The title of this play is Topdog/Underdog. It is written by Suzan-Lori Parks. Topdog/Underdog was copy written in 1999, 2001, 2002. It is published by Theatre Communications Group, Inc., 520 Eighth Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10018-4156. It’s first production was July 22, 2001, at The Joseph Papp Public Theater/New York Shakespeare Festival. The first Broadway production of Topdog/Underdog was at the Ambassador Theatre on April 7, 2002. This play can be purchased on Amazon, in Barnes and Noble, or elsewhere online.
Topdog/Underdog is about two brothers, Lincoln and Booth, who are both in their thirties living together. Lincoln is the older brother, and Booth looks up to him. They were abandoned by both of their parents by the age of sixteen and eleven. Their mom left Booth with $500 in a nylon stocking, and their dad left Lincoln $500. Booth referred to his as his inheritance. Ever since, the brothers have been trying to survive on Lincoln’s minimum wage job until Booth, later known as 3 card, begins to get into the 3- card monte hustle. This game consists of hustling people on the street by tricking them into choosing the wrong card out of the three. Lincoln used to hustle and make a lot of money in the streets, but gave it up. The brothers struggle with coping with not knowing why their parents left. By the end of the play, suppressed feelings of their parents abandoning them comes to the light, and everything comes down to Booth winning a game of 3-card monte against his veteran brother, Lincoln. Both brothers put $500 on the line, which forces Booth to put up his “inheritance” money. When Booth loses, he completely crashes, and makes irrational decisions that he cannot take back.
One dramaturgical that Parks made was to not include the parents in the play. Their was talk about Lincoln and Booth’s parents, but they never appeared in the world of the play. I think this choice was beneficial to the script because we, the audience, then only get to know the parents through their sons’ stories. This way, the audience never learns of the exact reason why their parents abandoned them. Although, there are hints of infidelity from both parties that affected the relationship.Based on knowing that both of the parents abandoned their children, one could assume that the parents did not love their children. However, Parks also makes it a point to add that both boys received a small sum of $500 from one of their two parents. This symbolizes that the parents didn’t hate their kids. It seems more so that they just couldn’t deal with their circumstances any more. Another dramaturgical choice that Parks made was to have the world of the play revolve around the 3-card monte scam. The play opens with a scene of Booth practicing his 3-card monte hustle. This game happens to be the ribbon that ties the brothers together. Lincoln use to be a part of the hustle, but quit. Booth wants to partner up with his older brother and get back in the business. When Lincoln refuses, at first, it’s no big deal. As Booth persists in the story, new conflict arises for him. It comes across as 3-card monte being the only thing to keep Booth grounded. Parks also chooses to have Lincoln, later on in the play, practicing his 3-card monte hustle after a very long intermission. She even states in the script that Lincoln is much better than Booth at it. When it comes down to Booth showing his skills to Link, he fumbles. It’s an indicator of how his life had become so uncertain after his ex girlfriend does not take him back. The last scene shows Booth and Lincoln playing their last round of 3-card monte together. Booth physically loses the game and his money, and in doing so, mentally loses his mind. The hustle and his inheritance was all he had, and Lincoln took it from him. Therefore, this choice helps unfold the story in a smooth manner.
This seems like a really good play. You actually made me interested to read and or see it. (which is not an easy feat..i don't like reading very much) I liked your awesome cliff hanger "makes irrational decisions that he can't take back". Thats really what sparked the interest. You talk about the exclusion of the parents from the character list and about how the 3-card monte scam but one of the first things i noticed just from your description was the name of the characters. Do you think that Parks intentionally named the characters after a famous president and his assassin? If so why? Do they foreshadow later events?
ReplyDeleteParks, indeed, named the characters that for a reason. In the script, it says that the father named them that as a joke. You would have to read the play to see if it foreshadows future events.
Delete