What do you think?
Rate this book
Six Degrees of Separation: A Play
In this soaring and deeply provacative tragicomedy of race, class, and manners, John Guare has created the msot important American play in years. Six Degrees of Separation is one of those rare works that capture both the supercharged pulse of our present era and the deepest and most mysterious movements of the human heart.
Six Degrees of Separation won the 1990 New York Drama Critics Circle Award for Best Play, as well as the Hull Warriner Award and the Obie.
Six Degrees of Separation won the 1990 New York Drama Critics Circle Award for Best Play, as well as the Hull Warriner Award and the Obie.
120 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 14, 1990
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 161 reviews
June 9, 2021
This is an interesting play about constructed identity and how, by playing up a racialized image of ‘intellect’, one can put themselves into the homes and minds of others. Over time, the audience is asked to question what’s real and what’s not in a con, and maybe, over time, who is conning who.
This show… is a lot to think about. Actually, it took me a reread to really get certain aspects. The broad story is easy to understand; it’s the details that make the show so interesting. Another reviewer on this page advised reading this all in one sitting, and I would advise the same; it’s 55 pages and seeing the opening to close progression is half the fun.
I really like the differing reactions of Ouisa and her husband. The contrast between disdain and that continued degree of caring is interesting, but I also genuinely enjoy the question of why Ouisa still cares: because she misses the idea of this person, or because she really saw something underneath the lie?
I read this for the same class as M Butterfly and that was a very good choice on the part of our professor.
I still have not managed to see the entirety of the movie adaptation of this, but the scenes I’ve viewed feature some very good acting, especially on the part of the lead. Will Smith is not casting I would have pictured for this role literally ever, but then again, I think that’s because I left this play having almost no picture of him. I didn’t notice how much he fit no boxes in my head until I saw the movie, and it’s this I love so much about the character: You cannot have a coherent picture of him, because he fills so many roles.
TL;DR: Much to think about. Also, the running joke about Cats: The Movie aged like a fine wine.
Blog | Twitter | Instagram | Spotify | Youtube | About |
This show… is a lot to think about. Actually, it took me a reread to really get certain aspects. The broad story is easy to understand; it’s the details that make the show so interesting. Another reviewer on this page advised reading this all in one sitting, and I would advise the same; it’s 55 pages and seeing the opening to close progression is half the fun.
I really like the differing reactions of Ouisa and her husband. The contrast between disdain and that continued degree of caring is interesting, but I also genuinely enjoy the question of why Ouisa still cares: because she misses the idea of this person, or because she really saw something underneath the lie?
I read this for the same class as M Butterfly and that was a very good choice on the part of our professor.
I still have not managed to see the entirety of the movie adaptation of this, but the scenes I’ve viewed feature some very good acting, especially on the part of the lead. Will Smith is not casting I would have pictured for this role literally ever, but then again, I think that’s because I left this play having almost no picture of him. I didn’t notice how much he fit no boxes in my head until I saw the movie, and it’s this I love so much about the character: You cannot have a coherent picture of him, because he fills so many roles.
TL;DR: Much to think about. Also, the running joke about Cats: The Movie aged like a fine wine.
Blog | Twitter | Instagram | Spotify | Youtube | About |
June 22, 2017
First things first: read this play in one sitting.
Seriously. You've got to read it all at once. There are no acts or scene breaks and the dialogue and action is continuous, plus it's only 55 pages, so read it in one sitting.
Onto the play itself. It's brilliant. Or at least I thought it was. It's clever—very clever—but it never becomes pretentious or crosses the line into self-indulgence. The dialogue never seems separated from the action, in fact it conveys the action, it is the action. It's intelligent and breathless and effervescent, with characters constantly finishing each other's sentences and speaking on the phone and speaking to the audience, but it's smooth, too, transitioning seamlessly from flashbacks and reminiscences to dream sequences and fights.
"Seamlessness" seems to be a word used a lot in praise of this play—in fact, on the back of my copy, it's used in two of the three blurbs:
"...cunningly executed, seemingly seamlessly joined, interlarded with clever one-liners, alternating comic situations with mildly disturbing ones... SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION is a play about everything, with something in it for everyone..." —New York Magazine
"Among the many remarkable aspects of Mr. Guare's writing is the seamlessness of his imagery, characters and themes, as if this play had erupted from his own imagination in one perfect piece." —The New York Times
"In one perfect piece." That's how I'd describe it, too. Which is funny because Guare, in his preface, talks about the inherent difficulty of writing and of getting back to that which is truly "us," and in doing so he tries to get us to believe that he has slaved over this play, but I still suspect that it only took him as long as it takes to physically type up the script—two days, max. Which makes me incredibly envious.
Sure, there's more to it than brilliant writing. There are larger concepts churning behind all this wonderful dialogue—love, death, class, the value of the imagination, the purpose of deception, the fragmented nature of a life—but the great thing about Six Degrees of Separation is that even if you don't bother thinking about any of these themes and just take the play on its face, it's still wonderful. Which seems impossible, because like The Times said above, everything is so SEAMLESSLY bound up together, characters-themes-dialogue-plot, but the magic of this play is that somehow, somehow (is it magic?) they all stand on their own too.
