Customer Reviews

Valparaiso: A Play

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This plays differs soemwhat from the way in which it was described in a story on NPR. It was characterized as the story of how being the subject of endless interviewes leads to a kind of transendence for the Michael character. However, I would describe it as a logical extension of media-centered society. There is a dream-like quality to much of the play, similar to the best parts of Underworld. The plane setting inevitably brings to mind the "gleaming silver death machine" from White Noise. It is more outwardly funny than some of his other work, or at least it could played that way. I hesitate to give it 5 stars in that I found the "Delphina" character to be poorly drawn. Otherwise a very satisfying read for Delillo fans.

This is Delillo's second published play to go with (at the time, 1999) his eleven novels. It is a play in two acts with only five characters. Two of the characters, Michael and his wife Livia, appear in both actsThe basis of the play is that they are being interviewed due to a trip Michael took, thinking he was going to Valparaiso, IN and ending up in Valparaiso, Chile. This play takes on many of Delillo's usual topics, just not as well as he does in his novels.

Reviewing a reading of a play is always more difficult than a novel or a collection of short stories as you do not enjoy the work of art as it was meant to be presented to you. You can only imagine the interaction between the actors, the way the set looks, the manner and cadences of speaking. As it reads, the play is a darkly comic vision of the way Americans are developed by our media culture.

We see the development of Michael through a series of interviews of himself and his wife. Act I has numerous interviews by unnamed interviewers. In these we see Michael developing a larger sense of himself, and his worth, and the worth of his story. We see some interviewers helping him create this sense of self-importance by hanging on his every word. The media culture takes a beating in this play, as it does in most Delillo novels. They want to know everything that happened, everything that didn't happen, what he thought about what happened, what he thought about what didn't happen, what Livia thought, etc. It all has to be documented on their radio or television shows because if it isn't, it didn't happen. Act II has a single television show interview of both Michael and Livia and has an almost Jerry Springer feel to it as Livia at one point announces the child she is pregnant with is not Michael's.

This play falls flat in comparison to Delillo's novels and in terms of what it is trying to say. The play form seems too constrictive for Delillo's style. The same problems can be found in his first published play The Day Room. Without room to expound his ideas in narrative format, needing to use conversation, and in a tight format, Delillo relies too much on repetition, and topic jumping to make his points. They are made and done so quickly, leaving the reader feeling beaten about the head before Act II is halfway over.

Read Mao II, or White Noise if you want to get a great understanding of Delillo's views of modern day culture; if you only have a little time and feel the need to get a small glimpse of Delillo's talents, read Valparaiso.

"Valparaiso" is a play by Don DeLillo. According to the book's copyright page, the play was first performed in 1999 at the American Repertory Theatre in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The play tells the story of Michael Majeski, a man who has attained celebrity status after an unusual journey: his business flight to Valparaiso, Indiana had become an unexpected odyssey that was both strange and ridiculous.

I read "Valparaiso" as a sometimes dark satire on television and the culture of instant celebrity. Majeski's story is also a reflection on individuality and free will (or the seeming lack thereof in the modern world). This is a surreal piece that is not, in my opinion, wholly effective, but nonetheless contains some sections with both real bite and pathos.

'Valparaiso', DeLillo's latest drama, is a poignant, cynical decension into the dephts and trivia of talk show-crazy America. Michael Majewski experiences his five minutes of news stardom as he gets involved in a media frenzy for having involuntarily travelled to Valparaiso Chile, while originally starting off for Valparaiso, Indiana. Being questioned about his motives for undertaking this journey and succesively yielding to the reporters' every attempt of utter exposure, his marriage and finally his very existence come under scrutiny. In the end we see all of this coming to an absurd showdown on a TV talk show, proving that to be 'real' has come to mean 'to be watched' - and vice versa. In this skillfully arranged piece, DeLillo has accomplished to create an uptempo, modern drama: humorous, brilliantly written and relaxed as it befits the genre, yet not quite as daring and ingenious as the novelist DeLillo has time and again proven to be.

