Mr. Burns, a post-electric play

by Anne Washburn

"What will endure when the cataclysm arrives--when the grid fails, society crumbles, and we're faced with the task of rebuilding? Anne Washburn's imaginative dark comedy propels us forward nearly a century, following a new civilization stumbling into its future. A paean to live theater, and to the resilience of Bart Simpson through the ages, Mr. Burns is an animated exploration of how the pop culture of one era might evolve into the mythology of another."--Publisher's website

Genres: Plays, Drama, Theatre, Fiction, School, Post Apocalyptic, Read For School

96 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2013

Reviews

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the aftermath of a nuclear apocalypse, can memories of The Simpsons pull people together?

My lady and I saw this play performed last night and now I shall seek out the book so I can better process and pick apart what we witnessed.

The first act of the play takes place just after the apocalypse. There is no electricity and a small group of survivors amuses themselves by reminiscing about the Cape Fear episode of the Simpsons. A stranger shows up and is eventually accepted into their group. This was by far the best act of the play. It was really intense and made me forget I just shelled out $50.

The second act takes place seven years after the first. The effects of the apocalypse are still being felt. Travelling groups of actors perform episodes of the Simpsons in front of live audiences, painstakingly reconstructing the episodes from people's vague memories. This act wasn't as good as the first but I still dug it once I pieced together what was going on.

The third act takes place 75 years after the second. I suspect it is supposed to show how the Cape Fear episode of the Simpsons mutated after being retold for almost a century but I kept thinking about Robert Chambers' The King in Yellow. It was so bizarre I hoped I remembered how to drive when the act was over. I looked at my gf a few times and mouthed "This is so fucked up." Mr. Burns and Itchy and Scratchy terrorize the Simpsons on a houseboat. When a bosomy woman playing Lisa Simpsons gets groped by a demonic Mr. Burns, you don't easily forget it.

So, yeah, if Mr. Burns comes to your town, I recommend seeing it for the WTF factor of the third act alone. It wasn't my favorite play but it's definitely etched into my brain. 3.5 out of 5 stars.

[Bee]

Detailed knowledge of The Simpsons not necessary, but pretty useful.

[Jenny Maloney · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really, really, really like the premise of the play. I LOVE the idea of trying to hold on to a piece of culture in a post-apocalyptic setting. (This play is very Station Eleven in a lot of ways.)

But I don't know how I feel about the delivery in this case, so that's really tough. I bought heavily into the first part -- totally loved the 'exchange of names' that happens when people are looking for their lost loved ones -- but didn't quite make the leap (the wild leaps) of parts two and three. Especially the music. Perhaps I'm just not visionary enough in this case.

[Mallory · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is everything I dislike about weird experimental plays. The source material is an episode of The Simpsons, the only thing that differentiates the characters are their names, and the writing is trying to be unique but is just a convoluted mess. I'm guessing this is supposed to be a bastardized mixture of pop-culture references and Ancient Greek oral storytelling set in a post-apocalyptic world, but the point of this combination is lost on me. But perhaps, I just "didn't get it".

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yeah, this was great.

[max theodore · Rating 4 out of 5]

this is fucking brilliant and i want to see it DESPERATELY. obviously the progressive warping of the simpsons story into a post-apocalyptic cultural myth is fascinating and extremely well-done but i'm just as impressed by the slow unfolding of information in the first act through dialogue alone--the gaps in the info we have are brilliant and terrifying. i would be frothing to act in this if i could fucking SING

[Eric Walker · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved the first two acts of this play but I think it fell apart in the third act. I feel like I get what it was trying to say by having only remnants of The Simpsons remain amid this extremely dramatic play but I still didn't like it. I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic stories and with the addition of The Simpsons the first two acts earn a 5 star rating. Too bad the third act has to count too.

[nora · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Meaning is everywhere. We get Meaning for free, whether we like it or not.”

hooooly shit. love when post-apocalyptic things hit particularly hard in our end times. this play feels meant for me specifically, someone who’s obsessed with how stories change through adaptations and cultural circumstances and grew up on the simpsons. goodreads let me give things 4.5 stars already

[Gabe Steller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun! enjoyed the sense of menace and the desperateness of the fun the character are trying to have, which then curdles into the wonderful third act. loved the structures. is Station 11 anything like this? shoudl i watch that show? anyway yah

[elena · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think Anne Washburn might be a genius. The "silly" and ridiculous premise of this script almost hides how incredibly intricate and purposefully constructed and thoughtful the writing is. It was such a challenge as an actor but SO rewarding. Take this play seriously.