Before I go, I want to mention the movie adaptation. I actually watched it before reading the play (sacrilege, I know—but, in my defence, I didn't know it was an adaptation until after I saw it!) and loved it. I have a lot more respect for it after reading the source material, too; the script is almost exactly the same, word for word. All the actors are great and I highly recommend it—the ending is slightly more definitive than the play's ending, too—plus the casting, in my opinion, is spot on. Young, gay Will Smith! (I'm pretty sure this was his debut movie, too.) Hippie Anthony Michael Hall! South African Ian McKellen! Stockard Channing & Donald Sutherland at their most charming! What could be better? And if, for some unfathomable reason, you don't want to read the play and want to watch it instead, I'm confident that you'd get alllllmost as much out of the movie as you would out of the play, since they're so close.
All in all, I loved this play, I loved this story. There are some really breathtaking monologues and witty exchanges and the dialogue is generally noteworthy, but taken as a whole, this play is just something else. Five stars, easy.
Seriously. You've got to read it all at once. There are no acts or scene breaks and the dialogue and action is continuous, plus it's only 55 pages, so read it in one sitting.
Onto the play itself. It's brilliant. Or at least I thought it was. It's clever—very clever—but it never becomes pretentious or crosses the line into self-indulgence. The dialogue never seems separated from the action, in fact it conveys the action, it is the action. It's intelligent and breathless and effervescent, with characters constantly finishing each other's sentences and speaking on the phone and speaking to the audience, but it's smooth, too, transitioning seamlessly from flashbacks and reminiscences to dream sequences and fights.
"Seamlessness" seems to be a word used a lot in praise of this play—in fact, on the back of my copy, it's used in two of the three blurbs:
"...cunningly executed, seemingly seamlessly joined, interlarded with clever one-liners, alternating comic situations with mildly disturbing ones... SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION is a play about everything, with something in it for everyone..." —New York Magazine
"Among the many remarkable aspects of Mr. Guare's writing is the seamlessness of his imagery, characters and themes, as if this play had erupted from his own imagination in one perfect piece." —The New York Times
"In one perfect piece." That's how I'd describe it, too. Which is funny because Guare, in his preface, talks about the inherent difficulty of writing and of getting back to that which is truly "us," and in doing so he tries to get us to believe that he has slaved over this play, but I still suspect that it only took him as long as it takes to physically type up the script—two days, max. Which makes me incredibly envious.
Sure, there's more to it than brilliant writing. There are larger concepts churning behind all this wonderful dialogue—love, death, class, the value of the imagination, the purpose of deception, the fragmented nature of a life—but the great thing about Six Degrees of Separation is that even if you don't bother thinking about any of these themes and just take the play on its face, it's still wonderful. Which seems impossible, because like The Times said above, everything is so SEAMLESSLY bound up together, characters-themes-dialogue-plot, but the magic of this play is that somehow, somehow (is it magic?) they all stand on their own too.
Before I go, I want to mention the movie adaptation. I actually watched it before reading the play (sacrilege, I know—but, in my defence, I didn't know it was an adaptation until after I saw it!) and loved it. I have a lot more respect for it after reading the source material, too; the script is almost exactly the same, word for word. All the actors are great and I highly recommend it—the ending is slightly more definitive than the play's ending, too—plus the casting, in my opinion, is spot on. Young, gay Will Smith! (I'm pretty sure this was his debut movie, too.) Hippie Anthony Michael Hall! South African Ian McKellen! Stockard Channing & Donald Sutherland at their most charming! What could be better? And if, for some unfathomable reason, you don't want to read the play and want to watch it instead, I'm confident that you'd get alllllmost as much out of the movie as you would out of the play, since they're so close.
All in all, I loved this play, I loved this story. There are some really breathtaking monologues and witty exchanges and the dialogue is generally noteworthy, but taken as a whole, this play is just something else. Five stars, easy.
July 16, 2020
Shallow, superficial, pretentious -- this 1990 play by John Guare has not aged well, and the film version was deservedly a flop on the order that only Hollyla can manufacture. Guare saw a news item about silly upper middle-class New Yorkers (like the president of a TV station) being conned by a savvy black youth who pretends to know their kids at Harvard (where else?)
The real-life lad (David Hampton) duped various other white liberals who swooned over the fib that, though he was the son of Sidney Poitier, he was broke and needed a place to stay. Poitier, they all cooed; oh, darling, stay here, with us'ns. So he did. Then he brought "home" a hustler for a romp and, well, that was just too-too much! (Hampton was later in-out of jail and died of AIDs, 2003). Playwright Guare, lacking a point-of-view, doesnt know if he's writing a satire, a comedy or an Odetsian slice of social significance. This isnt a play, it's a gossipy anecdote, and after the setup -- where one cheers on the wayward kid -- Guare's limp imagination collapses.
The material needs the wit of Tom Wolfe, the wackiness of Preston Sturges or the acid vision of Billy Wilder. Eh, what happens, you may wonder? Nothing happens. The offended adults, via long monologues, radiate their sham and cheap hyprocrisy at social events where everyone is driven to drink. Vanitas est vanitas.
