What do you think?
Rate this book
Closer: A Play
In Closer, Patrick Marber has created a brilliant exploration into the brutal anatomy of modern romance, where a quartet of strangers meet, fall in love, and become caught up in a web of sexual desire and betrayal. Closer is hailed as one of the best plays of the nineties, and as the London Observer noted, it "has wired itself into the cultural vocabulary in a way that few plays have ever done."
120 pages, Paperback
First published November 3, 1997
18 people are currently reading
2188 people want to read
About the author
Patrick Marber
38 books44 followersPatrick Albert Crispin Marber is an English comedian, playwright, director, puppeteer, actor and screenwriter. After working for a few years as a stand-up comedian, Marber was a writer and cast member on the radio shows On the Hour and Knowing Me, Knowing You, and their television spinoffs The Day Today and Knowing Me, Knowing You... with Alan Partridge. Amongst other roles, Marber portrayed the hapless reporter Peter O'Hanrahahanrahan in both On the Hour and The Day Today.
His first play was Dealer's Choice, which he also directed. Set in a restaurant and based around a game of poker (and partly inspired by his own experiences with gambling addiction), it opened at the National Theatre in February 1995, and won the 1995 Evening Standard Award for Best Comedy.
After Miss Julie, a version of the Strindberg play Miss Julie, was broadcast on BBC television in the same year. In this, Marber moves the action to Britain in 1945, at the time of the Labour Party's victory in the general election, with Miss Julie as the daughter of a Labour peer. A stage version, directed by Michael Grandage, was first performed 2003 at the Donmar Warehouse, London by Kelly Reilly, Richard Coyle and Helen Baxendale. It later had a production at the American Airlines Theatre on Broadway in 2009.
His play Closer, a comedy of sex, dishonesty and betrayal, opened at the National Theatre in 1997, again directed by Marber. This too won the Evening Standard award for Best Comedy, as well as the Critics' Circle Theatre Awards and Laurence Olivier awards for Best New Play. It has proved to be an international success, having been translated into thirty languages. A screen adaptation, written by Marber, was released in 2004, directed by Mike Nichols and starring Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Natalie Portman and Clive Owen.
In Howard Katz, his next play, Marber presented very different subject matter: a middle-aged man struggling with life, death and religion. This was first performed in 2001, again at the National Theatre, but was less favourably received by the critics and has been less of a commercial success than some of his other work. A new production by the Roundabout Theatre Company opened Off-Broadway in March 2007, with Alfred Molina in the title role. A play for young people, The Musicians, about a school orchestra's visit to Russia, was performed for the National Theatre's Shell Connections programme in 2004, its first production being at the Sydney Opera House.
Don Juan in Soho, his contemporary rendering of Molière's comedy Don Juan, opened at the Donmar Warehouse in 2006, directed by Michael Grandage and with Rhys Ifans in the lead role.
He also co-wrote the screenplay for Asylum (2005), directed by David Mackenzie, and was sole screenwriter for the film Notes on a Scandal (2006), for which he earned an Academy Award nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay.
In 2004, Marber was Cameron Mackintosh Professor of Contemporary Theatre at Oxford University.
His first play was Dealer's Choice, which he also directed. Set in a restaurant and based around a game of poker (and partly inspired by his own experiences with gambling addiction), it opened at the National Theatre in February 1995, and won the 1995 Evening Standard Award for Best Comedy.
After Miss Julie, a version of the Strindberg play Miss Julie, was broadcast on BBC television in the same year. In this, Marber moves the action to Britain in 1945, at the time of the Labour Party's victory in the general election, with Miss Julie as the daughter of a Labour peer. A stage version, directed by Michael Grandage, was first performed 2003 at the Donmar Warehouse, London by Kelly Reilly, Richard Coyle and Helen Baxendale. It later had a production at the American Airlines Theatre on Broadway in 2009.
His play Closer, a comedy of sex, dishonesty and betrayal, opened at the National Theatre in 1997, again directed by Marber. This too won the Evening Standard award for Best Comedy, as well as the Critics' Circle Theatre Awards and Laurence Olivier awards for Best New Play. It has proved to be an international success, having been translated into thirty languages. A screen adaptation, written by Marber, was released in 2004, directed by Mike Nichols and starring Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Natalie Portman and Clive Owen.
In Howard Katz, his next play, Marber presented very different subject matter: a middle-aged man struggling with life, death and religion. This was first performed in 2001, again at the National Theatre, but was less favourably received by the critics and has been less of a commercial success than some of his other work. A new production by the Roundabout Theatre Company opened Off-Broadway in March 2007, with Alfred Molina in the title role. A play for young people, The Musicians, about a school orchestra's visit to Russia, was performed for the National Theatre's Shell Connections programme in 2004, its first production being at the Sydney Opera House.
Don Juan in Soho, his contemporary rendering of Molière's comedy Don Juan, opened at the Donmar Warehouse in 2006, directed by Michael Grandage and with Rhys Ifans in the lead role.
He also co-wrote the screenplay for Asylum (2005), directed by David Mackenzie, and was sole screenwriter for the film Notes on a Scandal (2006), for which he earned an Academy Award nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay.
In 2004, Marber was Cameron Mackintosh Professor of Contemporary Theatre at Oxford University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 214 reviews
December 21, 2017
First, this is a play and reading a play rates second or third to either watching a performance or at least listening to it on audio book. It’s all dialogue and the words need nuance and thespian readings and direction to get an effective take on the material. I’ve had enough experience in the “theatre”, to know that it’s a rare play that will jump off the page and capture me and this isn’t one of them.
Second, this was turned into a movie starring Julia Roberts, who aged out of her “America’s Sweetheart” title a few decades ago, so it’s a good chance I’ll pass up watching this in favor of another viewing of Deadpool, even if it features Natalie Portman as a lap dancer.
Really?
Get ready for some banal out-of-context dialogue pics.
So, this isn't any different from any of your comic book reviews?
Shaddup and sadly, the banal out-of-context dialogue doesn’t even begin to capture some of the wit that Marber brings to his play.
That’s deep! Again with the lying.
Marber tries to recreate a sex-chat room on the page and on stage, but at this juncture in time it already seems dated and trite – like reading a Clifford Odets play about Bolsheviks and the struggle of the worker.
So what’s the play about?
Take the “clever” title of the play and go ironic, because this thing is about how people (there’s mercifully only four characters) who are kinky, hung-up, and alienated, seek love through physical contact and pretend it’s something meaningful and lasting i.e. bringing them “closer”. I can listen to either The Spinners’ song “Games People Play” or John Lennon’s “Mind Games” to get the same message in a more succinct way. And it only costs me three or four minutes of my time.
