House Presents Truly Unconventional Theater
by Blake Rehberg

When I went to see House on Wednesday, I thought for a second I was back at Oberlin. The entire experience probed the boundaries of the traditional conceptions of theater. I left with feelings of befuddled satisfaction.
House was staged at the Barbican Pit in London, a theater similar but somewhat bigger than the Little Theater. The audience area is entirely painted black and there is no raised stage area. In contrast, the set was white and illuminated by suspended fixtures. According to the program, the set is completely neutral, as it is an exact replica of the wall of the building where they rehearsed in New York.
The play and the script themselves are statements. In fact, the acting would be better called anti-acting. Throughout the play the actors remained in static positions, expect for a few points when they fought, ate toast or practiced the bow and arrow. Line delivery occurred in a similar fashion; all of the actors’ lines were given in emotionless, monotone voices. Thus, it was shocking when, at certain places where there should have been an emotional build-up, each character broke into a song accompanied by tinny music from a Walkman.
This bizarre, yet provocative brand of acting was apparent from the start of the play. After several minutes of amiable audience chatter, the four actors filed in from the side and stood motionless on the stage facing the audience. Conversations stopped but several people were still coming in at the back. When the actors looked to the back with annoyed looks, it became clear that the audience was going to be involved in the night’s performance; the awkward silence continued for several more minutes.
Finally, a woman standing on stage left broke the hush and spoke in an invariable drone. Strikingly, she punctuated her speech often with an elongated “so” or “well.” As the others on stage joined the dialogue, it was revealed that the man and the boy were her husband and son; they too spoke with the same lack of emotion or movement.
The family continued, using dialogue that was utterly senseless at points. When the son asked, “Why don’t you ever answer my questions?” the father’s response about racecars is met with laughter from the audience.
Indeed, there was actually a lot of laughter throughout the play, but peculiarly not much in the play was actually funny. More often it was sad or just plain awkward. The laughter seemed to be motivated by uneasiness as the audience sat there in view of the staring actors waiting for some action or emotion to occur on stage.
It finally came when the other character, Mike, officially entered the scene. Although he completed several monologues and made mutual eye contact with the mother as she repeatedly retrieved and replaced a plate of toast, he was not officially interacting with the family.
Soon, Mike entered and killed the father who we were led to believe killed Mike’s brother. The fight scene was the most animated of the entire play, and they actually hit each other. Mike suffocated the father and dropped his body in the center of the stage where it remains for the rest of the play.
The mother and son then “ran away” as they walked to the other side of the set. The son informed his mother that he was going to return and get revenge. When she interjected that he was too young, he reassured her and said that will be okay because a year has passed and he has been practicing with his bow and arrow.

Another animated fight scene occurred, which resulted in Mike holding the boy in a chokehold against the wall. He lowered his body to the floor where it remained for the rest of the play. The mother then accepted that she has no other choice but to live with Mike, and the play ended.
Obviously, the plot makes little sense on its own and concludes without real resolution. There was also no history or background to any of the characters. Much discussion ensued afterwards in the search for meaning in this play that is really about nothing. It made me long for Oberlin and others who would appreciate such challenges to traditional theater as much as I did.