The Barrington Stage Company’s production of Freud’s Last Session was consistently sold out over the summer; consequently I was unable to attend when I wanted to. Luckily for me it was brought back, and I was able to see it on its second to last performance. The play is funny, interesting, and, in general, an enjoyable night at the theater. The premise is that shortly before his death Sigmund Freud, noted atheist, met with C. S. Lewis, noted Christian, and discussed, among other things, the existence of God. The play makes no attempt to answer this question that has dogged mankind for ages, but juxtaposes the two positions as premise for a conversation between two historical figures of interest, placing them in time at the beginning of WWII; a time when questions of God became almost irrelevant as mankind once again turned toward horror and violence, and away from either God or Sanity.
They dying Sigmund Freud was admirably played by Martin Rayner, and the nervous C.S. Lewis convincingly played by Mark H. Dold. I know nothing of the person of Lewis, so I must assume he was portrayed true to form, as, I felt, Freud was. Both characters were sympathetic, and neither gave ground. The discussion takes place with the interruptions of Chamberlain’s speeches on radio, air raid sirens, BBC announcers, phone calls from Freud’s daughter, gas masks, etc…. The scene is Freud’s office complete with couch and chair, and was effectively laid out to facilitate the dance that the two seemed, at times, to be doing; the movement about the stage, hopefully meant to represent the dance of their respective positions, did seem a bit much.
At first Lewis is deferential to his senior, but during the play a bond seems to form, not based on either convincing the other, but rather upon the open honesty they share. Lewis is filled with sympathy for the suffering the cancerous Freud is going through. Freud, for his part, is truly astonished that an intelligent man like Lewis, who once shared his views, could become a devout Christian; he views faith as merely intellectual weakness, something to console the masses.
I agree with Ralph Hammann that Freud’s views are simplified, probably Lewis’s as well. But I think that was necessary; how many people would pay to see an hour and a half of Civilization and its Discontents? or, The Future of an Illusion? Mr. St. Germain succeeds in giving us a script that is interesting and keeps the audience involved emotionally and intellectually. All in all I would recommend this play as one to see if it comes your way.
Well-written, Ron! We will agree to disagree. As you know, I found the staging to be silly and think you are being gracious in describing it as a dance. To me it is a director trying to invigorate words that don’t really need it – or shouldn’t in this case. I would not wan to listen to “Civ. and its Discontents” — but maybe I’d listen to “The Interp. of Dreams”…
Ah, but “The Int. of Dreams” would have to be a series. One dream each night?