Pentecost

by David Edgar

A fresco similar to The Lamentation by Giotto that will revolutionize Western Art if proved to pre-date the master's work is unearthed in an abandoned church in Eastern Europe. The discovery causes a dramatic struggle as representatives from the worlds of art history, religion, and politics stake their claims for the ultimate prize. The unexpected arrival of twelve refugees sets events spiraling toward an explosive climax. This powerful play by the Tony Award winning adaptor of Nicholas Nickleby and author of numerous plays won the Evening Standard Award for Best Play of 1995.

Genres: Plays, Theatre, Drama

105 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1996

About the author

David Edgar is an English playwright. He was born in Birmingham into a family with longstanding links to the theatre. His father and mother both acted at the Birmingham Rep before moving into broadcasting, and by the age of five Edgar had written his first play and performed it in a 12 seat theatre his father built for him in his back garden.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ed...

Reviews

[Ged · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recently saw the play, performed by Royal Birmingham Conservatoire Group members. The production was in collaboration with the author. The play had a revised ending, which I didn't quite get. As someone else commented, this is a play that challenges the actors and the audience.

[⋆｡˚☾⋆Mimi｡°✩ Nikolaeva · Rating 4 out of 5]

Започна слабо, може би основно защото диалогът е особен и включва много специфични препратки от 90-те, Англия и т.н., та не разбирах доста от това, което се случва, а и определено имах някои предразсъдъци към автора. Англичанин пише за Източна Европа? Страх ме е какво ще направи (все пак съм чела Лий Бардуго, как да не ме е страх). Ала все пак успя да ме грабне и това беше в момента, в който почнаха да се изясняват тематичните ядра на историята. Въпросите, които пиесата поставя, са ми изключително интересни: Какво е изкуството? Каква стойност има? А човешкият живот? Кое е по-важно: великото изкуство или човешкия живот? Трябва ли да изберем? А съществува ли наистина велико изкуство?

Също така освен в по-общите философски въпроси се навлиза в конкретни политически. Въображаемата източноевропейска държава като фон на действието позволява разглеждането както на общите проблеми на тази част на континента, така и на някои по-специфични от различните краища на Източна Европа. Същевременно с пристигането на шарената или, както много хубаво се казва на английски, motley група от имигранти, този хоризонт се разширява до целия свят (или поне до Азия и Африка). Та пиесата ни даде възможност да научим повече за югославските войни, конфликтите между Унгария и Румъния, Армения и Азербайджан, Палестина и Израел, Курдистан и ромите. Ако съм проспала тези презентации, това вече е друг въпрос, но в моя защита, задачата да оценявам ораторските умения на презентаторите е прекалено разсейваща. Поне мога да кажа, че запомних каквото научих от собствената си презентацията, потвърдено от моите обяснения за югославските войни на всеки в обсега ми.

Но обратно към ревюто. Отварят се толкова. Много. Въпроси. Кой има права над изкуството? Кой има правото да търси по-добър живот? Кой определя това право? А до какви мерки би прибегнал човек, за да го достигне този по-добър живот, когато е достатъчно отчаян? Всъщност каква е целта на изкуството? Какво прави за обществото? Пиесата отговоря: изкуството свързва хората. То е израза на човешкото в нас и това го прави толкова красиво, толкова ценно. А като стана въпрос за човешкото, то е представено изкусно в тази история. Персонажите, всичките със своите недостатъци и рани, които формират подбудите им, но и човещина, която те кара да им стискаш палци. Начинът, по който са представени човешките отношение на моменти е доста красив. Привързах се към героите, особено към Оливър :') Същевременно и виждаме и силно неприятни човешки прояви. Особено впечатление ми направи момента, когато един от мигрантите, който уж е част от сплотения колектив, се оплаква, че възможността е дадена на други, а не на него, християнинът. Дори сред тази опървана група от хора, на коите обществото е обърнало гърба си, царят предразсъдъци. Но това е очаквано – ако човек е най-силният сред слабите, той обикновено се възползва от това.

В края на краищата се отговаря на въпроса: кой или кое е ценно? Спойлер... никой и нищо освен властта. А у кого е властта? Спойлер... не у нашите хора.

Страхотна книга. На идейно ниво заслужава 5 звезди, само дето за жалост самия процес на четене не е чак толкова приятен и на места е объркващ, така че й давам 4.

[Abi · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm pretty confused but I think it was good

[stefche · Rating 3 out of 5]

*3.5
I was so confused and even annoyed at first, but it all made sense in the last 10-15 pages. Overall interesting ideas, but a strange way to convey them.

[Benjamin Schmidt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this play in one night, and what should be said about it first is that it is MEANT to be seen, NOT read. The complex dynamics of multiple languages all on stage at once makes reading INCREDIBLY difficult. Even so, the impact of the play can still be felt by reading it, especially all in one sitting. Note: There is a lot of strong language in this play. Though other's make not feel so, I felt that the strong language was unnecessary about a third of the time.

