A Particle of Dread (Oedipus Variations) – it was dreadful

Particle of Dread

Stephen Rea and Lloyd Hutchinson in “A Particle of Dread (Oedipus Variations)” Photograph: Matthew Murph

Full disclosure – it pains me to write this review. I have been a diehard Sam Shepard fan for years, but I didn’t understand much of A Particle of Dread (Oedipus Variations). I hoped that reading ‘Oedipus Rex’ SparkNotes before seeing this play would give me a basic understanding. Little did I know that it would have been more helpful if there were SparkNotes to Particle of Dread (Oedipus Variations). This is a messy play with messy direction that jumps back and forth between Greece (with Oedipus and Jocasta) to somewhere in the southwest United States (with Otto and Jocelyn). There are entrails, blood splatters and wacky cops.

The play tells parallel stories. In one, Oedipus is told by a seer that he will grow up to kill his father and marry his mother. This horrifies him and he tries to flee his destiny. In the other, Otto dreams that he’s murdered someone and becomes fascinated with a crime committed on a desert highway that he read about in the newspaper. He feels it somehow relates to his dreams. This could have been an intriguing play, but this was all I understood.

Was Mr. Shepard trying to connect the violence in Greek tragedy to the current spate of violence in America? Was he trying to say that we never learn so history keeps repeating itself? Or was he was he just trying to spin an interesting yarn based on an old tale? Whatever he was trying to do, it was lost on me. There is a lot of blood, some very good dialogue and some funny lines – but that is not enough to make good theater. LAR

Signature Theater, 480 W 42nd Street

Ticket prices: $25 through December 21; starting at $50-$85 beginning December 23

Running thu: January 4, 2015

Running time: 90 minutes, no intermission

Disappointing-half bag

One thought on “A Particle of Dread (Oedipus Variations) – it was dreadful

  1. Sweetheart, Shepard may be a little too prolific for his own good. Good review which should have been proof read more carefully. The word “was” in the 3rd paragraph was substituted for the word “what” or used unnecessarily. Love, Dad.

    Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:50:34 +0000 To: antheil231@msn.com

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