What do you think?
Rate this book
The Shape of Things
A startling dissection of cruelty and artistic creation from the author of In the Company of Men and Your Friends and NeighborsIn a modern version of Adam's seduction by Eve, The Shape of Things pits gentle, awkward, overweight Adam against experienced, analytical, amoral Evelyn, a graduate student in art. After a chance meeting at a museum, Evelyn and Adam embark on an intense relationship that causes shy and principled Adam to go to extraordinary lengths, including cosmetic surgery, and a betrayal of his best friend, to improve his appearance and character. In the process, Evelyn's subtle and insistent coaching results in a reconstruction of Adam's fundamental moral character. Only in a final and shocking exhibition does Evelyn reveal the nature of her interest in Adam, of her detached artist's perspective and sense of authority--to her, Adam is no more than "flesh.... one of the most perfect materials on earth. Natural, beautiful, and malleable." Labute's latest work is an intense and disturbing study not only of the uses of power within human relationships, but also of the ethics involved in the relationship of art and life. To what extent is an artist licensed to shape and change her medium or to alter the work of another artist? What is acceptable artistic material? At what point does creation become manipulation, and at what point does creation destroy? Or, is the new Adam, handsome and confident if heart broken, an admirable result of the most challenging artistic endeavor? The Shape of Things challenges society's most deeply entrenched ideas about art, manipulation, and love.
Paperback
First published November 15, 2001
17 people are currently reading
1250 people want to read
About the author
Neil LaBute
83 books120 followersNeil LaBute is an American film director, screenwriter and playwright.
Born in Detroit, Michigan, LaBute was raised in Spokane, Washington. He studied theater at Brigham Young University (BYU), where he joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At BYU he also met actor Aaron Eckhart, who would later play leading roles in several of his films. He produced a number of plays that pushed the envelope of what was acceptable at the conservative religious university, some of which were shut down after their premieres. LaBute also did graduate work at the University of Kansas, New York University, and the Royal Academy of London.
In 1993 he returned to Brigham Young University to premier his play In the Company of Men, for which he received an award from the Association for Mormon Letters. He taught drama and film at IPFW in Fort Wayne, Indiana in the early 1990s where he adapted and filmed the play, shot over two weeks and costing $25,000, beginning his career as a film director. The film won the Filmmakers Trophy at the Sundance Film Festival, and major awards and nominations at the Deauville Film Festival, the Independent Spirit Awards, the Thessaloniki Film Festival, the Society of Texas Film Critics Awards and the New York Film Critics Circle.
LaBute has received high praise from critics for his edgy and unsettling portrayals of human relationships. In the Company of Men portrays two misogynist businessmen (one played by Eckhart) cruelly plotting to romance and emotionally destroy a deaf woman. His next film Your Friends & Neighbors (1998), with an ensemble cast including Eckhart and Ben Stiller, was a shockingly honest portrayal of the sex lives of three suburban couples. In 2000 he wrote an off-Broadway play entitled Bash: Latter-Day Plays, a set of three short plays (Iphigenia in orem, A gaggle of saints, and Medea redux) depicting essentially good Latter-day Saints doing disturbing and violent things. One of the plays was a much-talked-about one-person performance by Calista Flockhart. This play resulted in his being disfellowshipped from the LDS Church. He has since formally left the LDS Church.
LaBute's 2002 play The Mercy Seat was one of the first major theatrical responses to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Set on September 12, it concerns a man who worked at the World Trade Center but was away from the office during the attack — with his mistress. Expecting that his family believes that he was killed in the towers' collapse, he contemplates using the tragedy to run away and start a new life with his lover. Starring Liev Schreiber and Sigourney Weaver, the play was a commercial and critical success.
LaBute's latest film is The Wicker Man, an American version of a British cult classic. His first horror film, it starred Nicolas Cage and Ellen Burstyn and was released on September 1, 2006 by Warner Bros. Pictures to scathing critical reviews and mediocre box office.
He is working with producer Gail Mutrux on the screen adaptation of The Danish Girl by David Ebershoff.