Okay, point taken and can somebody throat punch Jude Law.
So why did you read this play?
My son had to write a school paper on this play and he wanted me to read it, so I could better help proof his work. He also had to read Antigone. He liked that one better.
So, timeless writing wins our over shallow, lurid typing every time.
I tried but I only “three-star” love you, Hon.
Second, this was turned into a movie starring Julia Roberts, who aged out of her “America’s Sweetheart” title a few decades ago, so it’s a good chance I’ll pass up watching this in favor of another viewing of Deadpool, even if it features Natalie Portman as a lap dancer.
Really?
Get ready for some banal out-of-context dialogue pics.
So, this isn't any different from any of your comic book reviews?
Shaddup and sadly, the banal out-of-context dialogue doesn’t even begin to capture some of the wit that Marber brings to his play.
That’s deep! Again with the lying.
Marber tries to recreate a sex-chat room on the page and on stage, but at this juncture in time it already seems dated and trite – like reading a Clifford Odets play about Bolsheviks and the struggle of the worker.
So what’s the play about?
Take the “clever” title of the play and go ironic, because this thing is about how people (there’s mercifully only four characters) who are kinky, hung-up, and alienated, seek love through physical contact and pretend it’s something meaningful and lasting i.e. bringing them “closer”. I can listen to either The Spinners’ song “Games People Play” or John Lennon’s “Mind Games” to get the same message in a more succinct way. And it only costs me three or four minutes of my time.
Okay, point taken and can somebody throat punch Jude Law.
So why did you read this play?
My son had to write a school paper on this play and he wanted me to read it, so I could better help proof his work. He also had to read Antigone. He liked that one better.
So, timeless writing wins our over shallow, lurid typing every time.
I tried but I only “three-star” love you, Hon.
October 30, 2013
'Our flesh is ferocious/our bodies will kill us/ our bones will outlive us'
Having seen the film a few times now it is hard not to draw comparison, but this, the original creation by Patrick Marber is darker again, the lovers infinitely more fascinating and yet just as unlikeable.
There is an elegance & complexity not achieved by the film. I was surprised at the very different 'ending' but some of the clunky transitions in the film now make sense.
To summarise - I like the bite, I hate the cynicism, I love the filth. I can imagine the stage play would be quite something.
Having seen the film a few times now it is hard not to draw comparison, but this, the original creation by Patrick Marber is darker again, the lovers infinitely more fascinating and yet just as unlikeable.
There is an elegance & complexity not achieved by the film. I was surprised at the very different 'ending' but some of the clunky transitions in the film now make sense.
To summarise - I like the bite, I hate the cynicism, I love the filth. I can imagine the stage play would be quite something.
February 15, 2017
The relationships shown here are partly about what men want and what women want but the discussion encompasses so much more. The men are jealous and selfish and want what they cannot have. The women are victimized by men's attention and yet cannot do without it. The only one that has any conviction at all is the exotic dancer who has little compunction about the crudity of her profession. She is unasbashed and possibly the most honest of the four.
The play has a disturbing, uncomfortable feel and finish.
The play has a disturbing, uncomfortable feel and finish.
October 12, 2011
Closer talks a lot, but it doesn't actually say anything.
Marber is good at acting like he does. The characters are witty, the situations they get themselves into are mind-bending in an interesting way, and the dialogue is well-written, staccato and blunt in a way that must have felt challenging and 'edgy' in the 1990s. Here, to me, it just felt like the eleven-year-old who thinks he's hard core because he uses the F-word.
The characters are insufferable. But they're supposed to be insufferable. That's the whole point -- every comment I make about this play, I would have to preface with "supposed to be." Nothing feels realistic, but it's not supposed to be. No-one is at all likeable, but they're not supposed to be. The message is bleak and grim, but it's supposed to be. Closer is a play that knows it's a play, and thinks it's oh so very clever for figuring it out. There's a lot of loaded comments about art, what people want from art, how art is nothing but a Big Fat Lie. But, ultimately, there's so much Try in Closer that none of it really sticks. Trying to be edgy. Edgy by being horribly misogynistic (but it's *supposed to be*, so that makes it okay!). Edgy with its pretentious stripper and pretentious photographer and pretentious failed writer and oh god even a pretentious dermatologist. But none of it is ever followed through. All it amounts to is unrealistically well-spoken characters standing around in their metal-cage world making points just by saying them.
Closer is extremely heavy on the self-awareness. But there are no fully developed themes, no sense of a driving, overwhelming question. Love is bleak and sterile in Closer - but it's not enough that Marber has shown us the bleak sterility of love and sexual attraction through a joyless cybersex scene in the beginning. No, he hammers the point home with such tell-don't-show voracity that, yes, it was convincing. It was also incredibly tiresome. It wants to be Lolita, another subversive text all about how we tell stories and how characters use lies and self-awareness with perhaps the biggest taboo of all. Unlike Lolita, though, there's no flesh on these bones. Closer is nothing but the cold, rigid, sterile, metal bones of a good idea but, instead of developing it, pushing it, Marber leaves it just as a good idea. Any impression on the audience comes from the fact that he's merely raising these points about sex and intimacy and men and women, but he doesn't push them. He doesn't follow them through. Alice says of Dan's love at one point:
"I can't see it, I can't touch it, I can't *feel* it."
Marber thinks that inspiring apathy in the audience is the way to mirror his own characters' apathy and narcissism. It isn't. At least, not for me. To me, the grim tragedy of Lolita comes in playing along with it, in feeling the emotions that Humbert is trying to hook out of you, in creating a flesh and blood world that you only later realize has been manipulated and created for your viewing benefit. You involve yourself in it; that's how you become culpable in it.
Maybe that's the point of it, though. Love is superficial. Hey, it's clear that Marber really hates love.
But he doesn't show us that it is. There's no scenes of hurt, betrayal, anything. Worst of all, though, there are no scenes that inspire any of those feelings. We hear a lot of didactic comments about the nature of love, about how Alice "created herself" and Dan is a selfish hypocrite and Larry is a sad stalker and Anna is...whatever she is. The truth is, the message that "love is superficial" is a painful message. It should hurt the audience. It should lacerate into the audience. And Marber tries. There are moments of brutal honesty, cruelty that cuts to the bone ("like you, but sweeter" comes to mind), but all the characters are so relentlessly superficial with one another that, even when Marber attempts some kind of emotional or dramatic punch, what has happened before is so forced, so faked, that even the cruelty can't help but feel like a rehearsal of something, stagey and impotent.