That being said, the play literally sags with the weight of its deep commentary. Reading gives the would-be viewer at the ability to slow down time and pick apart the play's ideas, for which I was grateful. So much commentary was included, though, and from nearly every character regardless of their background or education, as to make the story slightly unbelievable at points. Nevertheless, the ideas carried my interest more than anything else, despite the story being interesting and the climax -- oh the climax -- being shocking and even disturbing. The wealth of thinking about art, immigration, national pride, personal identity, rich Europe vs poor Europe, the worth of history in creating national narratives, and the attitudes of the west to the south and far Eastern European countries and peoples is astounding. Never, by my knowledge, have these topics been so directly addressed on stage before. You will never forget this play.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a brilliant play. My only complaint is that I had to settle for reading it instead of watching on the stage. Just as with the Biblical event referenced by the title, this is a story of tremendous excitement, confusion, hope, and history. It is a story of a complex Europe. Not the Europe of easily digestible news stories or tourist vacations but one weighted by centuries of history, religion, language, and a confusing vision of the future. Written two decades ago as the continent was struggling to digest the dramatic upheavals of its Eastern neighbors, it is surely only more relevant now. This is essential reading for anyone wishing to better perceive the tensions and challenges of modern Europe.

Read more at http://znovels.blogspot.com/2017/01/p...

[Alan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Difficult to read but worth it. Still, it's very dense and not for the faint of heart. At times, it sags under the weight of so many themes, characters, languages and multiple languages spoken with English in brackets. I saw the play in 1997 and found it much more enjoyable to experience rather than read.

[Lori · Rating 4 out of 5]

I helped produce and stage manage this play for the evidEnce room theatre in Los Angeles.

[Claire · Rating 5 out of 5]

This play is extraordinary. I can't even describe it. You have to read it yourself.

[Anthony Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

A powerful drama about the discovery of a wall painting in a church in an unspecified Balkan state shortly after the Balkan War. The painting may or may not be the inspiration for Giotto, or it may, less excitingly, simply be a modified copy of Giotto. The play opens as Gabriella Pecs of the National Museum and Oliver Davenport, a visiting art historian, are inspecting it. Each has their reason for wanting to be involved with its recovery, she for personal and nationalistic reasons, Oliver mostly because the discovery of a work that may have inspired Giotto would stand to enhance his credibility in the art world.

They are not, however, the only people who have an interest in it. Two local priests (one Orthodox, the other Catholic), the Minister for the Restoration of National Monuments, a right-wing nationalist politician, an American professor of art history specialising in international controversies and the acquisition of art works, and a member of the State Judiciary also want their say in the painting’s fate. Thus part of the play is about the ownership of works of art and the relationship between art and a sense of nationhood and a sense of religious hegemony. It also offers some insight into the specialist world of art history and the controversies associated with provenance and dating.

But at the end of Act 1, the play introduces a second element into its area of concern, that of the plight of refugees and asylum seekers displaced by economic desperation, political persecution, war, a sense of alienation, of people looking for a safe haven and a less uncertain life. Into the church come a party of such people: a Turkish-speaking Afghan, a Palestinian, a Bosnian, a Kurd, a Russian, a Sri Lankan, a gypsy man and a gypsy girl (who speak Russian and a kind of Polish) who may or may not have Hungarian or Serbian nationality, and a couple of fluent Russian speaking men who may or may not be Russian. They have no interest in the painting unless it can be used as a bargaining chip for their being given sanctuary or asylum.

These situations produce plenty of confrontational drama, but also address serious political questions about part of the world which, to UK audiences, is unimaginably complicated. This is dramatically demonstrated partly by the use of multiple languages – I don’t know if the production was surtitled – and partly by several well integrated passages in which the country’s and region’s history is spoken of. Several passages give the different nationalities a chance to describe their difficulties and to dispel Western Europe’s prejudices and ignorance, often with tolerant, but heavy irony.

The Tower of Babel, unsurprisingly therefore, features as a central image in the play, and the title, ‘Pentecost’ refers of course to the occasion when Christ’s disciples were visited by the Holy Spirit and filled with the gift of tongues. The painting being uncovered depicts the descent from the cross, the preface to the resurrection. But in this play, there is little sign of resurrection or the unifying strength of religion as proposed by Pentecost’s resolution to the Babel problem. Understanding between peoples remains an ongoing human project.

I found it difficult to warm to any of the characters apart perhaps Gabriella, and, for his realism, Czaba, the Minister. Leo Katz, the bullish over-confident American, I took a dislike to, and the refugees, being desperate, were not in a position to present themselves to their best advantage. What Edgar did do well for me was to engage me in following a complicated set of circumstances and a complicated variety of points of view. The language problem also throws up several moments of comedy, and the text smacks of the same kind of intelligent intensity that you get with Stoppard, but, for me, it was a more easily accessible script.

A really impressive piece. A small nightmare for actors who are not native speakers of Slavic languages, I imagine. The original cast must have enjoyed a mega-party at the end of their run.

[David Rayner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant - read after seeing the play "in the round" in London

[Greg Heaton · Rating 2 out of 5]

Superficial nonsense masquerading as profundity.