The real-life lad (David Hampton) duped various other white liberals who swooned over the fib that, though he was the son of Sidney Poitier, he was broke and needed a place to stay. Poitier, they all cooed; oh, darling, stay here, with us'ns. So he did. Then he brought "home" a hustler for a romp and, well, that was just too-too much! (Hampton was later in-out of jail and died of AIDs, 2003). Playwright Guare, lacking a point-of-view, doesnt know if he's writing a satire, a comedy or an Odetsian slice of social significance. This isnt a play, it's a gossipy anecdote, and after the setup -- where one cheers on the wayward kid -- Guare's limp imagination collapses.
The material needs the wit of Tom Wolfe, the wackiness of Preston Sturges or the acid vision of Billy Wilder. Eh, what happens, you may wonder? Nothing happens. The offended adults, via long monologues, radiate their sham and cheap hyprocrisy at social events where everyone is driven to drink. Vanitas est vanitas.
July 28, 2023
4.5 Stars for Six Degrees of Separation by John Guare read by Alan Alda, Swoosie Kurtz and Chuma Hunter-Gaultz.
This was a fascinating radio play about identity and trust. It was really well produced and it was a great treat for me to hear Alan Alda acting out one of the parts.
This was a fascinating radio play about identity and trust. It was really well produced and it was a great treat for me to hear Alan Alda acting out one of the parts.
May 19, 2012
L'immaginazione è il posto in cui tutti stiamo cercando di arrivare
Ho acquistato questo testo teatrale solo per un monologo. Sì, proprio così. Il protagonista, un impostore, si fa amare per le sue capacità dialettiche e avvince l'auditorio attraverso il più bel monologo sulla letteratura che io abbia mai letto in una storia. La sua tesi parte dall'analisi del libro Il giovane Holden e si conclude con Il signore degli anelli e lega l'idea della paralisi degli esseri umani a quella relativa alla morte della fantasia.
Al di là di questo lungo monologo, c'è una storia davvero intrigante che avvince e ci fa riflettere sulle fragilità degli uomini i quali sono come un quadro doppio di Kandinsky, che campeggia al centro della scena sin dalle prime battute, e che si volta mostrando un altro e inaspettato lato. L'immaginazione è il lato opposto, quello che stupisce, che c'è in ciascuno di noi. La fantasia, secondo l'autore, ci permette di segnare dei limiti da travalicare, ci insegna ad andare oltre di noi.
I sei gradi di separazione, la teoria secondo cui ognuno è legato ad un altro essere umano solo da sei persone, da sei gradi di conoscenza, si spezza nel momento in cui perdiamo la nostra identità e attraverso le storie altrui iniziamo a vivere innumerevoli esperienze, come se fossimo gli altri.
Un estratto del monologo:
Ho finito il libro (Il giovane Holden, n.d.r). E' una storia toccante e comica, perché il ragazzo vorrebbe fare moltissimo e non riesce a fare un bel niente. Odia ogni forma di falsità e non fa che mentire a chiunque. Vuole piacere a tutti, e riesce solo a essere odioso, tutto preso da sé. In altre parole, un'immagine piuttosto accurata di un adolescente maschio. E quello che mi allarma del libro - non tanto del libro, ma dell'aura che c'è intorno - è questo: il libro parla prima di tutto della paralisi. Il ragazzo non riesce a funzionare. E alla fine, prima che possa scappare e cominciare una nuova vita, comincia a piovere e lui lascia perdere tutto.
Ora non c'è niente di male a scrivere della paralisi emotiva e intellettuale. In realtà, grazie a Checov e a Samuel Beckett, potrebbe essere considerato il grande tema moderno.
Le ultime straordinarie parole di "Apettando Godot"...
"Andiamo".
"Sì, andiamo".
Didascalia: Non si muovono.
Ma l'aura che circonda questo libro di Salinger - che forse dovrebbero leggere tutti tranne i giovani uomini - è questa: rispecchia come un gioco di specchi deformanti e amplifica come un amplificatore distorto una delle grandi tragedie del nostro tempo: la morte dell'immaginazione.
Perché cos'altro è la paralisi?
Ho acquistato questo testo teatrale solo per un monologo. Sì, proprio così. Il protagonista, un impostore, si fa amare per le sue capacità dialettiche e avvince l'auditorio attraverso il più bel monologo sulla letteratura che io abbia mai letto in una storia. La sua tesi parte dall'analisi del libro Il giovane Holden e si conclude con Il signore degli anelli e lega l'idea della paralisi degli esseri umani a quella relativa alla morte della fantasia.
Al di là di questo lungo monologo, c'è una storia davvero intrigante che avvince e ci fa riflettere sulle fragilità degli uomini i quali sono come un quadro doppio di Kandinsky, che campeggia al centro della scena sin dalle prime battute, e che si volta mostrando un altro e inaspettato lato. L'immaginazione è il lato opposto, quello che stupisce, che c'è in ciascuno di noi. La fantasia, secondo l'autore, ci permette di segnare dei limiti da travalicare, ci insegna ad andare oltre di noi.
I sei gradi di separazione, la teoria secondo cui ognuno è legato ad un altro essere umano solo da sei persone, da sei gradi di conoscenza, si spezza nel momento in cui perdiamo la nostra identità e attraverso le storie altrui iniziamo a vivere innumerevoli esperienze, come se fossimo gli altri.