Born in Detroit, Michigan, LaBute was raised in Spokane, Washington. He studied theater at Brigham Young University (BYU), where he joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At BYU he also met actor Aaron Eckhart, who would later play leading roles in several of his films. He produced a number of plays that pushed the envelope of what was acceptable at the conservative religious university, some of which were shut down after their premieres. LaBute also did graduate work at the University of Kansas, New York University, and the Royal Academy of London.
In 1993 he returned to Brigham Young University to premier his play In the Company of Men, for which he received an award from the Association for Mormon Letters. He taught drama and film at IPFW in Fort Wayne, Indiana in the early 1990s where he adapted and filmed the play, shot over two weeks and costing $25,000, beginning his career as a film director. The film won the Filmmakers Trophy at the Sundance Film Festival, and major awards and nominations at the Deauville Film Festival, the Independent Spirit Awards, the Thessaloniki Film Festival, the Society of Texas Film Critics Awards and the New York Film Critics Circle.
LaBute has received high praise from critics for his edgy and unsettling portrayals of human relationships. In the Company of Men portrays two misogynist businessmen (one played by Eckhart) cruelly plotting to romance and emotionally destroy a deaf woman. His next film Your Friends & Neighbors (1998), with an ensemble cast including Eckhart and Ben Stiller, was a shockingly honest portrayal of the sex lives of three suburban couples. In 2000 he wrote an off-Broadway play entitled Bash: Latter-Day Plays, a set of three short plays (Iphigenia in orem, A gaggle of saints, and Medea redux) depicting essentially good Latter-day Saints doing disturbing and violent things. One of the plays was a much-talked-about one-person performance by Calista Flockhart. This play resulted in his being disfellowshipped from the LDS Church. He has since formally left the LDS Church.
LaBute's 2002 play The Mercy Seat was one of the first major theatrical responses to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Set on September 12, it concerns a man who worked at the World Trade Center but was away from the office during the attack — with his mistress. Expecting that his family believes that he was killed in the towers' collapse, he contemplates using the tragedy to run away and start a new life with his lover. Starring Liev Schreiber and Sigourney Weaver, the play was a commercial and critical success.
LaBute's latest film is The Wicker Man, an American version of a British cult classic. His first horror film, it starred Nicolas Cage and Ellen Burstyn and was released on September 1, 2006 by Warner Bros. Pictures to scathing critical reviews and mediocre box office.
He is working with producer Gail Mutrux on the screen adaptation of The Danish Girl by David Ebershoff.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 219 reviews
May 19, 2011
By the end of the play, I felt no sympathy for anyone. Not to be confused with being drawn in to a character and having a personal dislike of said character. This was more a disinterest in the characters as each was a two-dimensional caricature for different aspects of gender binaries. Evelyn comes off less like an engaging, emotionally distant, woman, and more like an unintelligible mashup of every middle-school insecurity a heterosexual man would have about women. Adam is such the model of the "sensitive" man that I wasn't sure if LaBute even intended for me to ever take the character seriously. I wasn't looking at characters so much as empty models of gender norms. Which themselves could be engaging if their representation of those norms wasn't the entirety of their characterization.
By the time the twist ending came around, I was so emotionally disinterested in the characters that the shock didn't matter. To LaBute's credit, the twist was unexpected, but it didn't elicit any visceral reaction so much as the kind of kudos I would give a particularly well grown fern. Interesting in execution, but nothing to write home about.
Oddly, this lack of emotional weight could be seen as a strength of the play, if only because I'm sure that a particularly skilled actor and/or director could do something with it. What that something is, I'm not sure, but based on the raw material, there is little way to go but up.
August 24, 2016
What I loved about this play was the no one comes out unscathed. Each of the characters story arc is complex and you are never really sure of their motives.
The role of Evelyn is without doubt one of the best female roles I have read on the page and seen on the screen. She can be played as the cool heartless bitch but there is always the opportunity to bring some empathy to her. You should be left wondering at the end whether she ever did care for Adam or not.
I love LaBute's writing, it is honest, brutal and insightful. He creates wonderful characters and theatre that is very entertaining.
