شهر زیبا

by Conor McPherson, پریسا رستمی بالان (Translator)

کانرمک فسن نمایش نامه نویس و کارگردان ایرلندی است که در 6 آگوست1971 در دوبلین به دنیا آمد. او تحصیلات خود را در دانشگاه دوبلین به انجام رساند وزمانی که عضوی از انجمن هنرهای نمایشی کالج دوبلین بود نوشتن را آغاز کرد. وی یکی از تاثیرگذارترین نمایش نامه نویسان معاصر ایرلند است که نمایش نامه هایش در سراسر دنیا به ویژه در «وست اند» و «برادوی» روی صحنه می رود و طیف وسیعی از منتقدان کارهیش را بی نظیر می دانند. نمایش نامه های او تاکنون برنده جوایز معتبری چون لارنس اولیویه» و «جرج دیواین» و نامزد جوایز معتبری چون «تونی» و «دراما دسک» شده اند. وی در سبک نوشتاری خود تا حدودی متاثر از آرتور میلر ودیوید ممت است. ترجمه این نمایش نامه نخستین اثری است که از اون به زبان فارسی منتشرمیشود.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Fiction, Theatre

80 pages, Paperback

First published June 10, 2004

About the author

Conor McPherson is an Irish playwright and director.

Reviews

[Patrick Grizzard · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m all in favor of naturalism but there are stretches of this play that are practically unreadable for all the pauses and “likes” and “you knows.” I’m sure it’s much better performed than read. That said, the rambling, meandering dialogue is punctuated with some really beautiful moments (the final scene, especially).

[Jessica C · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was weird... but interesting. I enjoyed it!

[Behnam Taki · Rating 5 out of 5]

یک نمایشنامه درخشان
به نظرم یکی از تکنیکی‌ترین نمایشنامه‌های ۳۰ سال اخیره.

[EmilyAnne · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wanted to read this for a few years now, but once I graduated from Cuse I was over reading plays and dissecting them. I picked this back up and finally read it this morning. It was an interesting play in terms of the characters relationships and their secrets. It felt real to me; the dialogue is very Mamet-esque with the talking over one another and barely getting out a coherent thought. I think I'd still prefer The Seafarer over this play though.

[Nancy · Rating 1 out of 5]

MARCH

34. by Conor McPherson (no photo)

Finish date: 04 March 2022
Genre: Play
Rating: F
Review:

Bad news: This confessional chat (scene 3) patient - therapist was supposed to be the climax of the play. Well, it was just an excruciating read. Scenes 1,2 and 4 were no better: there was a ghost, ex-priest, fiancé, baby, coddling wife, love affair with text messages, a gigolo...and a fight in a brothel.

Bad news: McPherson tries to mirror the private lives of the patient (John) and therapist (Ian). Both have huge secrets from spouse/fiancé...both want to "...believe that something else is my reality" but the whole concept of the play felt …like wading through thick mud, and I found myself longing desperately for some clear, unambiguous writing. Dialogue is so awful that the play becomes borderline incomprehensible:

Mmm…
Okay…
Well, I’m, you know…
No, no no…
No one finished their sentences...ever!

Good news Stage directions were better than the play!

Personal: What did I just read? ...it was a 'train wreck' of a play. Just awful. Scenes filled with …ho-hums, empty chatter…just NO feeling that I’ve read a brilliant play. I never expected to read such a boring piece of writing by Conor McPherson. I really enjoyed his play The Weir Shining City is such a huge disappointment. I still cannot find the link between the play and the title? Am I missing something? This is THE WORST Irish play I’ve ever read!
#WasteOfMyReadingTime

[Michaela Buckley]

Yeah, well... like, you know?

[Yourfiendmrjones · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was thinking as I was reading it that this was one of McPherson's lesser works. Something where the supernatural element was so slight and the issues of the characters were too much in the foreground without his usual carefully wrought balance of the two.

Until the last page.

I will say nothing more except that this is on par with the two plays of his I love- The Weir and The Seafarer.

[N Perrin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Modern theater suffers from a small circulation of recycled tropes and formulaic character-types. There are several powerful moments in the script for this particular play, but it does not set itself apart as a masterpiece of theater whose vivacity carries over to the typed page.

[Mak · Rating 3 out of 5]

Terrible dialogue to read, but apparently fantastic as a live performance. The ending made me want to re-read, but I can't put myself through that again.

[Olivia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scary good.