That's how Marber could have made deeper comments about all his myriad of themes, all of which are touched on, none of which are developed with ANY kind of care, precision or feeling. While reading Closer, I didn't feel like I was watching a burning indictment of love and intimacy and sex. I just felt like I was watching a cast of boring insufferables doing what boring insufferables will do: making each other miserable. You don't feel strung along. You don't feel interest in the characters' boring love lives and their supposedly meaningful switches. Shock is all well and good, but it packs no punch without emotion. Marber thinks that he's involving the reader in his almost metaphysical trick by using a Lolita ish narrative, full of double crosses and identity switches and not quite trustworthy narrators, but I just didn't care and, as Closer itself shows us, love without care is an extremely tedious thing.
Marber is good at acting like he does. The characters are witty, the situations they get themselves into are mind-bending in an interesting way, and the dialogue is well-written, staccato and blunt in a way that must have felt challenging and 'edgy' in the 1990s. Here, to me, it just felt like the eleven-year-old who thinks he's hard core because he uses the F-word.
The characters are insufferable. But they're supposed to be insufferable. That's the whole point -- every comment I make about this play, I would have to preface with "supposed to be." Nothing feels realistic, but it's not supposed to be. No-one is at all likeable, but they're not supposed to be. The message is bleak and grim, but it's supposed to be. Closer is a play that knows it's a play, and thinks it's oh so very clever for figuring it out. There's a lot of loaded comments about art, what people want from art, how art is nothing but a Big Fat Lie. But, ultimately, there's so much Try in Closer that none of it really sticks. Trying to be edgy. Edgy by being horribly misogynistic (but it's *supposed to be*, so that makes it okay!). Edgy with its pretentious stripper and pretentious photographer and pretentious failed writer and oh god even a pretentious dermatologist. But none of it is ever followed through. All it amounts to is unrealistically well-spoken characters standing around in their metal-cage world making points just by saying them.
Closer is extremely heavy on the self-awareness. But there are no fully developed themes, no sense of a driving, overwhelming question. Love is bleak and sterile in Closer - but it's not enough that Marber has shown us the bleak sterility of love and sexual attraction through a joyless cybersex scene in the beginning. No, he hammers the point home with such tell-don't-show voracity that, yes, it was convincing. It was also incredibly tiresome. It wants to be Lolita, another subversive text all about how we tell stories and how characters use lies and self-awareness with perhaps the biggest taboo of all. Unlike Lolita, though, there's no flesh on these bones. Closer is nothing but the cold, rigid, sterile, metal bones of a good idea but, instead of developing it, pushing it, Marber leaves it just as a good idea. Any impression on the audience comes from the fact that he's merely raising these points about sex and intimacy and men and women, but he doesn't push them. He doesn't follow them through. Alice says of Dan's love at one point:
"I can't see it, I can't touch it, I can't *feel* it."
Marber thinks that inspiring apathy in the audience is the way to mirror his own characters' apathy and narcissism. It isn't. At least, not for me. To me, the grim tragedy of Lolita comes in playing along with it, in feeling the emotions that Humbert is trying to hook out of you, in creating a flesh and blood world that you only later realize has been manipulated and created for your viewing benefit. You involve yourself in it; that's how you become culpable in it.
Maybe that's the point of it, though. Love is superficial. Hey, it's clear that Marber really hates love.
But he doesn't show us that it is. There's no scenes of hurt, betrayal, anything. Worst of all, though, there are no scenes that inspire any of those feelings. We hear a lot of didactic comments about the nature of love, about how Alice "created herself" and Dan is a selfish hypocrite and Larry is a sad stalker and Anna is...whatever she is. The truth is, the message that "love is superficial" is a painful message. It should hurt the audience. It should lacerate into the audience. And Marber tries. There are moments of brutal honesty, cruelty that cuts to the bone ("like you, but sweeter" comes to mind), but all the characters are so relentlessly superficial with one another that, even when Marber attempts some kind of emotional or dramatic punch, what has happened before is so forced, so faked, that even the cruelty can't help but feel like a rehearsal of something, stagey and impotent.
That's how Marber could have made deeper comments about all his myriad of themes, all of which are touched on, none of which are developed with ANY kind of care, precision or feeling. While reading Closer, I didn't feel like I was watching a burning indictment of love and intimacy and sex. I just felt like I was watching a cast of boring insufferables doing what boring insufferables will do: making each other miserable. You don't feel strung along. You don't feel interest in the characters' boring love lives and their supposedly meaningful switches. Shock is all well and good, but it packs no punch without emotion. Marber thinks that he's involving the reader in his almost metaphysical trick by using a Lolita ish narrative, full of double crosses and identity switches and not quite trustworthy narrators, but I just didn't care and, as Closer itself shows us, love without care is an extremely tedious thing.
January 16, 2012
Closer by Patrick Marber examines the complex relationships between four persons within the course of four years. There is Dan the writer who is a sensitive and selfish fellow with his head in the clouds, Anna the photographer who is blissfully depressed and keeps making the wrong choices in life based on such, Larry the dermatologist who is aggressive and a bit chauvinistic, and Alice the stripper, a free spirit who puts up a wall of sarcasm and biting wit to hide the fact that she longs for love. It is one of my favorite plays ever written, and the movie adaption is one of my favorites as well.
The four main characters of this play are probably not people you'd want to have as companions. They're all selfish, deceitful, conniving, and use sex to both enrich and destroy their lives.
People do not like this play because it is reality in its truest form. At the core of human behavior, we are all selfish, deceitful, conniving...is there no wonder that the world is in the condition that it is in?
I enjoyed this play for its realism, its courage, and its witty dialogue. It speaks true about love and its subheadings of sex, monogamy, and commitment.
The four main characters of this play are probably not people you'd want to have as companions. They're all selfish, deceitful, conniving, and use sex to both enrich and destroy their lives.
People do not like this play because it is reality in its truest form. At the core of human behavior, we are all selfish, deceitful, conniving...is there no wonder that the world is in the condition that it is in?
I enjoyed this play for its realism, its courage, and its witty dialogue. It speaks true about love and its subheadings of sex, monogamy, and commitment.
December 2, 2024
Mais uma peça/filme que não existiria se todo mundo optasse por poliamor. Rá! Como ela foi inspirada na opera Cosi Fan Tutte de Mozart que por sua vez tem elementos de peças de Shakespeare, então são séculos de danças das cadeiras amorosas para nos identificarmos.