The role of Evelyn is without doubt one of the best female roles I have read on the page and seen on the screen. She can be played as the cool heartless bitch but there is always the opportunity to bring some empathy to her. You should be left wondering at the end whether she ever did care for Adam or not.
I love LaBute's writing, it is honest, brutal and insightful. He creates wonderful characters and theatre that is very entertaining.
April 1, 2015
Have you ever been given a lecture about not giving in to peer pressure, or how any relationship in which your significant other pressures you to leave healthy friendships in the dust is not a relationship you should be in?
Congratulations. You already have almost all of the useful lessons you might possibly be able to glean from this terrible play without having to read this terrible play.
The main character, Adam, is an average Joe, desperate for love. Suddenly this beautiful art student starts to flirt with him from out of left field, and because he thinks she is out of his league, his labrador-esque need to please kicks in. He starts to make more and more changes that she suggests to him until he isn't even recognizable as the average Joe he was when he began.
The only other "lesson" you might pull out of this mess of a piece of literature is more so really a set of questions: What is art? Where does it start? Where does it end? Should morality apply? But, you can ask these questions on your own without having to watch the immoral/amoral antics of an "edgy" art student destroying the otherwise decent life of a desperate-to-be-loved average Joe.
Congratulations. You already have almost all of the useful lessons you might possibly be able to glean from this terrible play without having to read this terrible play.
The main character, Adam, is an average Joe, desperate for love. Suddenly this beautiful art student starts to flirt with him from out of left field, and because he thinks she is out of his league, his labrador-esque need to please kicks in. He starts to make more and more changes that she suggests to him until he isn't even recognizable as the average Joe he was when he began.
The only other "lesson" you might pull out of this mess of a piece of literature is more so really a set of questions: What is art? Where does it start? Where does it end? Should morality apply? But, you can ask these questions on your own without having to watch the immoral/amoral antics of an "edgy" art student destroying the otherwise decent life of a desperate-to-be-loved average Joe.
May 31, 2022
What the fuck?! How are ALL of the characters THIS unlikeable? Also who DOES that?
April 24, 2018
A terrible, mean-spirited, poorly-written play.
The Shape of Things concerns Adam--a young man working his way through college as, among other things, a security guard--and Evelyn--a college student and artist intent on vandalizing a statue at Adam's museum. Catching her in the act, they discuss the pros and cons of censorship, "flirt" with one another and set up a date later in the week. That date turns into a pretty serious relationship, and over the course of that relationship, Adam changes from a nobody to a hot body, altering not only his physical appearance but his friendships and personality as well, all at Evelyn's suggestion.
But Evelyn is not all she appears to be, and a dramatic twist towards play's end devastates Adam, his friends and . . . well, little else. One of the redeeming aspects of The Shape of Things is its sense of isolation: a group of a-holes tear each other apart and nobody else seems to care. Even the dramatic reveal at the end yields little reaction from its secondary witnesses. To them, it's just another thing, in a new shape. (Vague, I know, but this play is built on that twist, and I wouldn't dare spoil the fun.)
I wouldn't fault The Shape of Things on its indifferently hostile atmosphere alone. Some of my favorite plays build fantastic worlds of menace and malevolence, populated by characters you just love to hate. But no such characters can be found in The Shape of Things. Sure, there's pretty hateful behavior, but it's not built on anything substantial. Two of our four main characters lack personality beyond one-dimension, and the two leads--Adam and Evelyn--often forego personality for lengthy monologues on the nature of art and censorship and beauty and change and whatever else LaBute has on his mind. There's nothing wrong with characters acting as mouthpieces for an author's personal philosophy, but for a piece that so clearly wants to be a character study, having worldviews so bluntly stated blunts the impact of those character developments.
Specifically, the twist itself is revealed through a monstrous monologue tasked with laying out all the deceptions set up previously in the play. It's a presentation by Evelyn explaining her process through the whole endeavor, but the presentation itself comes off less like Evelyn and more like LaBute trying to justify why such-and-such plot point makes sense and why you're wrong if you're upset. And as stated, the general audience response is tepid, treating Evelyn's monologue as another presentation, but for the characters that get upset, there's no reaction other than to shout something short then leave. No confrontation until after the presentation? Dramatically, I can understand why that's the case. But the whole reveal of the twist feels VERY manufactured. Characters leave when they're upset, but the times at which they're upset feel too coordinated, inorganic. The threads of the play show.