Un estratto del monologo:
Ho finito il libro (Il giovane Holden, n.d.r). E' una storia toccante e comica, perché il ragazzo vorrebbe fare moltissimo e non riesce a fare un bel niente. Odia ogni forma di falsità e non fa che mentire a chiunque. Vuole piacere a tutti, e riesce solo a essere odioso, tutto preso da sé. In altre parole, un'immagine piuttosto accurata di un adolescente maschio. E quello che mi allarma del libro - non tanto del libro, ma dell'aura che c'è intorno - è questo: il libro parla prima di tutto della paralisi. Il ragazzo non riesce a funzionare. E alla fine, prima che possa scappare e cominciare una nuova vita, comincia a piovere e lui lascia perdere tutto.
Ora non c'è niente di male a scrivere della paralisi emotiva e intellettuale. In realtà, grazie a Checov e a Samuel Beckett, potrebbe essere considerato il grande tema moderno.
Le ultime straordinarie parole di "Apettando Godot"...
"Andiamo".
"Sì, andiamo".
Didascalia: Non si muovono.
Ma l'aura che circonda questo libro di Salinger - che forse dovrebbero leggere tutti tranne i giovani uomini - è questa: rispecchia come un gioco di specchi deformanti e amplifica come un amplificatore distorto una delle grandi tragedie del nostro tempo: la morte dell'immaginazione.
Perché cos'altro è la paralisi?
September 27, 2017
I found the narrative style to be really interesting, but the actual story was terrible. All the characters were so stupid, and then the ending was just awful. At first I wanted to like it, but then there was so much language and sexual things that I completely lost all that I had liked from the very beginning.
July 3, 2011
I watched Catch Me If You Can and wanted to read this because this play is also about imposters. I am going to also read the true story of Clark Rockefeller called "The Man in the Rockefeller Suit." I can't really blame people for wanting to be different people. We are ingrained from birth to want to be different people by the ads on television and billboards saying "look like this." I know I get super uncomfortable sometimes in my role in life but I think I'm finally getting to a comfortable spot (Maybe because I don't watch tv). I'll wear my dirty shoes if I want to and not give a damn. So what if I don't party and drink all night long. I'm too busy taking care of Karen's upstocks and shelving. And also snuggling with my kitty. That's what I'd rather do. So I have no need to be an imposter. I'm sneaky but I'm a terrible liar. :P
November 1, 2022
A comedy about fakery, identity, and isolation.
December 16, 2022
Six Degrees of Separation is a strange beast. There are some things happening in this play that are quite lovely and even philosophically important, but those positives don't quite overcome the negatives that this play delivers and presents as universal experiences. And really, millionaires and billionaires, art dealers and technocrats, their spoiled children and their spoiled selves, are a difficult group of protagonists to cheer for, and their experiences are not universal. So why bother?
I can't be bothered.
The plot follows a gay, black, con man, insinuating himself into an uber-rich NY family (we find out through the plot how he got all the important information, but who cares? *yawn*). And his desire is to be like them. Like those people he victimizes and those people who MUST have victimized him.
This is a play of its time, and the privilege of that time isn't easy to watch or listen to, and it is excessively difficult to like anyone in the play, although John Guare seems to think his "protagonists" are likable, which they might have been when he wrote these words, but Guare is absolutely wrong. His "protagonists" are despicable, and even the couple of characters who seem to be empathetic are part of that group of despicables. And even his victim / victimizer, Paul, is a piece of shit.
It is a play of its time, but only of its time, and pop culture meme-ness aside, Six Degrees just isn't as good as we once thought it was.
I can't be bothered.
The plot follows a gay, black, con man, insinuating himself into an uber-rich NY family (we find out through the plot how he got all the important information, but who cares? *yawn*). And his desire is to be like them. Like those people he victimizes and those people who MUST have victimized him.
This is a play of its time, and the privilege of that time isn't easy to watch or listen to, and it is excessively difficult to like anyone in the play, although John Guare seems to think his "protagonists" are likable, which they might have been when he wrote these words, but Guare is absolutely wrong. His "protagonists" are despicable, and even the couple of characters who seem to be empathetic are part of that group of despicables. And even his victim / victimizer, Paul, is a piece of shit.
It is a play of its time, but only of its time, and pop culture meme-ness aside, Six Degrees just isn't as good as we once thought it was.
December 29, 2022
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ 💫
Critical Score: A
Personal Score: A-
Reading Experience: 📘📘📘📘📘(5/5)
I saw the film years ago and loved it. It beguiled me. It riveted me. I feel essentially the same way about the play, though these days I am less tolerant of puzzle box commentary. What the hell is this thing getting at? What are its messages? Just how many big ideas is it juggling?
I suppose it’s fair for a play to just be a conversation starter, to throw out a ton to chew on without getting short on its point. Is that pretentious, or lazy? Is the play charmingly ambiguous, or just too smart for me? Or was it never trying for simple answers? After all, simple answers don’t get rave reviews.
So I’m a big fan of this play, but I’m still trying to figure it out. Which might sound like an odd use of my time—it wasn’t written by the hand of God, after all. It’s not the best selling piece of literature, after all. It started for me as just some movie I watched for class. I was supposed to read the play, too. Go figure. The movie excited me so much that I said, I *will* read that play. Not because it’s assigned, but because I want to. Then the mood passed and I decided to save it for later, to insure the story a longer stay in the span of my life.