As a social commentary, Valparaiso ably tackles the "one minute of fame" phenomenon, our obsession with media, our existential search for meaning in anything as trivial as confused travel plans, the steady decay of human to human relations, and the general emptiness one confronts in everyday life. I feel that these are Delillo themes that are tackled better elsewhere. An entertaining interesting read, however, with only a few over the top moments to bring it down.

If you examine Mr. Delillo's body of work as a whole, each piece plays a part in defining his question: Where/how do we find/create meaning in contemporary society?

You (or I, on another day) may disagree with my supposition, and to be fair if his work can be pegged to a central premise, it is likely a tad more subtle and complex, but I think it is a good place to begin.

In Valparaiso, Delillo sends us on a preposterous postmodern journey to god knows where (only here, he situates god knows where in Chile). He grabs the uneasy in each of us and throws it up on the stage. "Here, look at this: Remember how uncomfortable contemporary society can make you? When's the last time you had a meaningful conversation with your spouse? When's the last time you had a meaningful thought?"

Delillo adds depth to the otherwise hackneyed proposal that our `individuality' is merely a creation of our preferences as consumers. His characters here may not reveal their complex inner lives, but one suspects that they may be more than an amalgam of what they buy on Amazon or see on cable.

Sure maybe it's all affectation. Maybe D's being insincere in the way he poses the questions. I don't think so. I think what you'll find is a smartly crafted, mildly apocalyptic tale of suburban dis-ease. If it works well, you should feel a slight nausea at play's end.

Valparaiso is very much worth seeing performed by a smart group of actors. It is also very much worth reading.

As other reviewers have noted, it is difficult to judge a work which is essentially a blueprint for an experience in another medium -- and perhaps unfair to judge it by the standards one applies to the medium the author is best known for. Ideally a play should do what *only* a play can do that no other medium can; Delillo understands this. Here his theme of media-saturated alienation finds a heightened, poetic expression, at once more theatrical, more immediate and more accessible than his novels. For those with a little imagination looking for a highly distilled dose of Delillo that really packs a punch, look no further.

I am a fan of Don Delillo and can usually defend him against most accusations of pretentiousness, unbelievable plots and dialogue and one dimensional characters. But I'm afraid I cannot defend him against these accusations with regards to Valparaiso. Perhaps as a performance - it is afterall written to be performed - I would view it differently - but I don't think so. Valparaiso is not a good story, it is not a good play - Chuck Palahniuk's Survivor is far more successful at dealing with similar themes and it's that book which I recommend.

What a dud. Oh well. I hate most stage-plays anyway. As all the other reviewers have already said, VALPARAISO is about the mediacrization of everyday life. And it's typical DeLillo. Populated by cartoon characters who spout nonstop DeLilloisms.

Michael Majeski mentions a colleague with an "unnamed rare disease". Which harks back to a character in AMERICANA with "some blood thing". I'm convinced that Don is terrified of anything that remains unnamed & vague. Which explains why a schoolteachter in UNDERWORLD name-checks all the parts of a shoe. It's the schoolteacher's way of comforting Nick Shay. As if to say: life is a big fat mystery but it's not a total mystery.

There's a few good lines: "Moon-faced men and women with yearnings of epic dimension. I tell them I brush my teeth with Close-Up." And: "I sometimes think I'm clinically self-absorbed. A condition that ought to be covered by health insurance."

Don's assonance addiction is one of Planet Earth's major annoyances. It's every bit as unendurable as Bob Dylan's rhyme-addiction. VALPARAISO is chockful of phrases like "heaving mediocrity" and "slobber of the body" and "shuttle buggies" and "nuance of human sharing". If those sort of artsy-fartsy poetical sound-effects are your idea of fine quality entertainment, then you'll like VALPARAISO.

Writing satire is fun and easy. As long as your work is satirical, you don't need real dialogue, well-formed characters, or an interesting plotline. Delillo satirizes the media, so he is allowed to get away with laughable dialogue and characters with one dimension (at best). I agree with another reviewer who said that Chuck Pahlaniuk's Survivor was superior to Valparaiso. Survivor, which also satirizes the role of the media in today's culture, is funnier, more inventive, and a much better read. Please do yourself a favor and skip this play. The only bright spot to reading it will be that while it will waste your time, due to its short length it will not waste too much of it.