And that COULD be a good thing, potentially. The Shape of Things is about provocation, presented in a provocative way: there's a clear meta-commentary going on there, justifying Evelyn's/LaBute's sense of justification in the reveal. But in this reread, I just wasn't sure how intentional any of this was. The Shape of Things clearly has something to say, but some of its themes--such as the divide between small town and big city--fall a little flat, and the overall production feels like a germ of an interesting idea that Neil LaBute didn't fully follow through.
This criticism, I admit, could be based in part on my opinion of Neil LaBute. I read this play in college for an acting class, and had little problem with it then (due in part, I'm sure, to my not knowing better). But since then, I've read his other work and The Shape of Things really encapsulates all he has to say theatrically: there's not much else going on outside of it. Like David Mamet (a much better playwright in my opinion), LaBute seems interested in antagonistic language and blatant misogyny, the latter (presumably) in service of commentary on our society at large. But there's little nuance in either of those elements. The Wicker Man remake absolutely ruins all the redeeming qualities of the original while bashing on women the entire time. And Fat Pig, one of his other plays, is absolutely disgusting, both in the attitudes its characters present and in the attitude the play has towards those characters and its themes.
That, for me, is the big problem with Neil Labute and with The Shape of Things. A writer can have a different, even disgusting, point of view but still produce a well-written and compelling work. As I get older, I try to read authors that I know I disagree with because I believe that their alternate opinion, and the way that opinion alters the worlds and characters they construct, might offer some insight and nuance that were previously unknown. I might even change my mind, in some case. But Neil LaBute, to my experience, offers little underneath the surface. What he believes is what he writes, and what he writes doesn't have a lot going on to begin with. What is supposed to be "in-your-face" is just empty shock, and what is presented as "harsh reality" just feels so unnatural. I get tired reading Neil LaBute, because I feel that what he's trying for just isn't working.
Then again, maybe that has something to do with this being a reread. How would I feel if the text was fresh and I didn't know the twist beforehand? The problem is, whatever that feeling is wouldn't last. There's nothing compelling in The Shape of Things beyond the twist, and once that's known, there's nothing, really, to return to and savor, other than the sheer weirdness and wrong-headedness of it all.
But it's worth checking out, once or twice. The Shape of Things is BAD, don't get me wrong, but it's the kind of bad that's worth discussing. I come down harsh on it in this review, but I know there's merits (albeit small ones) I'm temporarily overlooking, and even more "what the hell?" moments that are worth hashing out with friends. I read an article a few months back suggesting people get together, have a few drinks, and read a play out loud. The Shape of Things wouldn't be the best candidate for this, but it certainly is a worthy contender. So check it out. Let me know what you think.
The Shape of Things concerns Adam--a young man working his way through college as, among other things, a security guard--and Evelyn--a college student and artist intent on vandalizing a statue at Adam's museum. Catching her in the act, they discuss the pros and cons of censorship, "flirt" with one another and set up a date later in the week. That date turns into a pretty serious relationship, and over the course of that relationship, Adam changes from a nobody to a hot body, altering not only his physical appearance but his friendships and personality as well, all at Evelyn's suggestion.
But Evelyn is not all she appears to be, and a dramatic twist towards play's end devastates Adam, his friends and . . . well, little else. One of the redeeming aspects of The Shape of Things is its sense of isolation: a group of a-holes tear each other apart and nobody else seems to care. Even the dramatic reveal at the end yields little reaction from its secondary witnesses. To them, it's just another thing, in a new shape. (Vague, I know, but this play is built on that twist, and I wouldn't dare spoil the fun.)
I wouldn't fault The Shape of Things on its indifferently hostile atmosphere alone. Some of my favorite plays build fantastic worlds of menace and malevolence, populated by characters you just love to hate. But no such characters can be found in The Shape of Things. Sure, there's pretty hateful behavior, but it's not built on anything substantial. Two of our four main characters lack personality beyond one-dimension, and the two leads--Adam and Evelyn--often forego personality for lengthy monologues on the nature of art and censorship and beauty and change and whatever else LaBute has on his mind. There's nothing wrong with characters acting as mouthpieces for an author's personal philosophy, but for a piece that so clearly wants to be a character study, having worldviews so bluntly stated blunts the impact of those character developments.