[Amoi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Im confused

[PatrickCS · Rating 3 out of 5]

I first heard about this play several months ago when it was being performed in my area. I made a half-assed attempt to convince some friends to go see it (us generally not being 'play' people) because it was one of the most refreshingly unique stories I've heard of in quite a while. We ended up not going.

Lo and behold, I found a copy of the script at my local library and read it today.

Act One takes place "in the near future", and consists of a group of people recounting an old Simpsons episode around a fire not long after some unnamed apocalyptic event has occurred in America (I have no clue whether the events purported to be in the episode in question actually occur in the real one, or whether these characters are woefully unaware of how badly they're botching it - my hope is that it's the latter).

Act Two takes place seven years later, and follows the same group of characters as they rehearse a performance - commercials included. There's talk of rival Simpsons troupes. It's charming.

Now, these first two acts come across exactly as I'd hoped they would. The premise is intriguing...especially the numerous hints and implications about the apocalyptic event in question and the current state of society beyond what we're seeing.

Act Three, taking place 75 years after Act One, is a total botch job. It's an actual performance of the episode, played by unnamed actors, which should have the biggest payoff of the three (because of course, as audience members, we want to see how much it differs from the episode described in Act One), but OF COURSE they made it a fucking musical with fruity, hoity-toity lyrics and a grandiose sense of...whatever...that is just outright unsatisfying to read. It's probably riddled with clever references to other turn-of-this-century pop culture items that I failed to pick up on (I did notice a few, including what I believe to be a Ricky Martin lyric) and that would have changed my opinion completely had I bothered to read every lyric instead of skimming them to get to the stage directions, but such is life.

I'd totally see this play if I got the chance to, but would definitely save my piss break for the third act. Fuck musicals.

[Doug · Rating 2 out of 5]

My impetus for reading this play was a rave review for a local SF production of it. My review rating reflects two problems I had with it: A. I have never seen a single episode of 'The Simpsons', so much of the play flew right over my head. B. the entire last act is through-sung, and IF one had seen a production, I am sure it would make more sense than it does sitting on the page. Interesting idea, but unless one is a die hard Simpson fan, I doubt it would be pleasurable.

[Lyle]

There are two scary things in this play - seeing normal people speak and act normally in the post-apocalypse, and seeing humanity return to cheap, lousy theatre. Next time you hope for a vaudeville revival, read this and beware.

[Jonathan Lee B. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mr Burns is hot coffee on a cold porch.

[Christlyn]

pray for this generation 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

"I’m not trying to turn it into a Drama Quincy, I’m trying to create a… richer sense of reality and that’s the part of what makes it funny; things are funniest when they’re true… I’m just saying I think we have a chance to like, to like, engage at the same time with, like…larger…are we just entertaining them? We have an opportunity here to provide…meaning.”
"Meaning is everywhere. We get Meaning for free, whether we like it or not. Meaningless Entertainment, on the other hand, is actually really hard."

I have to admit: My judgment of texts like Mr. Burns might be coloured. Because there is this fun group of people I meet up with, all of us eating too much and drinking just enough while reading plays out loud. And it's fun. Especially so if the text in question is a bit weird and the meaning cloaked in absurdity.

This one was bonkers. A post-electric world were the simpsons seem to be the only lasting cultural phenomenon. Rapid fumbling speech. A third act that is part cartoon, part greek tragedy and a steaming heap of musical Simpsons theater. It really shouldn't work. But I liked it!

I find the developement of culture and narrative over 80 years fascinating. What happens to Popculture after civilization as we know it has fallen? There is this exchange in the second act, where the characters fight over the direction of their Simpsons-Reenactment, which I used to start this review. For me, it's what makes Mr. Burns great in a nutshell. I am still thinking about this play, and won't stop soon. And if it's only great through perfomance, so be it. I'd repeat the reading anytime.

[Craig Werner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Smart and funny, Mr. Burns mixes dystopian science fiction (a world where the grid has collapsed) with a set of riffs on how pop culture generally (and the Simpsons specifically) might evolve over the 75-post collapse years. Like most plays, it would be better on stage, but the first two acts particularly read well and it's not hard to see how the third would play out.

