Heroes of the Fourth Turning Review

Reviewed by Zuzi Fort

I love going to the theatre. I love watching live performances. I love being intellectually and emotionally stimulated. I love leaving a show buzzing with questions and ideas. I savour the moment the curtain comes down, and I am inspired and motivated to go on a journey of discovery. I also like being entertained, having a dialogue with the performers, and feeling that I have been part of something bigger.

Unfortunately, Heroes of the Fourth Turning by Will Arbery hasn't delivered. This production, produced by Outhouse Theatre Co, has left me cold and unaffected in any way whatsoever. Perhaps that is the play's intention though I fail to see the purpose. My apathy about the content, the characters, and the issues they've raised is concerning. The only question I was asking was “why”? Why did the playwright write the script?
Heroes of the Fourth Turning reveals the dark abyss of the minds of young, conservative Catholic intellectuals. The play presents four graduates of a Catholic college in Wyoming who return to honor their much-loved professor, newly appointed as the president of their alma mater and spend an evening in a friend's backyard.

The talent was outstanding. My hat off to the cast from Micaela Ellis, Madeleine Jones, Eddie Orton, Kate Raison, to Jeremy Waters. The set design was great. Craig Baldwin's direction was excellent. All these elements were individually fantastic. Yet somehow, they did not gel. They did not come together. They did not create greatness on stage. One could argue they were wasted. The play was way too long, running close to 3 hours. The script needed an editor. It is never a good sign when audiences check their watches. It is never good when audience; backsides begin to hurt. It is never good when the audiences marvel at the actors; ability to memorize “all those lines”! Unfortunately, all these took place. Once again, why did the playwright write the script?

I researched the playwright's background to discover his reasons for penning this piece of political and religious rhetoric. I realized why the play felt like a monologue of a single character struggling with different personalities. Yet, that was all wrong. Yes, Will Arbery was brought up by conservative Catholic parents, both professors at Wyoming Catholic College. He shared a dinner table with them and his seven sisters. Surely, Arbery knows what he was writing about. I wish I could eavesdrop on the family's conversations. But wait! That is not the point.Theatre is supposed to make us think. However, it is not supposed to make us think about the playwright and his reason for writing the play. The audience should be digesting and brainstorming the main themes of the play. Not, as I have done, research the playwright.

Let's begin again, this time with the play. As much as I appreciate the performance, the amount of effort and time that went into the rehearsal and the production, I fail to see and understand the play's relevance to us right now. Interestingly, everybody seems to have applauded the playwright for his baldness and ability to create such interesting characters.

Yet, it is these same characters that I have contentions with. Not the acting, which was quite truthfully amazing, but the actual characters as stereotypes. Yes, they were meant to be stereotypes. I do understand that. But even stereotypes can be more than just paper cutouts. As an audience member, I felt nothing for them. Once again, perhaps my apathy was the desired outcome. Not a single character made me feel compassion, any sense of understanding. I could not relate at all. That was the intention; these are not meant to be pleasant personalities. They are not meant to be easily understood or relatable. However, the audience should ask whether, given the right or wrong set of circumstances, we could all become just like them. I never asked that question. Why? Perhaps the onslaught of intellectual grandiloquence left me gasping for air. Words, an avalanche of words. So many that it became too much for the audiences to listen. They needed a break, a point where they could just absorb what was said. But at no time did that break arrive. Listening to the audiences; reactions during the intermission and after the show, it was apparent that the play left many quite confused. It's no wonder the somewhat heavy-handed referencing was exhausting. Quotes from politicians, religious leaders, poets, authors, and philosophers left me gasping for air. Was this the aim? A verfremdungseffekt, or an alienation effect used by Epic Theatre? If so, it was only partially realised. The audiences were alienated by not being made aware of the theatrical nature of what they were witnessing.his brings me to the execution of the play. Too solidly rooted in realism with its clever stage design, realistic sound effects, and superb yet too naturalist acting, the production missed an opportunity to create a theatre that transcends time and space and becomes universally relevant. Opting for a more abstract setting and highlighting the symbolism already there, the play could've made a powerful statement. A shot deer whose blood represents sacrifice, a pistol tucked into a waistband denoting violence and conviction, the embrace that all-too-closely resembles the Virgin Mary holding her dying son, the ominous shrieking groan that brings everyone to an agonising halt, the coming eclipse all lend themselves to allegory. It's an opportunity that shouldn't have been missed. Trump, Obama, Buchanan, Strauss-Howe generational theory come and go. Already, they are losing heir relevance while rooting the play too solidly in its era. Minimise these, and the script becomes timeless. Staging the play outside of the realm of naturalism might have been the preferred option. Rather than presenting stereotypes, the characters could have become archetypes. Archetypes epitomizing universal patterns of human nature. Nature whose deep-rooted goodness was also the source of its evil. Whose greatest strength was also its biggest weakness.

Nothing would stimulate me more than to delve deeply into the main characters; psyches, dissecting their personalities and what they represent. I would be thrilled to discuss Kevin's weakness and his oscillating faith. I'd love to analyse Justin's pragmatic brutality shielded by gentleness and persuasion. I'd love to scrutinize the source of Tereza's childish desire to please, to prove a point, to win all arguments at any cost, and the blind rage and unyielding conviction that possess her. I'd love to explore Emily, who is the most relatable, and her distaste for confrontation. Emily who believes in grace and goodness and being grateful but who harbors spiteful, almost sadistic thoughts. Emily who demonstrates substitution and fugue as she embodies the voice and pain of others. I would love to study Gina and her pragmatism and pride in risking her life for God. However, placed in a different context, simplified, and sharpened. As it is, I believe the play would make a superb essay. It does not make a superb piece of theatre. And therein lies the source of my woes. A play should stand on its own two feet.