Asian, they really might have taken him at face value in ways they don’t when he’s white.

Arrested Development did it's own spin on this--and it was great--when Michael Bluth fell in love with a beautiful girl played by Charlize Theron who was mentally about 5 years old. Of course AD was open about why Michael was fooled: not only was she beautiful, but she had an English accent that made her sound smart to his American ears no matter what she said. Most importantly, though, Michael was being narcissistic (his family, upon discovering the truth, tries to cover it up because they want the girl's money). In fact, he confesses to her that he was just "hearing what he wanted to hear" and creating the girl he wanted to see. She replies, "I don't understand a word you're saying," and Michael naturally takes it as a compliment to himself rather than literal confusion.

Light in the Piazza seems blissfully unaware of this idea, so instead of turning a critical eye on the way the "normal" people work to turn Clara into one of themselves because she looks the part the play sort of holds them up as a good thing. Clara throws a tantrum, throwing furniture because Franca kissed Fabrizio to make her husband jealous and ranting that Franca should be with her husband because that's the way it should be, where people get married and stay together forever (this from the girl who can sense her own parents’ love has died). There’s a moment of uncomfortable silence, then Franca declares that Clara is right, everyone should fight for their love. It's the classic Chauncey Gardener move. Franca has pulled her own wisdom out of the situation, but Clara herself can't even grasp the situation fully. She knows she doesn't like anyone else kissing Fabrizio, but she doesn't understand why Franca kissed him, or that Franca’s not really interested in him, or what Franca’s relationship with her own husband is.

Margaret tells her husband that Fabrizio's family like Clara "just the way she is." As if it's deep in a good way when they misunderstand Margaret’s weak, euphemistic attempt to tell the truth ("Clara is a special child--she sure is!"). Clara, during her panic about something being wrong with her, says that Fabrizio doesn't "see her," meaning he doesn't see what other people see, the thing that is wrong with her. Margaret insists that it’s Fabrizio who sees the real Clara.

Margaret is, of course, wrong. Fabrizio really doesn't see her. He sees a beautiful, sweet girl and whatever he's told himself she is--in Italian, btw, since given the language barrier both of them are probably reduced to speaking to each other like toddlers anyway. When Clara studies to convert to Catholicism for the wedding, does he think she just finds the whole thing a lark and is willing to do it because she loves him? Or does he actually understand that she has no idea what she's doing, and probably couldn't follow the differences between the two denominations if anyone explained them to her? How can Fabrizio be said to really love Clara as she is unless we know he understands who she is? That doesn’t just mean how she acts but why she acts the way she acts.

There's another element to the story that was kind of icky and I'm not sure how to describe it. It seems to somehow fit in with class, somehow, but not really. It's that given Clara's development there's nothing harmful about her being married, imo. Her father does bring up the question of whether she'd be a good mother, but I would think there probably have been women throughout history at her level who raised children. It's that I feel like if she'd lived in a different time, place and maybe income level she might have made a more honest marriage. Like, she may have married someone who knew her limitations whose own life didn't strain them. I hope this doesn't sound insulting because it's not meant to be, but it's like...imagine if she was a peasant living in the thirteenth century. She'd be perfectly capable of doing the tasks expected of her and probably understanding her husband's life. I don't mean to suggest that income level is connected to intelligence, just saying that I can think of a life that would center more around concepts Clara could understand more than the ones in this world, if that makes sense. I'm not saying she needs to necessarily be around people at her mental level, or that those people could be found down the economic scale, just that I can imagine people above her level who just happen to be connected to more concrete things she could understand better. For instance, if she has a baby, she could probably talk to other women raising babies and they’d have things in common.

In this world, though, she seems like a fraud. It's inherent in the whole story, the fact that Margaret knows she's concealing something about her. For some reason Margaret just can't straight out say to people that hey, Clara got kicked in the head when she was little and she's been a little funny/slow ever since. Instead Margaret knows that the way Clara looks does indeed suggest a different level of sophistication than she has. We don't see people ever explaining things to her in a way she can understand. Instead we see people talking at her, above her or around her until *they* are satisfied with the result. Clara herself is guarded from the mere suggestion she might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I don’t know if that has to be necessary for her. Perhaps a blunter approach, coupled with love, would have been just fine.