Specifically, the twist itself is revealed through a monstrous monologue tasked with laying out all the deceptions set up previously in the play. It's a presentation by Evelyn explaining her process through the whole endeavor, but the presentation itself comes off less like Evelyn and more like LaBute trying to justify why such-and-such plot point makes sense and why you're wrong if you're upset. And as stated, the general audience response is tepid, treating Evelyn's monologue as another presentation, but for the characters that get upset, there's no reaction other than to shout something short then leave. No confrontation until after the presentation? Dramatically, I can understand why that's the case. But the whole reveal of the twist feels VERY manufactured. Characters leave when they're upset, but the times at which they're upset feel too coordinated, inorganic. The threads of the play show.
And that COULD be a good thing, potentially. The Shape of Things is about provocation, presented in a provocative way: there's a clear meta-commentary going on there, justifying Evelyn's/LaBute's sense of justification in the reveal. But in this reread, I just wasn't sure how intentional any of this was. The Shape of Things clearly has something to say, but some of its themes--such as the divide between small town and big city--fall a little flat, and the overall production feels like a germ of an interesting idea that Neil LaBute didn't fully follow through.
This criticism, I admit, could be based in part on my opinion of Neil LaBute. I read this play in college for an acting class, and had little problem with it then (due in part, I'm sure, to my not knowing better). But since then, I've read his other work and The Shape of Things really encapsulates all he has to say theatrically: there's not much else going on outside of it. Like David Mamet (a much better playwright in my opinion), LaBute seems interested in antagonistic language and blatant misogyny, the latter (presumably) in service of commentary on our society at large. But there's little nuance in either of those elements. The Wicker Man remake absolutely ruins all the redeeming qualities of the original while bashing on women the entire time. And Fat Pig, one of his other plays, is absolutely disgusting, both in the attitudes its characters present and in the attitude the play has towards those characters and its themes.
That, for me, is the big problem with Neil Labute and with The Shape of Things. A writer can have a different, even disgusting, point of view but still produce a well-written and compelling work. As I get older, I try to read authors that I know I disagree with because I believe that their alternate opinion, and the way that opinion alters the worlds and characters they construct, might offer some insight and nuance that were previously unknown. I might even change my mind, in some case. But Neil LaBute, to my experience, offers little underneath the surface. What he believes is what he writes, and what he writes doesn't have a lot going on to begin with. What is supposed to be "in-your-face" is just empty shock, and what is presented as "harsh reality" just feels so unnatural. I get tired reading Neil LaBute, because I feel that what he's trying for just isn't working.
Then again, maybe that has something to do with this being a reread. How would I feel if the text was fresh and I didn't know the twist beforehand? The problem is, whatever that feeling is wouldn't last. There's nothing compelling in The Shape of Things beyond the twist, and once that's known, there's nothing, really, to return to and savor, other than the sheer weirdness and wrong-headedness of it all.
But it's worth checking out, once or twice. The Shape of Things is BAD, don't get me wrong, but it's the kind of bad that's worth discussing. I come down harsh on it in this review, but I know there's merits (albeit small ones) I'm temporarily overlooking, and even more "what the hell?" moments that are worth hashing out with friends. I read an article a few months back suggesting people get together, have a few drinks, and read a play out loud. The Shape of Things wouldn't be the best candidate for this, but it certainly is a worthy contender. So check it out. Let me know what you think.
August 11, 2009
Neil LaBute is the Fox news of playwrights. (He wants to titillate and then wag his finger at you for being titillated.)
