/ 31 March 1995

Look not to the Golds 20

THEATRE: David Le Page=20

IN the second act of The Twilight of the Golds, Phyllis=20 Gold suggests that the information age confuses people=20 with too much knowledge irrelevant to their experience.=20 This confusion could be ended if we just ”listened to=20 our hearts”, she says. Unfortunately, though The=20 Twilight of the Golds is highly topical and at times=20 very funny, it never quite finds its own heart. This is=20 more a problem of American Jonathan Tolins’ play than of=20 this production at the Johannesburg Civic’s Tesson=20

Ably directed by Janice Honeyman, the play describes=20 some of the choices that will confront us when science=20 can identify in a foetus (as it very nearly can) genetic=20 diseases such as haemophilia, and traits that society=20 may or may not deem desirable, such as shortness — or=20 homosexuality. For many these choices will seem=20 agonisingly difficult. But as many will find it=20 difficult to sympathise, and the play correspondingly=20 less engaging.=20

It is also, perhaps, rather overly didactic. In its=20 first minutes we are drenched with such a shower of=20 references to heredity and genetic determinism that we=20 can be in no doubt as to the play’s preoccupations. Sure=20 of the issues, we await eagerly some surprising human=20 insights. They never come. The characters, a New York=20 Jewish family, struggle inadequately with vast issues.=20 They are redeemed to some extent by strong performances=20 from Camilla Bartlett as Suzanne Gold-Stein, and Annabel=20 Linder as her mother Phyllis, supported by Johan Engels’=20 striking and effective set. Terence Reis effectively=20 conveys the discomfort of science in grappling with=20 human emotion.=20

But performances cannot redeem the unfolding drama of=20 the Golds, often as whimsical in its incongruous humour=20 as the Wagnerian gods and themes Tolins invokes=20 throughout his play in hope of adding mythical depth to=20 his creation. =20

Wagner’s Ring dominates the consciousness of David Gold,=20 who, representing an artist’s sensibility, towers like=20 Wotan over his family. Even when the ring was returned=20 to the Rhine, the myth tells us, the destruction it had=20 wrought could not be undone. Similarly, the clock of=20 scientific progress cannot be turned back. The moral=20 implications of such discovery cannot be wished away.=20 How will we deal with these issues? Look not to the=20

For while our protagonists are not necessarily=20 unsympathetic, Tolins does not develop them enough for=20 us to experience their quandaries as deeply as they do.=20

Matthew Krouse plays David, not a deeply engaging=20 character. He does not care enough for people to make=20 his ethics convincing. The dominant position he holds in=20 Tolins’ pantheon gives his perspective rather an unfair=20 advantage when it is he, and gays like him, who are most=20 vulnerable to the play’s disturbing possibilities.=20

Ironically, the very fact of David’s homosexuality might=20 be another unfair advantage. The programme notes that=20 among the hereditary characteristics science currently=20 associates with gay men is a corpus callosum (the part=20 of the brain controlling learning and verbalisation) 13=20 percent larger than the average. Many will lean towards=20 David’s ethical understanding of the play’s issues. But=20 a question remains: what other perspectives might have=20 emerged in this drama had its voices included a=20 heterosexual with similar cortical development?=20

The Twilight of the Golds runs until April 22=20