It’s later now, and I’m still scratching my head. Maybe watching the movie again will help me out. Even if it doesn’t, what a play!
Critical Score: A
Personal Score: A-
Reading Experience: 📘📘📘📘📘(5/5)
I saw the film years ago and loved it. It beguiled me. It riveted me. I feel essentially the same way about the play, though these days I am less tolerant of puzzle box commentary. What the hell is this thing getting at? What are its messages? Just how many big ideas is it juggling?
I suppose it’s fair for a play to just be a conversation starter, to throw out a ton to chew on without getting short on its point. Is that pretentious, or lazy? Is the play charmingly ambiguous, or just too smart for me? Or was it never trying for simple answers? After all, simple answers don’t get rave reviews.
So I’m a big fan of this play, but I’m still trying to figure it out. Which might sound like an odd use of my time—it wasn’t written by the hand of God, after all. It’s not the best selling piece of literature, after all. It started for me as just some movie I watched for class. I was supposed to read the play, too. Go figure. The movie excited me so much that I said, I *will* read that play. Not because it’s assigned, but because I want to. Then the mood passed and I decided to save it for later, to insure the story a longer stay in the span of my life.
It’s later now, and I’m still scratching my head. Maybe watching the movie again will help me out. Even if it doesn’t, what a play!
January 28, 2021
I love this play. I saw the movie with Will Smith and Stockard Channing in it first, which biased me in favor, because I feel like watching it you get more of the chaotic flavor than you do in the book. Even so, this was a fun read. The chaos is there, the absolute pretentiousness is there, the pseudo-intellectualism is all there and so funny. Personally I just get a kick out of it so I would definitely recommend.
January 22, 2024
had me scratching my head
Read
March 1, 2009Sneaky! Trust and Deception, Wealth and Poverty, Friendship and Loneliness, Generosity and Greed—this play has a little of them all. But the way it moves through them feels a little unsettling, a little paranormal, like all the characters are floating around in the ether, and not in New York City. (But then again, good chunks of New York City really aren’t all that connected to reality.) In this play, the subject is mostly upper class, East-Side/West-Side Manhattan.
In Six Degrees of Separation, characters from different classes and backgrounds are thrown together in unusual situations, and we watch as they endear themselves to each other, enrage each other, and ultimately confront the differences that separate them. The result is both humanizing and condemning, and we’re left thinking a little harder about what we value, who we care for, and why.
In production, characters in Six Degrees sometimes speak to the audience and sometimes speak to each other. Sometimes the play feels natural, other times it takes on the feel of an abstract ensemble performance. I can’t say I’m a fan of this, and to me, as a result, moments in the play seemed forced. Nonetheless, those moments also force us to think a little harder about what we’re reading/seeing.
Notably, the title plays only a small part in the play, and the theme of interconnectivity between all people falls in behind more dominant themes of class and race.
Do I recommend it? Yes. Thoughtfully critical.
Would I teach it? Mmm. Maybe. It’s socially astute and full of interesting relationships, even if it some of it seems designed to shock.
Lasting impression A puzzle. The Talented Mr. Ripley meets My Fair Lady on the Upper West Side.
In Six Degrees of Separation, characters from different classes and backgrounds are thrown together in unusual situations, and we watch as they endear themselves to each other, enrage each other, and ultimately confront the differences that separate them. The result is both humanizing and condemning, and we’re left thinking a little harder about what we value, who we care for, and why.
In production, characters in Six Degrees sometimes speak to the audience and sometimes speak to each other. Sometimes the play feels natural, other times it takes on the feel of an abstract ensemble performance. I can’t say I’m a fan of this, and to me, as a result, moments in the play seemed forced. Nonetheless, those moments also force us to think a little harder about what we’re reading/seeing.
Notably, the title plays only a small part in the play, and the theme of interconnectivity between all people falls in behind more dominant themes of class and race.
Do I recommend it? Yes. Thoughtfully critical.
Would I teach it? Mmm. Maybe. It’s socially astute and full of interesting relationships, even if it some of it seems designed to shock.
Lasting impression A puzzle. The Talented Mr. Ripley meets My Fair Lady on the Upper West Side.
Want to read
October 26, 2011I had to dump someone whose only contribution to my newsfeed was that she was adding a new friend at least four times a day and by which time she had accumulated more than 1,000 on her way to that apparently much desired and exalted 5,000-friend limit imposed by Goodreads. This made me ponder the theoretical idea of what might constitute the ideal number of Goodreads friends. Then, I remembered this play and the concept implied in its title, and thought that perhaps the number might be 6.
I'm not rating this yet, since to date I've only seen the film, which I love. Based on that I would give the play at least four stars.
I'm not rating this yet, since to date I've only seen the film, which I love. Based on that I would give the play at least four stars.
June 12, 2024
read with tim and drank a cider……
<3
<3
August 31, 2021
Listening to this was like being there and watching the play itself. It did not disturb the performance when the audience reaction intercut it but I did wonder if this was a live recording of a performance in front of an actual audience. What was amazing about this audio drama was its production that made this performance come alive. I could feel the actors joy performing this incredibly tightly written comical play. This was so good that I listened to it a further two times.
Playing for 105 mins with a cast including Alan Alda, there were moments where I was laughing and stunned at the same time. The play is written by John Guare, whom I’ve never heard of until this moment; I accidently came across this play in a random search on Libby. It was the title that grabbed my attention – but it was the tempo of the dialogue that was just delicious.
