Foreman FOR Every MAN: Pearls for Pigs

Foreman FOR Every MAN: Pearls for Pigs ETHAN J. LEIB In Lava, a RichaTd FOTeman play, FOTeman's own voice says, as if he is talking to himself, "I undeTstand you'Te looking fOT an excuse for a lot of fuzzy thinking .'" Foreman tries to deflect criticism of his thinking by admitting that his work relies on the revelatory possibilities of contradiction: he does not need to resolve the paradoxical world in which he lives. But we must ask whether Foreman's acknowledgement of his "fuzziness" really absolves us of scrutinizing him. My view is that it does not. In this paper I shall rigorously trace Foreman 's thinking, despite his desire that we refrain from thinking.too hard about his "message" and despite his wish that we should occasionally abandon "mental rigor" for the sake of allowing ourselves to experience inspiration. Foreman describes what he wants fTom us with the following analogy in his Unhalancing Acts: as a child's top spins, "the top makes a humming noise, and the individual pictures [on the top] can no longer be distingiIished. All that's seen is a blur. But the child becomes fascinated by tharenergetic blur.'" Foreman begs us to become fascinated with the energy of the hum and to stop concentrating on the individual pictures inscribed on the top. Yet, as Foreman must recognize, if the pictures are there at the outset, the energetic blur does not, in certain important respects, reveal truth. He sometimes forgets this. This is why I have slowed down the metaphorical top in this essay, just as Foreman slows down that top in his recent production Pearlslor Pigs, which is all but a handbook for understanding his work. But this slowing down is only temporary , as Foreman struggles to Te-spin the top at the end of the production in order to Te-establish the mystery he so desperately tries to engender. In Pearlslor Pigs, the Maestro, an obvious repTesentation of Foreman himself , speaks thus: I say things that don't make sense, but now that you understand my motives, it all makes perfect sense [...] Modern Drama, 42 (Fall 1999) 375 ETHAN J. LEIB God damn il - That's why I wanted to keep things to myself - because now thatI've explained myself, our relationship has changed, but I liked it the'way it was, when I was just your problematic object of examination! Now that I've explained myself- look [...] at me! Suddenly cast as the wise man holding the balance of things on the tip of the tongue, while you sit beholden, waiting for me to perform my particular therapy. No! (liked it better when Ihad you off balance, trying [0 figure me out3 (Intervening dialogue and stage direction omitted) Foreman expresses discontent at how much Pearls for Pigs must be a "pandering to the masses," so to speak, the title of an earlier Foreman play.- [n Pearls, Foreman slows the top down to such an extraordinarily slow pace that the individual images he is trying to impress resonate too clearly. This defies the mystery he feels is crucial to his theatre. Yet, it behoves us to use this opportunity to understand Foreman by observing the gyrations of this play against the background of earlier productions. [n The Other American Drama, Marc Robinson writes that Foreman's "What Did He See? is full of longing for return, for a time when all things still wore their mysteries."5 That longing is precisely what Pearls reiterates, but with the added frustration that the mystery has been unravelled. Foreman describes his experience in his Reverberation Machines as continually one of "hummm, [remember the top] that's not quite right" as he "back[s] away for ... new angle[s] of approach.,,6 The blur to which Foreman appeals is a "hummm," a constant state of unknowing. a constant flux, a struggle for new perspectives. Yet what Foreman tells us he hopes for in Reverbe/'ation Machines is that "[his] art does not speak" of this ... but rather EMBODIES this. To speak of such things is invariably to drag the new back into the language of the old ... and the old language is always (we are...