Which brings me back to "Being There" and Chance's caretaker. One character, a lawyer, at the end finally tracks down his real identity from the old housekeeper. This woman is far less affectionate to Chance than his new friends, but at least she's dealing with the real guy. When the lawyer first calls Chauncey "Chance" he breaks into a grin--presumably he's very happy to have someone say his real name, as he's proud to say that yes, he really is a gardener. He himself is proud of being Chance, a Gardener. It's the one true connection Chance makes in the whole movie. I can't help but feel the same way about Clara, that this a play that's wrapped in all these romantic trappings of Cathedral weddings and cute Italian boys and mothers wanting their daughters to take a chance on love because they couldn't, but at the center it's about isolation. For all Margaret now feels that she and her husband never had what Clara and Fabrizio had, she's just fooling herself again, projecting what she wants to see onto people who look the part on the surface.

Comments

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

That play sounds very creepy.

I mean, I could see it working if the point were to satirize what narcissists want from other people. Or the power dynamic that some people want in relationships. It makes me think of a certain type of "war bride" stereotype, where the language barrier keeps the relationship primitive, almost at an animal level.

But it doesn't sound like that. It sounds like it is sentimentalizing damaged people, and mental limitation. For a sophisticated Manhattan audience, ugh. Otherwise I would say that half the population have IQs less than 100 so I suppose they need culture heroes, too.

Interesting take on Being There. I always liked to think of it as a satire of Reagan and Reaganism, because of the timing of its release.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

Actually, is it a play or a movie? I'm sorry, I am so clueless about what's going on . . . :)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought about Being There in those terms, but it makes a lot of sense. I overstated things saying that "the point" of Being There was anything--I hadn't even really given it much thought. But definitely Being There is openly showing you that these people are making mistakes around Chance, he's not really trying to be deep.

Light in the Piazza is I think from the 50s--I think it was a movie...checks imdb...yes, it was a movie in 1962 with Olivia deHavilland, George Hamilton (as Fabrizio!) and Yvette Mimeux. Maybe it was a book or a play originally? This current musical is recently adapted from the play or the movie or the book, whatever it was first. I assume at the time it was written you could just be looser with stuff like this, but I can't help but wonder why someone would adapt it *now* when generally mental disorders are dealt with more openly, you know?

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

One image that I love from Being There, though, is (I think) the final one, where he appears to walk on water, and the suggestion is sort of that he's finding a path of submerged stones without even trying (IIRC -- it's been a while). So there's this two-sidedness to the depiction of him, which emphasizes his uncanny luck, the way he prevails without even having the proper equipment for the battle, just as much as the willingness of everyone else to project their assumptions on him. Which is what made the idea of a Reagan satire so fun.

Of course I didn't mean to suggest the "Reagan" interpretation as a rigid alternative to your racial one, just that I always thought it had some wonderful bite to it. Actually, on the whole I really shouldn't post anything after an all-nighter (as I did with the earlier post) because I get punchy and disconnected and leave out logical steps, and maybe sound abrupt. I've done that before I think, so mea culpa, most definitely.

I went and looked at some of the online reviews for Light in the Piazza, and I was struck by the fact that most of them treat the daughter's brain damage as a Big Secret not to be spoiled. Which makes the play sound even odder and more disturbing. As if the message were: "Surprise! That sweet and slightly flaky person you've been falling in love with? Kicked in the head by a mule! What does that say about you, eh? " And that sudden revelation, presumably after the audience had become invested in her character in spite of her hints of oddity, was then to abruptly spin their interpretation 180 degrees, in that 50's-60's "oh wow" kind of way.

I don't know, somehow I think of Ibsen, and syphilis. "Dated" does indeed seem to be the word. :)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't really think of the racial comment as an interpretation. It was just my reaction to that one funny line. On the surface it's funny because you can just imagine what this woman would think seeing this guy wind up on TV knowing who he is. But when I thought about it I realized that hey, she's actually right. She doesn't know exactly how she's right, but she's right since Chance's only real advantages are that he is pleasant, clueless and white. (What was that about Reagan?)