Listening to this was like someone turning the world upside down whilst drawing a wonderful family portrait that reveals flaws at a closer look. What I loved the most about this play is how it addressed a variety of themes, that included social class, race and parent-child relationships, without being blatantly obvious. I was being entertained whilst feeling profound and being enlightened at the same time. This is the kind of play I could keep listening to again and again wonderful!! :)
(side note: read dates showing when I started and finished reading this are an approximation as this was read sometime between July and August 2021)
Playing for 105 mins with a cast including Alan Alda, there were moments where I was laughing and stunned at the same time. The play is written by John Guare, whom I’ve never heard of until this moment; I accidently came across this play in a random search on Libby. It was the title that grabbed my attention – but it was the tempo of the dialogue that was just delicious.
Listening to this was like someone turning the world upside down whilst drawing a wonderful family portrait that reveals flaws at a closer look. What I loved the most about this play is how it addressed a variety of themes, that included social class, race and parent-child relationships, without being blatantly obvious. I was being entertained whilst feeling profound and being enlightened at the same time. This is the kind of play I could keep listening to again and again wonderful!! :)
(side note: read dates showing when I started and finished reading this are an approximation as this was read sometime between July and August 2021)
November 19, 2021
Finished reading this in one sitting! I just realized I'm into plays nowadays.
Haven't heard about this book in my whole life, got it randomly on a secondhand bookshop.
It was an okay read, this book is talking about racism and social status.
Just not my cup of tea.
Haven't heard about this book in my whole life, got it randomly on a secondhand bookshop.
It was an okay read, this book is talking about racism and social status.
Just not my cup of tea.
February 6, 2024
lowkey was kinda crazy but paul was so silly and delusional but not in a silly way in a mentally ill way but who can tell these days
May 18, 2024
A play I come back to every couple of years and just LOVE every time.
September 4, 2024
A quirkily funny, but ultimately devastating look at society, race, and life in general. Having seen this piece on stage numerous times and having loved the movie, the play reads well and is as powerful on the page as it live.
November 18, 2022
Could not get behind this book no matter how hard I tried. He pretended to know your kids to get into your house, hooked up with a literal criminal in your sons room and stole money from you. Why are you telling him you love him and being worried about his wellbeing!?!?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 19, 2020
The dreaded reading slump. I am in one, and it sucks. I feel now that whatever I pick up and open will turn to turd dust in my hands. I hated reading this play. What is in it that I could possibly find of interest? It's all surface cleverness, without an ounce of depth. Left me cold. And sad. I wanted to read something good.
August 27, 2016
Very good read I liked how it was constant all the way through and how the stage directions faded in and out characters constantly jumping to each scene. Very much liked the style of writing
March 15, 2018
Six Degrees of Separation, written by John Guare, based on his play
There are some interesting, provocative, erudite segments in this like able, very good film.
Donald Sutherland, Will Smith and the rest of the cast are magnificent in their roles.
The former plays Flan Kittredge, married to Ouisa, living in an expensive apartment in New York, overlooking Central Park.
Ian McKellen has the role of rich Geoffrey Miller, a South African who owns a gold mine and other assets and he is supposed to go out with his hosts and discuss business, perhaps a two million dollar investment in a painting by Cezanne.
"Don't think of the elephant" is the saying and Ouisa and Flan cannot ignore the prospect of the paramount investment or lack thereof, through the polite conversation.
Suddenly, an African American is at the door, wounded and robbed as he explains and he is a colleague of their children.
This handsome, well mannered young man tells the story of the robbery and the consequent destitution...as he was looking, he saw the apartment and remembered what his friends told him about their parents, their names, occupation and so much more.
Flan and Ouisa are private dealers, as they explain in one scene, some rich clients prefer to avoid galleries, somethings publicity and the press and would rather use back channels, people with an established reputation like the Kitteredges.
They give the stranger their attention, they get the first aide book and then the treatment, take a pink shirt from their son-who would be so outraged and loud upon hearing about it- and they offer to take the pleasant, entertaining man for dinner, with the prospective investor.
An important element in this special attitude and generosity might be the information that the man is called Paul Poitier and he is the son of the celebrated, popular, famous, valued Sydney Poitier.
Poitier Jr. Has some stories to tell, about visiting Cannes, Moscow with his Deity-father and furthermore, there are some erudite, sophisticated, challenging commentaries that the visitor makes on literature.
He talks about Catcher in the Rye, alienation, the fact that this book has inspired criminals, the killer who murdered John Lennon, the man who tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan.
One of them, in his defense, said that all they need to do is read the book.
Paul Poitier moves on to Samuel Beckett and Waiting for Godot, which ends with...
Let's go
Yes
The author writes that they do not move.
The continuation is more absurd, for the young man claims he would meet with his father, who wants to make a movie based on...Cats.
That sounds preposterous to his audience and it would be proved that their opinion is valid, even if they accept the offer to act...as extras in the film.
However, in the morning, Ouisa hears strange moaning and other sounds, when she is worried and enters the room of the guest, there is the visitor entertaining and having sex with a male friend.
There are some interesting, provocative, erudite segments in this like able, very good film.