October 20, 2019
Modern day Frankenstein
June 21, 2021
oh god i hated this book/play.
actually started out as school reading, I was initially fascinated by the basic conflict, which quickly became apparent, almost too quickly, so that the plot twist didn't come as a surprise. the biblical reference to adam and eve is so flat, none of the characters is sympathetic, understandable or well-written, they simply have no depth. I also don't see evelynn as the absolute evil, manipulative, emotionally distant and unethical if you like, but Adam is no less manipulative, both just show this in different ways. the whole project just revealed what people are willing to do, they have a certain level of privilege. and the gender clichés showing internalized misogyny can probably be less a product of the author than of the reflective reader.
actually started out as school reading, I was initially fascinated by the basic conflict, which quickly became apparent, almost too quickly, so that the plot twist didn't come as a surprise. the biblical reference to adam and eve is so flat, none of the characters is sympathetic, understandable or well-written, they simply have no depth. I also don't see evelynn as the absolute evil, manipulative, emotionally distant and unethical if you like, but Adam is no less manipulative, both just show this in different ways. the whole project just revealed what people are willing to do, they have a certain level of privilege. and the gender clichés showing internalized misogyny can probably be less a product of the author than of the reflective reader.
September 19, 2019
To say that this scenario feels worse than "The Handmaid's Tale" would be an understatement.
June 11, 2019
Big Yikes. Bone-chilling and fascinating. And weirdly human, despite its inhumane outlook.
December 22, 2023
the first book i read in which I dislike every single character
November 10, 2022
huh. i don’t know how to feel. i read this super quickly since it’s for class, and maybe that hindered my experience with it a bit. i felt pretty numb throughout it all, like i didn’t care for anything that happened to the main cast of characters. one thing i can say for sure though is that it did keep me entertained, which at this point is all i want from any book because the end of semester burnout is REALLY hitting.
November 9, 2022
I don’t think that I’ve ever read a modern play and I actually liked this one. any book written with a provocative nature is bound to be more fun to read than Shakespeare (which is also provocative but in the least interesting way possible). This play was definitely weird but it made me want to read more of the authors work.
November 7, 2024
I’d give anything to see Rachel Weisz fuck up guy’s life
September 6, 2015
I had to read "The shape of things" by Neil Labute for my English class.
Before we started reading it, we had the topic "gender roles", so the play is a bit about it. It's also about art, about friendship and love and hate nad the things going this these things.
Story:
But mainly, it's focus is on the change of Adam, one of the four characters. When he meets Evelyn, he changes a lot, on the outside and on the inside. His friends, Jenny and Phillip, are suspicous of this whole new Adam, and they blame Evelyn for that. They four of them have a row about Adam ('s change) and so Adam has to chose: his friends or Evelyn.
Characters:
The play has interesting characters.
First, there is Adam. Shy, boring, the definition of a normal guy without friends. He works at a museum, where he learns to know a girl.
Second, there is Evelyn. She is self-confident, pretty and cool. She is an art student and she wants Adam to be her boyfriend. And to be more muscular, more pretty, to wear different clothes, a new hairstyle. And to be more self-confident, to give his friends up for her. She never insists on Adam doing all this things, she just suggests them. However, in the end it turns out she is not who she was supposed to be. Really interesting.
Then we have Jenny and Phillip, the engaged couple. Phillip, the best friend of Adam and Jenny, a girl Adam was in love in highschool, but always to shy to ask her out. They disagree on Adam's change first. Jenny think, it's great, cause she is a naive, blonde, sweet girl. On the other side, Phillip dislikes it, he likes the "normal, old" Adam and doesn't trust Evelyn. He is right.
Writing:
The language is very easy to understand. I rushed through the book, because there isn't much text on each page. I think, it's difficult to only have four characters, but they're all so different that it's easy to follow the context. Each character has it's own "style" and that shows a bit in the writing.
Nevertheless, the book has this interesting characters, I wasn't really into it. It was more comical than serious in many parts and the ending was very odd.
I don't understand, why we read the book in class, because the gender roles (our topic) aren't that important in the book, I think.
Maybe we should see what can happen, if we change for someone.
Maybe..if...
So I give 3 of 5 sculptures for the book/playwrite. We're gping to watch the movie next week so let's see, how it is. :)
Before we started reading it, we had the topic "gender roles", so the play is a bit about it. It's also about art, about friendship and love and hate nad the things going this these things.