Closer do Mike Nichols foi um dos meus filmes favoritos que vi no cinema nos anos 2000 e esse ano completa 20 anos, Nichols tem uma carreira cheia de grandes obras, mas Closer terá sempre um lugar especial no meu coração. O filme é bastante fiel à peça, com exceção do final, o qual gosto mais o do filme, porém o texto inteligentíssimo do Marber se evidencia mesmo sem estar encenado e é um dos mais potentes em se tratando de teatro dos últimos 30 anos.
Closer do Mike Nichols foi um dos meus filmes favoritos que vi no cinema nos anos 2000 e esse ano completa 20 anos, Nichols tem uma carreira cheia de grandes obras, mas Closer terá sempre um lugar especial no meu coração. O filme é bastante fiel à peça, com exceção do final, o qual gosto mais o do filme, porém o texto inteligentíssimo do Marber se evidencia mesmo sem estar encenado e é um dos mais potentes em se tratando de teatro dos últimos 30 anos.
August 11, 2008
I'm a sucker for a good play. And honestly, what's not to love about 4 people showing the world just how messy relationships can be when you always give into selfish desires, only to torture yourself with the consequences thereafter?
I actually fell completely, madly in love with the movie first. Obviously, the play features some scenes cut from the film, and an altogether different ending. Marber's got a way with words and his snarky British-isms, especially those spoken by Larry, are oh so entertaining and I can do nothing except picture Clive Owen rolling them off his tongue in his way that makes us melt (even though he played 'Dan' in the original London production - strange!)
For me, there's nothing like a good character study jam-packed with plenty of human error and heartache. I definitely need to check out some more of Marber's plays.
I actually fell completely, madly in love with the movie first. Obviously, the play features some scenes cut from the film, and an altogether different ending. Marber's got a way with words and his snarky British-isms, especially those spoken by Larry, are oh so entertaining and I can do nothing except picture Clive Owen rolling them off his tongue in his way that makes us melt (even though he played 'Dan' in the original London production - strange!)
For me, there's nothing like a good character study jam-packed with plenty of human error and heartache. I definitely need to check out some more of Marber's plays.
July 12, 2019
“• Dan: I love you.
• Alice: Where?
• Dan: What?
• Alice: Show me. Where is this 'love'? I can't see it, I can't touch it, I can't feel it. I can hear it, I can hear some words but I can't do anything with your easy words.”
― Patrick Marber, Closer
Anyone who has seen the play or the film does not need me to describe the story. This is one of my all time favorite films. I have also read the play version and that is what I am reviewing.
It is a Visceral dark look at contemporary relationships. It is just so gritty and real.
Like the film, the play includes just four people. It is essentially a character study on the dark side of human relationships at their worse. I have never SEEN the play but I can say with confidence the film is an utter masterpiece.
W ho should read it? I will say right now..this is a cynical, jaded, utterly dark look at human behavior. It is not for the faint of heart. It shows relationships at their utter worst.
At the same time, there is humor..although most of it is black humor.
When I saw this in the movie theater, many years ago, half the audience got up and walked out. Many have found, and will find, it extremely offensive.
I will say the film holds more power then the play version. Although I was surprised that certain things in the play differed from the film quite alot.
I would recommend this. It is on my favorites list but that is for the film more so then the play. I just think the power of the movie was utterly amazing.
If you have ever wondered how "meaningless" many people take the words "I love you", this story is for you. If you have wondered about the power games and the mind fucks people put each other through this story is for you. And if you have ever wondered at the heartlessness, contempt and secrecy that people treat the ones they say they love the most with....this is for you.
Closer is a study of the human Psyche, in all its sometimes awful nature. I would recommend the play AND the film to anyone interested.
• Alice: Where?
• Dan: What?
• Alice: Show me. Where is this 'love'? I can't see it, I can't touch it, I can't feel it. I can hear it, I can hear some words but I can't do anything with your easy words.”
― Patrick Marber, Closer
Anyone who has seen the play or the film does not need me to describe the story. This is one of my all time favorite films. I have also read the play version and that is what I am reviewing.
It is a Visceral dark look at contemporary relationships. It is just so gritty and real.
Like the film, the play includes just four people. It is essentially a character study on the dark side of human relationships at their worse. I have never SEEN the play but I can say with confidence the film is an utter masterpiece.
W ho should read it? I will say right now..this is a cynical, jaded, utterly dark look at human behavior. It is not for the faint of heart. It shows relationships at their utter worst.
At the same time, there is humor..although most of it is black humor.
When I saw this in the movie theater, many years ago, half the audience got up and walked out. Many have found, and will find, it extremely offensive.
I will say the film holds more power then the play version. Although I was surprised that certain things in the play differed from the film quite alot.
I would recommend this. It is on my favorites list but that is for the film more so then the play. I just think the power of the movie was utterly amazing.
If you have ever wondered how "meaningless" many people take the words "I love you", this story is for you. If you have wondered about the power games and the mind fucks people put each other through this story is for you. And if you have ever wondered at the heartlessness, contempt and secrecy that people treat the ones they say they love the most with....this is for you.
Closer is a study of the human Psyche, in all its sometimes awful nature. I would recommend the play AND the film to anyone interested.
November 30, 2018
Mais famoso pelo filme homônimo, também roteirizado por Marber, Closer é um grande exemplo não apenas de teatro noventista, mas do vigor da linguagem como um todo. Muito mais ácida e cortante que seu par cinematográfico, provavelmente pela necessidade de tempos e intenções muito calculadas para engrenar, a peça tem a rara habilidade de funcionar no papel, tão perfeita e minuciosa é sua blocagem de ideias e sentimentos. Há quem leia essa eterna corrida em torno do próprio rabo que é a classe média se digladiando por conta de monogamia como um tema morto e cansado, mas talvez seja esse mesmo o ponto. A monogamia é chata, e no fundo todo mundo sabe.
February 10, 2010
Marber writes dialogue that is quirky and quoteworthy, but the criticism of this play is that it is too clinical and empty of emotion. It's history on the stage contradicts this sharply. Theatre-goers have at times broken down in tears from the play's portrayal of infidelities. The actors taking part have at times found it to be even a cathartic experience.
In performance, the settings are evoked rather than shown, to balance the verbal excess. Considering the sparse appearance of the dialogue, it is surprisingly concentrated. The sheer amount of irony and edge, playing off the literal bite of the verbal wars going on here, means the work glories in bitterness and pessimism, but it would be a mistake to read a pessimistic message into this kind of work. Having previously watched the film, the ending of which was superficially a happier affair, surprising it was then that the bleaker end here seems to be tinged somehow with an optimism that the film only hoped for, but could not achieve.
This is at heart a partner-swapping affair with allusions to classical opera, but can be less described as a dance and more a tag-team fight. Past that, the text is heavy with reflections on modern life and the alienating effects these approaches to love are prone to producing.