[Martin Denton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is, mostly, a ghost story; that's familiar terrain for author Conor McPherson, who here places his trademark monodrama style within a more traditional multi-character play format. Ian, a priest-turned-psychologist, is the protagonist of this piece, and in two sharply written scenes we meet his fiancée, Neasa, who becomes increasingly desperate as she realizes that Ian is serious about dissolving their relationship, and a young man named Laurence with whom he engages in some tentative romancing as a kind of test of his true orientation and nature.

But for most of Shining City, we observe Ian in the presence of one of his patients, a businessman named John who is having a rough time getting over the death of his wife. She was killed in a freakish tragic accident, but as John's reminiscences proceed we come to understand that it wasn't just the terrible suddenness of her death that has turned his life upside down--he is carrying around with him huge wads of guilt, some earned, some perhaps not. His sessions with Ian--in particular one at the center of the play in which he recounts the history of a mild extramarital liaison--help us discover the ghosts that are haunting John, and help him exorcise them.

They also awaken the ghosts that Ian is trying to flee from. Whether the physician is able to heal himself I will leave for you to discover and decide for yourself.

[Lauren · Rating 2 out of 5]

The 2006 Tony for Best Play was an interesting category: Only one American author alongside two Irish scribes and a Brit, Alan Bennet, who won for the fabulous History Boys.

Having read all four plays, I found the two Irish entries, including Shining City, weaker than History Boys and Rabbit Hole. Shining City is so weighed down by ‘naturalist’ dialogue that the play, on page, becomes borderline incomprehensible. I’m always impressed by playwrights who can capture conversational tics and the natural beats of normal chatter, but Shining City is so bogged down by pauses, ‘I think’ and ‘you know’ that it almost reads as a mocking take on colloquial dialogue. Honestly, the dialogue was so distracting that the so-called plot fades into the background.

There’s a good chance it comes across better as a performance, but as a play to be read, this one’s a huge miss. Not recommended.

[Drew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ever feel a certain character gets too much stage time? In McPherson's ineffective ghost story "Shining City," a former priest's counseling client rambles on for 15-pages with scant interruption. (And he talks endlessly elsewhere too!) His narration of the events leading up to his wife's gruesome death is somehow too real and too banal. I'd have preferred more of the therapist's working-class baby mama or the poor male prostitute he picks up instead. "Shining City" isn't terrible; nor is "Come on Over," its companion. But with McPherson, I'm used to be thrilled, not intermittently entertained.

[Erika Jean · Rating 3 out of 5]

Of all the dialogue, it was John's soliloquy that really pulled me in.

I wish we were able to explore more of his interest in Ian, the same way he poured out his soul while narrating his tryst with Vivien.
If his ghosts were invoked by both, it seems like what John really wants isn't a lover, more a person who could listen to him. Really, what a self-centered dude who is made out to be a poor guilt-torn soul eh?

Overall, worthwhile read. Thanks for introducing me to Conor Mcpherson, Brendan Coyle, my current obsession from Downton Abbey!

[Tom O'Brien · Rating 4 out of 5]

McPherson's play examines identity, sex, secrecy, repression in a confessional context that brings it into the realm of belief and loss of belief. The naturalism is perfectly portrayed, but placing it in the context of 'a ghost' and a break up adds a mirror to heighten the intensity. The psychological effect on both men is played out over an extended period of time, leading to a moving and unnerving denouement.

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

If only humans could have the courage to communicate honestly.
1) one of those plays you may want to read out loud to yourself to hear the rhythm of the dialogue
2) McPherson, as usual, writes his plays like an onion - seems simple on the surface but the layers appear the more you think on what you just read/saw.

[Emma Rund · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

Huh! What an interesting little play! I rather liked that. My one big complaint is that it seemed like the playwright challenged himself to write “you know” into literally every single line, and honestly it gave me a bit of a headache.

[Steve · Rating 2 out of 5]

Okay? We are treated to two scenes that feel superfluous when the obvious action is between John and Ian.

[Janine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Want to discuss

[Baran · Rating 3 out of 5]

احساس میکنم اجرای صحنه اش از متنش خیلی بهتر باید باشه

[holly · Rating 3 out of 5]

standard naturalism Conor is so good at but the ending of this really spooked me lmao

[Kym Smith]

this would usually take me one day but i am in 4 college courses currently so not too much on me...