Story:
But mainly, it's focus is on the change of Adam, one of the four characters. When he meets Evelyn, he changes a lot, on the outside and on the inside. His friends, Jenny and Phillip, are suspicous of this whole new Adam, and they blame Evelyn for that. They four of them have a row about Adam ('s change) and so Adam has to chose: his friends or Evelyn.
Characters:
The play has interesting characters.
First, there is Adam. Shy, boring, the definition of a normal guy without friends. He works at a museum, where he learns to know a girl.
Second, there is Evelyn. She is self-confident, pretty and cool. She is an art student and she wants Adam to be her boyfriend. And to be more muscular, more pretty, to wear different clothes, a new hairstyle. And to be more self-confident, to give his friends up for her. She never insists on Adam doing all this things, she just suggests them. However, in the end it turns out she is not who she was supposed to be. Really interesting.
Then we have Jenny and Phillip, the engaged couple. Phillip, the best friend of Adam and Jenny, a girl Adam was in love in highschool, but always to shy to ask her out. They disagree on Adam's change first. Jenny think, it's great, cause she is a naive, blonde, sweet girl. On the other side, Phillip dislikes it, he likes the "normal, old" Adam and doesn't trust Evelyn. He is right.
Writing:
The language is very easy to understand. I rushed through the book, because there isn't much text on each page. I think, it's difficult to only have four characters, but they're all so different that it's easy to follow the context. Each character has it's own "style" and that shows a bit in the writing.
Nevertheless, the book has this interesting characters, I wasn't really into it. It was more comical than serious in many parts and the ending was very odd.
I don't understand, why we read the book in class, because the gender roles (our topic) aren't that important in the book, I think.
Maybe we should see what can happen, if we change for someone.
Maybe..if...
So I give 3 of 5 sculptures for the book/playwrite. We're gping to watch the movie next week so let's see, how it is. :)
May 23, 2021
For some reason I can’t quite put my finger on, I really enjoyed reading this play. There is definitely something unique, special, and just enjoyable about it. My only upset with it is how two of the most important monologues of the play seem to just fall flat. I turned page 121 anticipating and eager for an expansion of how the media tell us that the new version of Adam is “better”, but Evelyn just moves on to talk about herself, leaving behind all potential for her motives to be felt and understood. Similarly, when Adam made his speech powerfully saying, “someone always pays for people like you...”, I was deflated that it ended by him saying that Evelyn simply wanted attention and then, “...I guess I’m done”. It seems to feel irritating, even for the reader, that she’d put him through all she did only for attention, and as for the speeches it continually feels like meaningful ideas are began and then left unfinished or spoiled in some way.
Although I feel inspired to read more of his work now, my conclusion at this point is that Labute isn’t much of a writer but does bring something new to the table.
Although I feel inspired to read more of his work now, my conclusion at this point is that Labute isn’t much of a writer but does bring something new to the table.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 17, 2014
The play was cliched, uninteresting, and it left a bad taste in my mouth. I tried to like, understand, and relate to the characters, but they were bland and caricatured to the point that they were nothing more than Saturday morning cartoon characters with a pointless misadventure disguised as a plot. The worst Michael Cera characters still have more interesting qualities than the characters in this play. The dialogue was laughable at best, abysmal at worst.
Perhaps if more time were spent making the characters the least bit believable, then the story would have been easier to stomach.
As for the play's message about art being an endlessly possible, subjective... thing... it is done in a way that is not even cleverly mean-spirited. Neil LaBute instead made it into a shock-fest that did little to support any real meaning. Evelyn's character is just a young female version of the play's crass writer.
Perhaps if more time were spent making the characters the least bit believable, then the story would have been easier to stomach.
As for the play's message about art being an endlessly possible, subjective... thing... it is done in a way that is not even cleverly mean-spirited. Neil LaBute instead made it into a shock-fest that did little to support any real meaning. Evelyn's character is just a young female version of the play's crass writer.
January 2, 2010
Ah- Labute's Breadwinner.
The Shape of Things- I knew about this play for so long after first hearing a bad review of it- and keeping off my 'To Read' list for the longest time. I would stand in Southern Utah Universities Audio/Visual Library in the basement just holding the DVD copy and trying to talk myself into renting it- well I finally did and adored it!