The best indication I can give of my approval is that I would love to attend a performance of this work.
In performance, the settings are evoked rather than shown, to balance the verbal excess. Considering the sparse appearance of the dialogue, it is surprisingly concentrated. The sheer amount of irony and edge, playing off the literal bite of the verbal wars going on here, means the work glories in bitterness and pessimism, but it would be a mistake to read a pessimistic message into this kind of work. Having previously watched the film, the ending of which was superficially a happier affair, surprising it was then that the bleaker end here seems to be tinged somehow with an optimism that the film only hoped for, but could not achieve.
This is at heart a partner-swapping affair with allusions to classical opera, but can be less described as a dance and more a tag-team fight. Past that, the text is heavy with reflections on modern life and the alienating effects these approaches to love are prone to producing.
The best indication I can give of my approval is that I would love to attend a performance of this work.
March 6, 2021
Closer is a shrewd and hard hitting dissection of the modern relationship where Love is founded on deception and lies. Featuring simply two women and two men, where sex is the subject even when it isn't, and where tough choices are faced leading generally to the wrong choice. A powerful and absorbing play with some truly great dialogue, but it's four stars and not five for me as the time-span covered - going back and forth between characters - does feel a bit condensed for a play. Saw the Natalie Portman / Jude Law film when it came out in 2004, and hardly remember anything now, so it's definitely worth a re-watch.
April 24, 2023
I recently rewatched Mike Nichols' fine film adaptation of this, so wanted to revisit the play (which I have both read and seen on stage multiple times also) to discover the differences. The play still holds up beautifully, 25 years after its debut, and the film does it full justice, although there are some discrepancies - notably a more downbeat ending in the play, and the excision of one scene, which is rather superfluous anyway.
May 9, 2021
I went to see this as a play early in its first run in London in 1997. I went to see it with my new girlfriend at the time who later became my wife and later-still my ex-wife. So reading this again for the first time in 24 years has come as quite a surprise. Many things that I don’t remember, and some quite prophetic places, given what happened much later.
I came back to the play wanting to recall some of the dialogue – the quick-fire exchanges that took place between the four characters. There is an interesting character list in the book, which you would not get to appreciate when watching the play:
Alice, a girl from the town. Early twenties.
Dan, a man from the suburbs. Thirties.
Larry, a man from the city. Late thirties / early forties.
Anna, a woman from the country. Mid-thirties.
I have to confess that having two female characters with short names beginning with ‘A’ forces you to keep checking who is speaking. Something that wouldn’t be confusing when watching a performance.
This was the sort of dialogue I was thinking about, right from the start.
One of the things that I also noticed at the front of the book is a timeframe – the action is spread over five different years from 1993 to 1997. That passage of time is hard to see and illustrate within the play, but it is essential in order to know that quite some time passes between the various scenes, helping to explain the backwards and forwards of the relationships. The biggest jump of time is 18 months between Act 1 scene 1 and scene 2. As Dan gets together with Alice in scene 1 it seems odd that he is flirting with Anna in scene 2 until you understand this passage of time.
The six scenes of Act 1 cover three and a half years, while the six of Act 2 are a much more compressed timeframe of just nine months. The character swap partners back and forth. Dan loves Anna, Anna marries Larry, but then gets together with Dan. Larry has a fling with Alice, and so on, backwards and forwards, revenge for revenge.
When Larry encounters Alice working in a strip club, there is more banter back and forth, but also some interesting insights about the place and the work:
There is a fascinating theme about identity which rumbles through the play. Dan steals Alice’s identity – her story for the book he writes. Then in a central scene where Larry and Dan exchange messages via computer, Dan pretends to be Anna to flirt with Larry. And then finally we learn that Alice was a name that she stole from one of the memorials in Postman’s Park – a young woman that died having saved children from a fire. It is only at the end that we discover she is called Jane, and she was telling Larry her true name just before the scene above in the strip club. The only time she was truthful and he didn’t believe her.
The same sense of faking something spills into an argument between Dan and Anna:
And I have one final quote, which is quite a long single speech from Anna, which I really enjoyed. Talking about relationships and men:
I came back to the play wanting to recall some of the dialogue – the quick-fire exchanges that took place between the four characters. There is an interesting character list in the book, which you would not get to appreciate when watching the play:
Alice, a girl from the town. Early twenties.
Dan, a man from the suburbs. Thirties.
Larry, a man from the city. Late thirties / early forties.
Anna, a woman from the country. Mid-thirties.
I have to confess that having two female characters with short names beginning with ‘A’ forces you to keep checking who is speaking. Something that wouldn’t be confusing when watching a performance.
This was the sort of dialogue I was thinking about, right from the start.
Dan Didn’t fancy my sandwiches?
Alice I don’t eat fish.
Dan Why not?
Alice Fish piss in the sea.
Dan So do children.
Alice I don’t eat children either. What’s your work?
Dan Journalism.
Alice What sort?
Dan Obituaries.
Alice Do you like it . . . in the dying business?
Dan It’ a living.
One of the things that I also noticed at the front of the book is a timeframe – the action is spread over five different years from 1993 to 1997. That passage of time is hard to see and illustrate within the play, but it is essential in order to know that quite some time passes between the various scenes, helping to explain the backwards and forwards of the relationships. The biggest jump of time is 18 months between Act 1 scene 1 and scene 2. As Dan gets together with Alice in scene 1 it seems odd that he is flirting with Anna in scene 2 until you understand this passage of time.
The six scenes of Act 1 cover three and a half years, while the six of Act 2 are a much more compressed timeframe of just nine months. The character swap partners back and forth. Dan loves Anna, Anna marries Larry, but then gets together with Dan. Larry has a fling with Alice, and so on, backwards and forwards, revenge for revenge.
When Larry encounters Alice working in a strip club, there is more banter back and forth, but also some interesting insights about the place and the work:
Alice … you give us the money.
Larry And what do we get in return?
Alice We’re nice to you.
Larry And we get to see you naked.
Alice It’s beautiful.
Larry Except . . . you think you haven’t given us anything of yourselves. You think
because you don’t love us or desire us or even like us you think you’ve won.
Alice It’s not a war.
Larry But you do give us something of yourselves: you give us imagery . . . and we
do with it what we will. You don’t understand the territory. Because you are the territory.
I could ask you to strip right now.
Alice Yes.
Larry Would you?
Alice Sure. Do you want me to?
Larry No. Alice . . . tell me something true.
Alice Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her clothes off. But it’s better if you do.
Larry You’re cold. You’re cold at heart.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET A BIT OF INTIMACY ROUND HERE?