Wow--it was a surprise? Was that in the original play? I'm trying to remember exactly when we find out--somewhere in the first act, I think, but I already knew going in. And as I said, my friend said after the girl's second line, "Is she retarded?" Granted she thought she was wrong, but her point was that if the play thought she was charming and free, she came across as retarded.

[threeoranges.livejournal.com]

I mean, I could see it working if the point were to satirize what narcissists want from other people. Or the power dynamic that some people want in relationships.

Just remembered that a good example of this as satire would be E.T.A. Hoffmann's short story THE SANDMAN, where a young man falls in love with a pretty girl... Only to find that she's a life-size automaton :)

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

Interesting to know! I have a copy of Tales of Hoffman so I will put The Sandman on my to-read list. Although, to be honest it's a long list. :)

[teratologist.livejournal.com]

It really bugs the shit out of me when mental handicaps are used to symbolize purity in general - the only movie that I ever liked that arguably did that was Sling Blade, oddly enough, which should have been horribly creepy and wasn't (except in the right way.) Add the gender subtext and the whole marriage thing and it sounds pretty troublesome to me.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, I found myself wondering how the movie would play if the genders were reversed and you had an Italian girl falling in love with a mildly retarded American boy. Would it be more bothersome because he's expected to actually support her? Would it be icky because obviously the girl is going to be like a mother to him? Admittedly Fabrizio isn't really--he's kind of a starry-eyed boy himself, but you wonder if he's going to be an airhead all his life or if he's marrying someone he's not going to appreciate as much when he's 30 and realizes the cute stuff wasn't an act or something she's going to grow out of.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

I had no idea this was what the play was about, I just know that every time those commercials come on (about 5 times during the Today show every morning), it's like fingernails on a blackboard. I thought the whole deal was that she was really young and rich while he was both too old for her and too poor (in the noble peasant sense, of course). This is even worse! And how hard can a pony kick anyway? It's a pony!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL! I don't even know why I knew going in what the real story is but yup, the real story is that a young puppy of an Italian boy who is 20 is falling in love with a 26-year-old upper middle class Southern girl who was kicked in the head and became a dimwit. The boy isn't a peasant; his family is just very emotional because they're Italian.:-D

I'm telling you, many men would gladly fund studies for exactly where a blow to the head will result in a pretty girl who doesn't understand why she shouldn't invite a young man into her hotel room and have sex with him.

[sleeplessmarea.livejournal.com]

I don't think the mental handicap is the only plot device here... I think Clara in general is a plot device.

It may help those who think that "Light in the Piazza" presents an "icky" or "creepy" elements to realize that this may not - in fact - be so. It seems to that this movie is NOT trying in any way to reflect realisically on handicapped mental functioning. (I'm assuming here; I didn't see it). Rather, it takes a twist on real life situations by changing one key element and seeing what it does to the mix. I mean, there already seem to be enough "issues" in this relationship: nationalities/cultural conflicts, impact of age differences on the couple, class/income differences, familial approval/disapproval. But the story of the poor boy marrying the rich girl, or the immigrant marrying the native born, etc. etc. have been done lots of times and are arguably overworked territory. But by the mere change of ONE element of a more typical story (like the girl love interest is also RETARDED)and you create fresh land for the writer to work.

Other works have done this subject matter, to varying degrees of success (I cite only movies here - I'm sure there are other mediums). There's a movie (Australian '80' vintage I believe) called "Tim" (starring a younger & cuteer Mel Gibson btw) playing a mentally handicapped handy man who develops a relationship with his employer, an older single woman. There's "Benny and June", a movie where Johnny Depp plays a young man who is socially "eccentric" (the nature of his eccentricity is never specified) who falls for a woman who is mentally ILL (whose illness is not specified by apparently who is of normal or above average intellegence). And then of course there's there's "Forrest Gump" which everyone is undoubtedly familiar with.

In each of the above movies, the person (or couple) struggling with the "handicap" were presented to the viewer as BETTER than the average human in the street BECAUSE of their handicap rather than in spite of it. Real problems resulting from the handicap are given scant attention (conflict - when it appears in these stories -tends to come more from unsympathetic family members, etc). A lovely sentiment, though certainly arguable concerning how well this idea is supported in the context of everyday life. But that's okay, becuase that's not the POINT of the piece.

