THE SPURT OF BLOOD
Though the play was not produced until 1964–by Peter Brook and Charles Marowitz–16 years after Artaud’s death, scholars have called the work a “landmark in Artaud’s development” and a major influence on the theater of the absurd. Still, it’s hard to imagine that this play would be very easy to sit through. I suspect that even those who take Artaud’s theories (as published in his seminal The Theatre and Its Double) as scripture would find themselves shifting in their seats during such deliberately nonsensical moments as the scene in which Artaud arbitrarily introduces a knight and the wet nurse into the story, only to have them argue over cheese.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
But the humor isn’t all in the Monty Python vein. Alan Miller’s kitschy dance sequences are more in the spirit of Mel Brooks, or of Jim Abrahams and David and Jerry Zucker. These tight, drill-team-like formations are easily the funniest bits in the show. Unfortunately, they’re concentrated in the first half of the show.