There is a fascinating theme about identity which rumbles through the play. Dan steals Alice’s identity – her story for the book he writes. Then in a central scene where Larry and Dan exchange messages via computer, Dan pretends to be Anna to flirt with Larry. And then finally we learn that Alice was a name that she stole from one of the memorials in Postman’s Park – a young woman that died having saved children from a fire. It is only at the end that we discover she is called Jane, and she was telling Larry her true name just before the scene above in the strip club. The only time she was truthful and he didn’t believe her.
The same sense of faking something spills into an argument between Dan and Anna:
Dan You fake it with me?
Anna Yes, yes I do. I fake one in three, all right?
Dan Really?
Anna I haven’t counted.
Dan Tell me the truth.
Anna Occasionally . . . I have faked it. It’s not important. You don’t make me come.
I come, you’re . . . in the area . . . providing . . . valiant assistance.
Dan You make me come.
Anna You’re a man, you’d come if the tooth fairy winked at you.
And I have one final quote, which is quite a long single speech from Anna, which I really enjoyed. Talking about relationships and men:
This is what we’re dealing with; we arrive with our baggage and for a while they’re brilliant, they’re baggage handlers. We say ‘Where’s your baggage?’ They deny all knowledge of it, they’re in love, they have none. Then, just as you’re relaxing, a great big juggernaut arrives . . . with their baggage. It got held up. The greatest myth men have about women is that we overpack.
They love the way we make them feel but not ‘us’. They love dreams.
February 22, 2024
Inconstancy and neediness stymie relationships and cause pain. Images block enjoyment of the real.
August 19, 2021
2.5 out of 5 stars
I picked this up randomly at a local shop, because I was in a slump and it was a play. From what I've gathered, it must have been revolutionary when the text was first performed. I liked certain aspects of it, like the subtle commentary on class and power dynamics/imbalances in relationships that stem from it and the plot-twist at the very end. The dialogue was snappy and easy it felt well thought-out.
Most characters were at least unlikeable (most of all Dan), but I figured this was the point; to show FlAwEd characters. Hm. Despite all that, it seemed to me that the plot relied heavily on shock value, which was tiresome at times. That's because I could detect through the lines and directorial instructions that the author possesses enough ingeniouity to be able to avoid adding things for pure shock.
Also, I should mention that the treatment of women in this book was distasteful and derrogatory. I believe modern audiences would appreciate none of the infantalization, objectification or violence going on. I get that all thoose things being there are supposed to highten the audience's pity and/or disgust towards the characters, I'm just not sure how much of it can be traced back to unrestrained indulgence in the male gaze. The "politics of sex" mentioned so exaltantly in the blurbs are probably products of the time, but I think such blatant sexism would not fly today, at least not unchallenged.
That's all I had to say. I got a liittle carried away with how long this turned out. Overall, not an entirely bad reading experience, nothing exceptional either, hence the rating in the middle of the scale. I believe it takes more than explicit references to genitalia to phase me. I would go watch it though, because the plot is interesting. Hopefully, changes would be made.
Happy reading!
I picked this up randomly at a local shop, because I was in a slump and it was a play. From what I've gathered, it must have been revolutionary when the text was first performed. I liked certain aspects of it, like the subtle commentary on class and power dynamics/imbalances in relationships that stem from it and the plot-twist at the very end. The dialogue was snappy and easy it felt well thought-out.
Most characters were at least unlikeable (most of all Dan), but I figured this was the point; to show FlAwEd characters. Hm. Despite all that, it seemed to me that the plot relied heavily on shock value, which was tiresome at times. That's because I could detect through the lines and directorial instructions that the author possesses enough ingeniouity to be able to avoid adding things for pure shock.
Also, I should mention that the treatment of women in this book was distasteful and derrogatory. I believe modern audiences would appreciate none of the infantalization, objectification or violence going on. I get that all thoose things being there are supposed to highten the audience's pity and/or disgust towards the characters, I'm just not sure how much of it can be traced back to unrestrained indulgence in the male gaze. The "politics of sex" mentioned so exaltantly in the blurbs are probably products of the time, but I think such blatant sexism would not fly today, at least not unchallenged.
That's all I had to say. I got a liittle carried away with how long this turned out. Overall, not an entirely bad reading experience, nothing exceptional either, hence the rating in the middle of the scale. I believe it takes more than explicit references to genitalia to phase me. I would go watch it though, because the plot is interesting. Hopefully, changes would be made.
Happy reading!
July 11, 2023
Do you have a single original thought in your head?
July 13, 2023
Something about the idea of need v. desire paired with beauty v. ugliness with an underlying conflict of learning v. changing is both thought-provoking and enough to make me so glad I don’t know any of these people
July 14, 2011
This play was surprisingly amazing. It is set in the 1990's but if the play had been written this very day in 2011 it would be exactly the same play. Very UK English language and slang and modern vulgarity come together to create a very sexual story about how four people's lives come together and drift apart. Just a warning, there is an immense amount of vulgarity and sex talk, but once you get past it's roughness you see that it really was essential in shaping this show to the wonderful thing that it is. I really liked that one of the scenes actually takes place in a chat room using shorthand and slang that you would actually see in that situation. Although this play doesn't have a happy ending it is a quick read and totally worth it. It really is a reflection of difficulties in a modern life. Closer is one of my new favorite plays.
September 5, 2011
Very much a play of its time (especially the rise of the In-Yer-Face theatrical movement of the 90s) but still fresh and interesting today. Veering between witty and heartbreaking, Closer analyses the human relationships and how something so intimate and beautiful as sex and love can ultimately be as destructive and painful as hate. I'm amazed by Marber's ability to create such well rounded and ultimately sympathetic characters who are so loathsome, selfish and frequently vulgar (the profanities are so wonderfully quotable, but probably not in polite conversation!). It's an extremely cynical piece but one committed to its message, something I find so refreshing. Definitely not for everyone though. It's easy to see where the accusations of coldness come from. Check out the movie, it's an extremely honest and well acted adaptation.
January 22, 2012
Well I saw the movie prior to reading the play, which was unfortunate b/c I kept seeing Julia Roberts and Natalie Portman playing out the roles. Unfortunate b/c I enjoy inventing how the characters look and sound in my head. This play is an exploration of the negative side of attachment and love, and how we lie to one another almost out of compulsion, and how we really do not know what's best for us. We fall in love w/ our illusive understanding of the reality of a person, and then we wind up disappointed. It's about four souls constantly disconnecting, or misconnecting with one another. If this sounds like your cup of tea, read it. If not, I can say it is written really well, so if you enjoy wit, and a sense of detachment, dig in.
