Dinner with Friends

Most love stories focus solely on the beginning. They end when the main characters get together. That’s fine but, this is part of the genre. But it is a little boring. The meat of relationship is in the middle. And this is a short play about the middle.I first heard about this play through the HBO movie version (faithful and accurate) and got a copy, I tend to read this play every few years.Now I need to find that copy of the other Margulies play I have somewhere in my messy room.h

"Dinner with Friends" by Donald Margulies is a play with some very telling lines, with four yuppy friends (two couples) having seismic marital stress at homes in Connecticut and Martha's Vineyard. They are not a very likeable bunch. They're self-absorbed and frivolous people. The two men Tom and Gabe have known each other for twenty-four years since their college days. Gabe and his wife Karen, annoying and cloying foodies, are the ones who introduced Tom and Beth.When the play starts Tom and Beth have been married for twelve years, have two children, but they are splitting up. If forced to list the characters in levels of obnoxiousness, Tom would have to come at the top of the list followed by Beth, then Karen, and ending up the pack would be Gabe. They all seem like very vain, snobbish brittle people. Gabe is a rather passive person, and his wife Karen is more of an activist, almost a control-freak as some character in the play describes her. The break-up of Beth and Tom's marriage sends shock waves under Gabe and Karen's, in a way threatening its survival. Beth is called high-strung. When she finds a new friend that she wants to marry in place of Tom, she says to Karen, "you need me to be a mess; you're invested in it. Every Karen needs a Beth." A great line. Beth goes on to say, "We can't all be like you, Karen. God knows I've tried. No matter how much I stir, my soup still sticks to the pot." I must admit that I never saw the play performed, and good actors can change your perceptions of the characters and the play enormously. Some character who come off poorly in the reading can win you over in the performance. It's a well-constructed, well-written play, but when you don't care that much for the people in it, you can't get emotionally involved. The character of tightly-bound Tom is the catalyst for the play's action, and his treatment of wife Beth seems brutal and abusive. Wild card Tom says, "rage can be an amazing aphrodisiac." The play starts off in a predictable arc because you can guess that Beth's distraction is due to trouble in her marriage, but it becomes more original and inventive as it evolves.There are some echoes of Albee in all this. Margulies wrote the more recent four-character play "Time Stands Still" which I reviewed for Amazon. It also has two couples who are on different tracks in life. I think "Time" is a better play.

If you like to read good plays, certainly DINNER WITH FRIENDS should be on your list. This prize winner by Donald Margulies is certainly worth your consideration. If you like to see something that actually looks like a book on your bookshelf, the hardcopy is perfect. It is neat, clean, and the type is large enough to read without eyestrain.

This is a play to which so many of us can relate. It is about food, family, and memories created and shared among close friends, and the importance of trying to maintain these relationships in all their ups and downs.

I'd give it 3.45 stars if I could. :)Funny at times. Good structure. Explores important themes. I like the way he shifts the reader's loyalties. There is certainly some subtlety in the play. And it's not boring.On the other hand, some of the dialogue is pretty bad, clearly there to provide exposition. And it feels a bit too structured, too contrived. There is very little spontaneity and freshness here. As some reviewers have said, the insights aren't really that insightful.

I truly now see why it’s a masterpiece of modern literature. It’s real and raw. Life has transitions and they are all represented in one play

I found the author's treatment of middle-aged crises and divorces a bit trite and stereotypical. It reads just like any other situation I've seen in movies, real life, etc. Being a baby boomer myself, with friends who have divorced and some of them for similar reasons, I didn't think Mr. Margulies had any terrific insights into the situation.He definitely created four distinct personalities, and none of them were solely "the good guy" or "the bad guy", but I think, based on the reviews I'd read before reading this play, and based on seeing a performance of "Collected Stories", I expected more. I think "Collected Stories" was far more deserving of a Pulitzer.

Winner of the Pulitzer Prize and worth it. Terrific writing and characters.

KarenとGabe,BethとTomの二組の夫婦が対比するように描かれる。前者はお茶漬けの味の境地に達している。後者は、お互いに甘えをぶつけあった挙句、それぞれが別の相手を見つけて離婚し、今度こそいい相手と巡り合ったと新しい暮らしを楽しんでいる。作者はどちらかのカップルに肩入れしているわけではない。長く連れ添った夫婦が、なぜ今はああできないのだろうと、若い時を思い返す場面など哀愁が漂う。佳作だと思うが、若い読者の想像力は、長い夫婦生活を、共感を持って思い描けるだろうか。味のあるものなのですが。

A fantastic play!

Ganó el premio pullitzer de teatro, y lo cierto es que lo veo muy merecido. Para quien sepa inglés y el teatro, esta obra, en este formato, le va a encantar.