[Salli · Rating 2 out of 5]

I agree that this is probably better on stage than on the page, but I felt that this went straight over my head. Yes some great dialogue but what is this about? Not a classic I feel.

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

That ending absolutely nailed it!!

[Amir Hossein Miri moghaddam · Rating 5 out of 5]

به جرئت می‌تونم بگم یکی از بهترین نمایشنامه‌هایی بود که خوندم و باز هم می‌خونمش. پر از دیالوگ‌های خوب و سبک روایت منحصر به فرد.

[Áine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was like 60% interested and impressed with this and then the last page was so satisfying to me that I immediately wanted to read it from the start again.

[Lorelai Hilarczyk · Rating 2 out of 5]

Also for a class, but i didn’t hate it

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

In scene three of Conor McPherson’s play Shining City, John, a widower who believes his deceased wife’s ghost is haunting him, confides to Ian, his therapist: “I just want to have a transaction where some normal rules apply again, you know?” John, like Ian, is battling with issues of identity, but McPherson intelligently connects identity with themes of sexuality and existence. For McPherson, these themes are not independent; therefore, to address one is to consider all. He focuses all three themes on one subject: religion.
The published text of Shining City also includes the short play “Come On Over.” In the former, Ian is an ex-priest turned therapist, a man who has abandoned his girlfriend and their baby. He is a man who is on the cusp of living as an open homosexual but who ultimately cannot cross that threshold. In the short play, Matthew was once a priest of “strong” faith, but after he is brutally stabbed in the face by a young girl he was molesting, he loses his trust in God. With both Ian and Matthew’s characters, McPherson raises complex questions about sexuality and the Catholic Church. Ian leaves the priesthood but although he comes close, he cannot live honestly with his sexual preference. Matthew in “Come On Over” seems to have repressed his sexual desires until he can no longer control them. For both Ian and Matthew, sexuality is a force---a power so strong and so long denied----that it damages innocent lives when it is finally released: Ian’s wife and Patience, the young girl Matthew molested.
If you read both Shining City and “Come On Over,” an alternative question also emerges. Is McPherson’s purpose with Ian and Matthew to warn about the dangers of priests abandoning God? Is his intention grounded in more traditional Christian principles? Both Ian and Matthew abandon God as much as they feel abandoned by God, and the reality of this, as I’ve stated, is emotionally, physically, and spiritually violent to others. Indeed, Ian’s life seems to lack substantial meaning after he leaves the priesthood. At the end of Shining City, John mentions that Ian doesn’t believe in ghosts (the bridge to Holy Ghost is not a long one to cross here). Ian responds, “John, there was a time I would’ve given anything to see one. Just to know that there was…something else. Do you know what I mean?/Just something else, besides all the…you know…the pain and confusion. Just something that gave everything…some meaning, you know? I’m talking about God, really, you know?”
McPherson does not provide simple solutions in either play. He addresses religion as directly relating to how we see our existence in the world, and he does so in a thought-provoking, shocking, and surprisingly tender manner.

[Jay Bradley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Seen at the Royal Theatre Stratford on 9/28/21

I say more a 3.5 star, but I have some irks with this one as much as I loved parts of it. I think for most of it, it provides this unique, harsh insight into male isolation, drifting emotions, and psyche that is incredibly hard to put into words. Maybe it's because the last three plays I saw had gay romance as a primary story driver but I feel like it cut to the core of this type of despondent heterosexuality that making the lead character gay almost felt like an improper resolution to the really tough questions it set up in the beginning, trading it for a now more common type of tragic story. John is the most interesting character by far, although the side characters interest me a lot and I'm curious where they might end up. I get how the ghost is meant that like, Ian is going to be haunted by the same decisions he's making of staying the course but like it's not as impactful or consistent with what they were working with earlier on. Just so disappointed about how it didn't resolve this idea it set up more.

[Cat · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this play was really beautiful, and I loved the ending. The parallels between the two central male characters were striking, but McPherson also let them build without spelling them out...I love the silences and the incomplete sentences and the hesitations. I think the monologues would be even more powerful performed (duh). I also liked the way the scenes connected with one another without being strictly drawn from one another. The audience is allowed to do a lot of their own psychological, associative work that way. There was a second play (called "Come On Over," maybe?) in the volume that I found very disturbing. This may mean it's a powerful, amazing play, but I haven't gotten beyond my disturbed reaction to that one yet. I thought "Shining City" offered more possibilities for redemption to its characters (and maybe viewers), and I responded to that more.