December 27, 2008
I am in love with this play. I read it years before the movie came out and while I think the film did a good job of capturing the essence of the play, it wasn't quite the same for me. Marber's characters are so real, so honest that you feel as if you're really listening in on someone's life; their conversations. He's a brilliant writer and I can't get enough of this piece.
September 19, 2013
I think this book is amazing. Forget about the sex, it's about a girl wanting to be loved. She'd always leave, so no one leaves her. And the one that says he won't leave - cheats on her. When she spoke the truth, no one believed her. It's not complicated. She needed someone to be there for her. Was it too much? It is something we all search for. She just wasn't lucky enough to get it.
April 23, 2023
Ahahahahahahaha I saw a college production of this like 20 years ago and thought it was so FUNNY and SAD and EDGY and PROFOUND, and, uh, it turns out it’s just pretentious and misogynist and mostly kinda tedious? Jesus I had terrible taste. 2 stars because it’s still a little bit funny.
August 12, 2022
alice and anna should’ve hooked up
February 26, 2025
‘’Alice : Montre-le. Il est où cet ‘’amour’’? Je ne peux pas le voir, je ne peux pas, le toucher, je ne peux pas le sentir. Tu en parles, j’entends des mots, mais je n’ai rien à faire de ces mots creux.’’
J’ai vu la pièce et je l’ai adoré, alors naturellement j’ai voulu la lire. Et la pièce et le film était d’une grande fidélité au texte original ce que j’ai réellement apprécier. C’est une pièce à la fois cynique et humoristique, mais très rythmé et entrainante. J’ai une grosse passe théâtre, j’en lis de plus en plus moi qui n’en lisait pratiquement jamais avant et celle-ci fait partie de ceux qui m’ont le plus marquer. Et il est rare que je lise du théâtre moderne.
J’ai vraiment beaucoup aimé le style d’écriture de l’auteur. Autant les dialogue son naturel avec une touche d’humour, autant tout en conservant une conversation fluide il a réussi à rendre son texte beau et créer des phrases marquantes. Plusieurs passages de son livre m’ont réellement impacté par leur manière d’être véhiculer et il s’y cachait une grande profondeur. Surtout dans les dialogues d’Alice. On y voyait autant d’humour que de critique de la société et de la vision des hommes envers les femmes que de l’amour en général. C’était super bien formuler, sans pour autant avoir l’aire forcer. Je trouvais que l’enchainement entre chaque dialogue et la fluidité de leur échange apportait un rythme agréable à ma lecture. Il n’y avait pas de dialogue inutile et ceux qu’il y avait ne s’éternisait pas. Personne ne se lançait dans de long monologue et leur réponse était courte et pertinente.
Les personnages étaient également très intéressants, surtout Alice. Si Dan était difficile à aimer, il n’en était pas moins intéressant pour autant et démontrait bien le côté hypocrite et égoïste de l’amour que l’auteur voulait mettre de l’avant. Larry aussi me dégoutait un peu, mais là où je me disais que Dan devait avoir un certain charme, je pense que Larry en était dépourvu. Il était pathétique, mais moins violent que Dan. La vision masculine était donc dépeinte avec un grand pessimiste. Au niveau des femmes c’était nettement mieux. Si Anna était parfois un peu fade, j’ai quand même bien aimé sa logique et j’aurai voulu qu’on la creuse un peu plus! Par contre Alice, ah la belle Alice a à elle seule soutenue la pièce tout entière. C’était non seulement la plus charismatique, mais la plus drôle et la plus profonde. Si elle avait une certaine naïveté en amour et qu’elle voulait être avec Dan, on sentait quand même que la vie n’avait pas été facile avec elle et qu’elle ne croyait plus à la bonté de Dan, mais que par amour elle lui pardonnera. Sa manière de s’exprimer était la plus éloquente et chaque phrase m’ayant marqué de ma lecture venait d’elle.
Pour l’histoire, elle était fluide et j’ai beaucoup aimé la manière de l’auteur de jouer avec le temps et de faire que chaque scène se passe à une année différente. On voyait bien le temps qui passe sans s’enticher de longueur. On sentait le côté pessimiste de l’amour, mais également on voyait que c’est Dan qui a gâché une relation qui aurait pu être belle. Que si l’amour meurt c’est de la faute des gens qui se perdre à croire qu’ils peuvent toujours avoir mieux. J’ai aussi beaucoup aimé les scènes qui se juxtaposais, j’ai trouvé cela à la fois artistique et expressif. Autant l’histoire pouvait se lire de manière légère autant elle pouvait être percutante selon la manière de l’interpréter et la profondeur des réflexions. J’ai beaucoup aimé la fin, comment Alice termine sa relation, j’ai trouvé non seulement que sa la représentait bien, mais que c’était une scène super puissante qui voulait dire beaucoup sur les couples moderne et la confiance qu’ils se portent.
Si vous avez l’occasion d’aller voir cette pièce, je vous le recommande fortement! C’était une super expérience!
J’ai vu la pièce et je l’ai adoré, alors naturellement j’ai voulu la lire. Et la pièce et le film était d’une grande fidélité au texte original ce que j’ai réellement apprécier. C’est une pièce à la fois cynique et humoristique, mais très rythmé et entrainante. J’ai une grosse passe théâtre, j’en lis de plus en plus moi qui n’en lisait pratiquement jamais avant et celle-ci fait partie de ceux qui m’ont le plus marquer. Et il est rare que je lise du théâtre moderne.
J’ai vraiment beaucoup aimé le style d’écriture de l’auteur. Autant les dialogue son naturel avec une touche d’humour, autant tout en conservant une conversation fluide il a réussi à rendre son texte beau et créer des phrases marquantes. Plusieurs passages de son livre m’ont réellement impacté par leur manière d’être véhiculer et il s’y cachait une grande profondeur. Surtout dans les dialogues d’Alice. On y voyait autant d’humour que de critique de la société et de la vision des hommes envers les femmes que de l’amour en général. C’était super bien formuler, sans pour autant avoir l’aire forcer. Je trouvais que l’enchainement entre chaque dialogue et la fluidité de leur échange apportait un rythme agréable à ma lecture. Il n’y avait pas de dialogue inutile et ceux qu’il y avait ne s’éternisait pas. Personne ne se lançait dans de long monologue et leur réponse était courte et pertinente.