Donald Sutherland, Will Smith and the rest of the cast are magnificent in their roles.
The former plays Flan Kittredge, married to Ouisa, living in an expensive apartment in New York, overlooking Central Park.
Ian McKellen has the role of rich Geoffrey Miller, a South African who owns a gold mine and other assets and he is supposed to go out with his hosts and discuss business, perhaps a two million dollar investment in a painting by Cezanne.
"Don't think of the elephant" is the saying and Ouisa and Flan cannot ignore the prospect of the paramount investment or lack thereof, through the polite conversation.
Suddenly, an African American is at the door, wounded and robbed as he explains and he is a colleague of their children.
This handsome, well mannered young man tells the story of the robbery and the consequent destitution...as he was looking, he saw the apartment and remembered what his friends told him about their parents, their names, occupation and so much more.
Flan and Ouisa are private dealers, as they explain in one scene, some rich clients prefer to avoid galleries, somethings publicity and the press and would rather use back channels, people with an established reputation like the Kitteredges.
They give the stranger their attention, they get the first aide book and then the treatment, take a pink shirt from their son-who would be so outraged and loud upon hearing about it- and they offer to take the pleasant, entertaining man for dinner, with the prospective investor.
An important element in this special attitude and generosity might be the information that the man is called Paul Poitier and he is the son of the celebrated, popular, famous, valued Sydney Poitier.
Poitier Jr. Has some stories to tell, about visiting Cannes, Moscow with his Deity-father and furthermore, there are some erudite, sophisticated, challenging commentaries that the visitor makes on literature.
He talks about Catcher in the Rye, alienation, the fact that this book has inspired criminals, the killer who murdered John Lennon, the man who tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan.
One of them, in his defense, said that all they need to do is read the book.
Paul Poitier moves on to Samuel Beckett and Waiting for Godot, which ends with...
Let's go
Yes
The author writes that they do not move.
The continuation is more absurd, for the young man claims he would meet with his father, who wants to make a movie based on...Cats.
That sounds preposterous to his audience and it would be proved that their opinion is valid, even if they accept the offer to act...as extras in the film.
However, in the morning, Ouisa hears strange moaning and other sounds, when she is worried and enters the room of the guest, there is the visitor entertaining and having sex with a male friend.
October 29, 2022
A wealthy but cash-poor art dealer named Flan Kittredge ("Newport, but not along the ocean") and his elegant wife Ouisa are entertaining a South African businessman named Geoffrey, in hopes of getting two million dollars out of him to finance the purchase of a Cezanne. Suddenly, the doorbell rings, and a young Black man bursts into their Upper East Side home, good-looking and well-dressed but bleeding from a stab wound. He knows their kids, he tells them, from Harvard; he identifies himself as Paul Poitier, son of a very famous movie star. Flan, Ouisa, and Geoffrey are instantly enchanted; Paul cooks them a gourmet meal and regales them with stories about his father and a thesis he has written about J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye. The evening goes swimmingly. Geoffrey gives Flan the two million he needs.
But: Paul isn't Sidney Poitier's son, and although Geoffrey never need find out, Flan and Ouisa soon become more involved with this puzzling, captivating young man than they ever intended. Especially Ouisa, the smart, questing, empty woman who is the heroine of Six Degrees of Separation, John Guare's essential play. Ouisa characterizes herself as a "collage of unaccounted-for brushstrokes," but she finds purpose in connection with this odd stranger who comes from a world she can't know:
[I was privileged to see the original production of this on Broadway, 32(!) years ago. Stockard Channing's performance was the finest I've ever seen; I love this play.]
But: Paul isn't Sidney Poitier's son, and although Geoffrey never need find out, Flan and Ouisa soon become more involved with this puzzling, captivating young man than they ever intended. Especially Ouisa, the smart, questing, empty woman who is the heroine of Six Degrees of Separation, John Guare's essential play. Ouisa characterizes herself as a "collage of unaccounted-for brushstrokes," but she finds purpose in connection with this odd stranger who comes from a world she can't know:
He wanted to be us. Everything we are in the world, this paltry thing--our life--he wanted it. He stabbed himself to get in here. He envied us. We're not enough to be envied.Six Degrees is a rich, deep, immense play, one that can't be boiled down to a few platitudes or sound bites. It's a piece to relish, and to cherish: you will quickly become immersed in Flan and Ouisa's story, and in the story of their remarkable visitor Paul. What they say and do and think will resonate deeply. And afterward, you will not look at your comfortable existence--or the next stranger you meet on the street; or the next panhandler on the subway--in quite the same way.
[I was privileged to see the original production of this on Broadway, 32(!) years ago. Stockard Channing's performance was the finest I've ever seen; I love this play.]
March 29, 2020
‘Did you see Donald Barthelme’s obituary? He said collage was the art form of the twentieth century.’
4.5 stars. It’s the above line that I believe summates this play in its most accurate sense; the play itself is like a tightly knotted string, unpicked through unceasing teeth, until all unravels and the ‘truth’ is discovered, before you realise that in your feverish attempt to untie the first knot, a second was being tied right under your nose and without your knowledge. Other reviews on here call this play unpretentious. This play is pretentious - at parts I enjoyed this, particularly with the character of Paul in his monologuing on Salinger and black cinema - but the children of the main characters became irritating to me relatively quickly. This is more than likely a sign of the talent of Guare as a playwright, which tempts me into looking into more of his work.