[massmarketbareback · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5 i really need to see this on stage (and the fact ive never seen the simpsons mean a lot of it went over my head)

[Geoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was somehow simultaneously a work of genius (about how pop culture could be transmitted and transmuted in a post-apocalyptic society) and a cringe-fest. 3.5 stars.

[Aled · Rating 3 out of 5]

loved the premise. bit too abstract for me 👍

[Tim Combes · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant meditation on art, collective memory, and the ongoing creation of myth. Can’t wait to assistant direct it.

[Linds · Rating 4 out of 5]

I missed this when it was playing at the Guthrie in Minneapolis, which is too bad. I love the concept, if not the execution.

[Rosie 🌹 · Rating 5 out of 5]

a must-read play for anyone who loves theatre that’s as intelligent as it is entertaining, you don’t need a lot of knowledge about The Simpsons to enjoy/appreciate this (I know I don’t!) - absolute genius

[aster]

pairs nicely with annie baker’s “the antipodes”. one of those plays that it’s hard to get the full story by reading (like the bjj play i just read), but the way washburn constructs the dramaturgy of the play is SO BRILLIANT

[Cat]

the first part is just like when Ben asks me if I've seen a South Park episode then proceeds to recount the whole plot to me

[Evan Stein · Rating 1 out of 5]

This shit is painful to read. I get the idea but it’s not a good one. Just because something is experimental or an exercise of something doesn’t mean it’s good!

[Julia · Rating 3 out of 5]

no i do NOT want to talk about the scant/negative amount of recreational reading that has happened this quarter. anyway after talking it up for months my friend finally lent me his copy of mr burns on halloween so when i made the drunken journey back to my dorm it was with a couple plays, which is the right way to make the drunken journey back to one's dorm. a professor in one of my classes last week said, Every disturbance is a genuine disturbance, which freaked me out and I have thought about it at least once a day since. Every disturbance is a genuine disturbance. This is relevant right now; it is always relevant. I thought of it because of this one line in Mr Burns, Meaning is everywhere whether we like it or not. And so I was texting my friend about the play after reading it—he's been badgering me about reading it and i haven't had the TIME and then today at 11:54pm, the minute I finished Mr Burns, he happened to text me a reference—and i said, everyone in the classics department should read mr burns, maybe, and i said, explaining Every Disturbance Is A Genuine Disturbance:

"i brought up the berlant thing bc this was during a discussion about robert mapplethorpe, and also bc one (rly smart) student was like, why must we always try to make these artists and these traditions capacious, why must we keep trying to make them more than they are when it is so much work and it can hurt so much to find capaciousness and meaning in art that is hostile to you. why must we keep going back, why can’t we do and study new things. i’m paraphrasing, what she said was more concise. and i was sitting there during this discussion like, Here I Am, A Classics Major. like, why keep studying this same thing, hasn’t this thing been studied enough. but that’s why i like it, which i feel bad about. i like classics because, yeah, it is cool to study a thing that is foundational and has been invested with so much power and is sort of the root of story, the essence of story. (of western story.) and it’s crazy because it’s in no way inherent in classical literature, it’s an accident of time and of history. and mr burns gets that, it gets how things blur and get muddled and the power and real capital-s Story arises from the muddle. (the poem i’ve been reading in latin class this quarter, a poem from, you know, after vergil’s time, is actually our source text for the ‘achilles’ heel’ thing! that’s crazy! there is no literary documentation earlier than that! but you would have no idea. you feel like it’s in homer, or something equivalent.)"

what is a story-world, and what does it mean to create one? how do you do it? how is it successful? something i've been thinking about in my latin class, for which i'm reading statius' achilleid, but also in general. in relation to the thorne miniature rooms at the art institute, to joseph cornell boxes, to therese's set models in the price of salt, to what i mean when i say i want to study literature. there's a reason anne washburn has written "transadaptations" of two euripides plays. anyway, i liked mr burns.

[jane august]

The best way to read this is as an impromptu quarantine FaceTime reading with three people who can’t sing trying to read for a whole chorus

[Kristen Lo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Crazy. Knowing a bit of background about the genesis of this play is really helpful (started from a recorded conversation, and ACT 1 is much of that conversation). It's playing at ACT this January and I can't wait to see it. I feel like most of ACT 3 is visual and aural, so I got very little of it. But nonetheless is was very intriguing and Anne Washburn is quite clever.