Les personnages étaient également très intéressants, surtout Alice. Si Dan était difficile à aimer, il n’en était pas moins intéressant pour autant et démontrait bien le côté hypocrite et égoïste de l’amour que l’auteur voulait mettre de l’avant. Larry aussi me dégoutait un peu, mais là où je me disais que Dan devait avoir un certain charme, je pense que Larry en était dépourvu. Il était pathétique, mais moins violent que Dan. La vision masculine était donc dépeinte avec un grand pessimiste. Au niveau des femmes c’était nettement mieux. Si Anna était parfois un peu fade, j’ai quand même bien aimé sa logique et j’aurai voulu qu’on la creuse un peu plus! Par contre Alice, ah la belle Alice a à elle seule soutenue la pièce tout entière. C’était non seulement la plus charismatique, mais la plus drôle et la plus profonde. Si elle avait une certaine naïveté en amour et qu’elle voulait être avec Dan, on sentait quand même que la vie n’avait pas été facile avec elle et qu’elle ne croyait plus à la bonté de Dan, mais que par amour elle lui pardonnera. Sa manière de s’exprimer était la plus éloquente et chaque phrase m’ayant marqué de ma lecture venait d’elle.
Pour l’histoire, elle était fluide et j’ai beaucoup aimé la manière de l’auteur de jouer avec le temps et de faire que chaque scène se passe à une année différente. On voyait bien le temps qui passe sans s’enticher de longueur. On sentait le côté pessimiste de l’amour, mais également on voyait que c’est Dan qui a gâché une relation qui aurait pu être belle. Que si l’amour meurt c’est de la faute des gens qui se perdre à croire qu’ils peuvent toujours avoir mieux. J’ai aussi beaucoup aimé les scènes qui se juxtaposais, j’ai trouvé cela à la fois artistique et expressif. Autant l’histoire pouvait se lire de manière légère autant elle pouvait être percutante selon la manière de l’interpréter et la profondeur des réflexions. J’ai beaucoup aimé la fin, comment Alice termine sa relation, j’ai trouvé non seulement que sa la représentait bien, mais que c’était une scène super puissante qui voulait dire beaucoup sur les couples moderne et la confiance qu’ils se portent.
Si vous avez l’occasion d’aller voir cette pièce, je vous le recommande fortement! C’était une super expérience!
May 11, 2020
The one redeeming factor of this play was hearing song titles/lines from my middle school playlists in the middle of scenes. To be clear, I do know that they originated here, but it’s still very jarring to be reading along and suddenly, isn’t that a line in “Thanks for the Mmrs?” As for the actual content, I am usually a huge fan of unlikeable characters, but was unable to care about any of the characters in this play. None of them offer redeeming qualities, betraying each other constantly for their own selfish wants, and yes, that’s part of the larger point regarding “closeness,” but God if it didn’t make them all insufferable. If I had not been assigned it for class, I doubt I would have made it past the third or fourth scene. Unfortunately, I just don’t think this was for me.
June 28, 2020
Actual rating: 4.5 stars
Another day, another play I had to read for class! I was so happy that I hadn't read the play, nor watched the movie before, because I went into it completely blind and it was an interesting experience!
A play that focuses on 4 people, their relationships with each other and their relationship with themselves. It was raw, brutal, didn't shy away in the use of language or themes and it really brought into perspective what it means to be a human with flaws, looking for love in others and in yourself.
I cannot say that I had a particularly favourite characters among the 4 of them. I definitely enjoyed the conversations they had, the way their minds worked and the extent they went to get what they wanted. Someone might find them quite extreme, but then again, isn't a person's nature extreme on its own?
All in all, I really enjoyed my time with this play, I think it's definitely worth a second read and maybe some annotation as well, cause there's plenty food for thought here!
Another day, another play I had to read for class! I was so happy that I hadn't read the play, nor watched the movie before, because I went into it completely blind and it was an interesting experience!
A play that focuses on 4 people, their relationships with each other and their relationship with themselves. It was raw, brutal, didn't shy away in the use of language or themes and it really brought into perspective what it means to be a human with flaws, looking for love in others and in yourself.
I cannot say that I had a particularly favourite characters among the 4 of them. I definitely enjoyed the conversations they had, the way their minds worked and the extent they went to get what they wanted. Someone might find them quite extreme, but then again, isn't a person's nature extreme on its own?
All in all, I really enjoyed my time with this play, I think it's definitely worth a second read and maybe some annotation as well, cause there's plenty food for thought here!
February 25, 2025
This was the first play I’ve read since high school and it was … something. I’m sure this was transgressive and shocking on a stage in 1997, but now, it just reads like a teenager’s idea of complex human relationships.
What if these two couples kept breaking up, swapping partners, and getting back together? Okay, what if they did? The play gets closest to its nihilistic thesis with the (admittedly great) line, “Everyone learns, no one changes,” but everything that surrounds it is just so pretentious, I found myself rushing to get to the next scene so that it could be over with.
I’ll watch the movie one day.
What if these two couples kept breaking up, swapping partners, and getting back together? Okay, what if they did? The play gets closest to its nihilistic thesis with the (admittedly great) line, “Everyone learns, no one changes,” but everything that surrounds it is just so pretentious, I found myself rushing to get to the next scene so that it could be over with.
I’ll watch the movie one day.
September 9, 2024
This play got a lot of attention about 20 years ago, and at some point I bought an acting copy. (Probably at a theater in Chicago; I can imagine this playing at the Steppenwolf, though I haven't seen it done.)
The influence is Mamet and Pinter, the language is sexually explicit. Marber did the translation of Hedda Gabler, currently onstage in Stratford, Ontario. Set in London, UK not Ontario, the play's point is that sexual intimacy =/= emotional intimacy or love. Not a new thought, but it's effectively written. Given an opportunity, I would consider seeing the play performed.
The influence is Mamet and Pinter, the language is sexually explicit. Marber did the translation of Hedda Gabler, currently onstage in Stratford, Ontario. Set in London, UK not Ontario, the play's point is that sexual intimacy =/= emotional intimacy or love. Not a new thought, but it's effectively written. Given an opportunity, I would consider seeing the play performed.
April 22, 2020
It's been a long time since I've read a play, but I loved the movie so I wanted to read the book.
Closer focuses on just two couples over the course of four years, exploring the complicated nature of their relationships, including desire, deception, choices, love and regret.
While the film captured the essence of the play, the book is much grittier at showing the dark side of human relationships at their worst. Includes harsh language and won’t leave you feeling warm and fuzzy. I recommend.
Closer focuses on just two couples over the course of four years, exploring the complicated nature of their relationships, including desire, deception, choices, love and regret.
While the film captured the essence of the play, the book is much grittier at showing the dark side of human relationships at their worst. Includes harsh language and won’t leave you feeling warm and fuzzy. I recommend.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 214 reviews