The play itself is an answer (not really) to a long debated argument of what Art really is/can be. It's true, it really doesn't provide 'any' answers to that debate- but what it taught me is that all Art has a price.
As an actor- I myself have to look at a piece of work and really ask myself if it's worth what it will teach me- if I'm willing to pay the price to invite its lessons into my life. A for sure read for any Art Lover.
The Shape of Things- I knew about this play for so long after first hearing a bad review of it- and keeping off my 'To Read' list for the longest time. I would stand in Southern Utah Universities Audio/Visual Library in the basement just holding the DVD copy and trying to talk myself into renting it- well I finally did and adored it!
The play itself is an answer (not really) to a long debated argument of what Art really is/can be. It's true, it really doesn't provide 'any' answers to that debate- but what it taught me is that all Art has a price.
As an actor- I myself have to look at a piece of work and really ask myself if it's worth what it will teach me- if I'm willing to pay the price to invite its lessons into my life. A for sure read for any Art Lover.
March 17, 2022
bone-chilling and weirdly human
You either see the artistic drive in it - and love it- or get disturbed by the startling dissection of cruelty and artistic creation.
Seeing this as a sort of short story helps focusing rather on the meaning than on the actions taking place (although I don´t want to give it too much depth). I bet the ambivalent characters are great to portray in a play, as no one gets away unscathed.
Feels like a fever dream
You either see the artistic drive in it - and love it- or get disturbed by the startling dissection of cruelty and artistic creation.
Seeing this as a sort of short story helps focusing rather on the meaning than on the actions taking place (although I don´t want to give it too much depth). I bet the ambivalent characters are great to portray in a play, as no one gets away unscathed.
Feels like a fever dream
March 8, 2016
One of my favorite LaBute plays. Raises a lot of questions, but is also a fun ride.
October 23, 2024
banger abi lektüre
April 4, 2025
finding characters unlikable IS NOT INTERESTING OR RELEVANT CRITICISM, my god
Real life people are unlikable sometimes! They are often some of the most interesting people!
As someone who just graduated a fancy liberal arts school, I found this crazy and engaging with some truly fascinating gender politics. All of these characters are totally alive on the page to me, and very clear and realized in their motives.
What makes good art? What makes someone cool? How does attractiveness change inner character?
All fascinating questions. Evelyn is a dream role, and this would rock staged at many colleges
Real life people are unlikable sometimes! They are often some of the most interesting people!
As someone who just graduated a fancy liberal arts school, I found this crazy and engaging with some truly fascinating gender politics. All of these characters are totally alive on the page to me, and very clear and realized in their motives.
What makes good art? What makes someone cool? How does attractiveness change inner character?
All fascinating questions. Evelyn is a dream role, and this would rock staged at many colleges
Read
December 1, 2022My jaw is just so dropped right now. I think everyone in this play is a little bit messed up… scratch that, it’s a spectrum of mess. It’s making me wonder if humanity is really as malleable as it seems in this play. There’s gotta be some touch of truth, but I’m not sure. Anyways, this one really makes you think.
August 9, 2024
And yet open any fashion magazine, turn on any television program and the world will tell you...he's only gotten more interesting, more desirable, more normal. In a word, better. He is a living, breathing example of our obsession with the surface of things, the shape of them.
January 8, 2024
holy shit. what a fucking play.
Read
March 3, 2024Single 5eva
August 14, 2024
I don’t mind unlikeable characters but I do mind characters that you don’t give a shit about. Anything could’ve happened to any of these characters and I wouldn’t have cared.
Also, I’m so glad I didn’t read this description before picking up the play? It pretty much summarizes and spoils the whole thing.
Also, I’m so glad I didn’t read this description before picking up the play? It pretty much summarizes and spoils the whole thing.
October 9, 2023
crazy plot twist and very interesting characters!! love messy people
December 2, 2024
Listen Evelyn sucks so bad but also she’s a girlboss and I need her
Read
April 13, 2024Evelyn is CRAZYYYYYY!!!!!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 219 reviews