This demands to be read in one sitting, advice which I picked up from one of the top reviews on here. The action plays out like muscle memory in the brain, every movement is a reflex action, and no stage direction need be present for you know exactly what is happening on stage. The dialogue is fluid and dips from dream sequence to reality, introducing new characters as though they ought to be familiar to the audience, and it works. I’d be interesting to see how the movie adaptation of this plays out, because I wholeheartedly believe it was crafted seamlessly for the stage. A fantastic play, bordering simultaneously on the morbid and the delightfully comic, all while handling topical issues of the twentieth century, through its characters and its situations.
4.5 stars. It’s the above line that I believe summates this play in its most accurate sense; the play itself is like a tightly knotted string, unpicked through unceasing teeth, until all unravels and the ‘truth’ is discovered, before you realise that in your feverish attempt to untie the first knot, a second was being tied right under your nose and without your knowledge. Other reviews on here call this play unpretentious. This play is pretentious - at parts I enjoyed this, particularly with the character of Paul in his monologuing on Salinger and black cinema - but the children of the main characters became irritating to me relatively quickly. This is more than likely a sign of the talent of Guare as a playwright, which tempts me into looking into more of his work.
This demands to be read in one sitting, advice which I picked up from one of the top reviews on here. The action plays out like muscle memory in the brain, every movement is a reflex action, and no stage direction need be present for you know exactly what is happening on stage. The dialogue is fluid and dips from dream sequence to reality, introducing new characters as though they ought to be familiar to the audience, and it works. I’d be interesting to see how the movie adaptation of this plays out, because I wholeheartedly believe it was crafted seamlessly for the stage. A fantastic play, bordering simultaneously on the morbid and the delightfully comic, all while handling topical issues of the twentieth century, through its characters and its situations.
March 14, 2020
2.5 stars. A play in which everyone is a con artist: the art dealer parents who con the rich guy for his money; the rich guy who manipulates the art dealers for their access to art (and later to Sidney Poitier); the grifter who cons the rich folks -- not for money so much as for a sense of belonging; and the kids who con their parents for the privilege to lead the lives of the young and wealthy under the guise of independence. In short, all social status is a gilded costume. The rich guy and the art dealers (who desire wealth and status) use the perceived connection to Poitier just as much as the con artist. But is this theme anything new? It has been explored extensively in both literature and drama. Guare adds the racial undertone, which almost becomes muted by the frantic pace of the staged action. I found the dynamics of family bonding (or lack thereof) to be more interesting than the supposed “six degrees” theme. The final lines of the play, making explicit reference to the massive symbol rotating above the stage, also felt forced and unnecessary. A classic example of an average drama that was highly overrated at the time because it checked all the right boxes.
February 6, 2017
I read Six Degrees of Separation in preparation for an upcoming Broadway revival starring Allison Janney as Ouisa, the role made famous by Stockard Channing, the character that leads us through this definitive experience she's just had and would love to tell us-the reader/audience-about it. In a New York City filled with people failing to listen or connect with each other, it's an unlikely pairing between Ouisa and Paul, the black, poor, gay con man who bamboozles his way into her family (along with many other affluent New Yorkers) that causes Ouisa to be reborn. She find the child she might've have had, someone who challenges her and comforts her in a way her own children or husband can't. John Guare says we are only separate from other people on this planet by six degrees, or six people. It's a great way to say that we are all connected to each other. The connection we find between Ouisa and Paul is very moving and provocative and I can't wait to see this text brought to life soon!
March 22, 2021
This play has the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and for something so dated -- I laughed so loud at the first mention of the then-preposterous notion of a film version of "Cats"! -- it is weirdly and disturbingly relevant. (The other line that made me gasp was when Ouisa assured Paul the police wouldn't kill him, and he replied, "Mrs. Louisa Kittredge, I am black.") But the notion of race and social climbing, and the metaphor that the only way someone of color can break into the upper echelon is to literally lie and steal his way in, really got to me. And makes you wonder just how much affirmative action is really helping, if you think of Ouisa as two sides of a similar archetype, and all the white children (many of whom are interchangeable) who are competing for attention as another. I'd really like to see what that double-sided Kandinsky looked like.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 19, 2023
I was surprised to learn that this play was based on true events that occurred in the 1980s. Apparently, there was a man who pretended to be Sidney Poitier's son in order to gain access to the homes of wealthy individuals in NYC.
What I didn't like about the play was that the characters constantly broke the fourth wall and spoke directly to the audience. I felt like that took me out of the play each time they did that because I had to continuously differentiate who was the intended recipient of the characters' dialogue. Maybe it translates better during a live performance.
I personally don't know much about art, so I had to research all about the Russian artist Kandinsky in order to understand what the characters were talking about.
Although not one of my favorites, I would recommend it to others.
What I didn't like about the play was that the characters constantly broke the fourth wall and spoke directly to the audience. I felt like that took me out of the play each time they did that because I had to continuously differentiate who was the intended recipient of the characters' dialogue. Maybe it translates better during a live performance.
I personally don't know much about art, so I had to research all about the Russian artist Kandinsky in order to understand what the characters were talking about.
Although not one of my favorites, I would recommend it to others.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 161 reviews