Its similar to the idea of the "noble savage" - or the "primative" personality who is redeemed by the naive wisdom that he/she practices. The message goes something like - "hey there, you don't need any higher functions to live a happy fulfilled life. In fact, sometimes these things only get in the way of even achieving many of life's goals, like "true love" for instance.

In the agency where I work we assist hundreds of people with mental challenges, some of whom are independant, a few of whom are married or constructing significant relationships with one another. I've never seen nore heard of a level of awareness that resembles Clare's, let alone such of the associated

(I could say lots more... except that I'm busy fighting sleep. Till another time then....)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I mean, there already seem to be enough "issues" in this relationship: nationalities/cultural conflicts, impact of age differences on the couple, class/income differences, familial approval/disapproval. But the story of the poor boy marrying the rich girl, or the immigrant marrying the native born, etc. etc. have been done lots of times and are arguably overworked territory. But by the mere change of ONE element of a more typical story (like the girl love interest is also RETARDED)and you create fresh land for the writer to work.

Actually, these things are not part of the story. The boy isn't poor and he's not an immigrant, their class and income levels are the same.

Its similar to the idea of the "noble savage" - or the "primative" personality who is redeemed by the naive wisdom that he/she practices. The message goes something like - "hey there, you don't need any higher functions to live a happy fulfilled life. In fact, sometimes these things only get in the way of even achieving many of life's goals, like "true love" for instance.

I think that's definitely the idea--though only on Clara's part because Fabrizio and his family don't realize she has any disabilities and given the relationship it's hard to tell just how much he understands about her. He at one point is able to calm her down in a way her mother says she has usually done, but we don't really know how Fabrizio sees her.

I noticed when I looked at it on IMDB that someone had left a comment asking if Fabrizio seemed stupid to people too--and that seemed interesting to me. In the play he was very childlike himself, though being 20 years old this might have been something he'd be expected to grow out of. It's hard to tell if the script is doing that on purpose, or how it's showing that Clara is so perfect for Fabrizio instead of vice versa. Since he seems to fall in love with her at first sight and never change it's hard to understand what their personal connection is.

[threeoranges.livejournal.com]

Another film to add to your list of "pretty retarded girls" movies - SKY WEST AND CROOKED, aka GYPSY GIRL. An obscure Hayley Mills movie from 1966, it's about a girl who Had An Accident at the age of eight which left her mental development suspended and her best friend dead. Now she's seventeen, and attracts the attention of a young gypsy man.

To be fair, the girl's "childlike" demeanour is explained away not just as physical injury but as psychological repression of what happened (and the whole village colludes in brushing the incident under the carpet, ensuring the wound is left to fester until the inevitable moment when the Accident is brought up again). Also, the gypsy man verges on the edge of "simple" himself, and the sexuality is "first teenage kiss" rather than "bedroom visits". But, despite these mitigating factors, one still can't help thinking that there's something a bit creepy about the elision of retardation into innocence.

Interesting that literary/cinematic women with this condition are seen as eternally lovable and sexually desirable, whereas men (Lennie, Boo Radley, various "holy fools") are usually monstrous in appearance, ostracized and even "too good for this world", requiring them to die early. I guess "innocence" is only a good quality if you're a girl, hmm?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Excellent point! It seems almost too obvious that the "innocence" in the girl makes her that much more perfect whereas in the man it's not. Perhaps because girls are somehow better than women--more exciting and pure whereas a man being a boy is degrading.

[roisindubh211.livejournal.com]

there's a Walter Macken book where the protagonist runs away just before (or just after, I can't remember) he marries his pregnant girlfriend because he isn't sure they really love each other, or are just marrying because of the baby. (apparently not considering how damaging a thing this is to do to her in Ireland fo their day, i might add)

When he comes back, its about fifteen years later, and they learn to live together after he's eventually forgiven. The daughter that she's been raising on her own for ages is mentally retarded, and a young man asks to marry her. Her father is very nervous about this and tries to explain to him that you need two equal minds, so that you can understand each other, et cetara, for a marriage to work. The other man basically says "I get that, but I love her, and I'll be able to take care of her"

Macken wasn't trying to say the father or the suitor was right or wrong, but I like the simple realism that he portrays, really true to life people and uncertainty because of it.