Yes. But Flan and Ouisa Kittridge don't get down to Sixth Ave and 4th St. with any regularity, I promise you. If you know Manhattan, especially circa 1990 (when the play opened), then you know precisely what I mean.
It is clear that Flan calls the police, and one can only surmise that he does so out of fear that Paul won't end up waiting for them to arrive. He's also less inclined to charity than Ouisa, as is repeatedly demonstrated, and possibly afraid of being alone with Paul. The part I find more confusing is that he clearly called the detective they've been working with, and that detective isn't able to help them again. I mean ... if he was transferred (as the desk sergeant indicates), he'd still be in the system somewhere, and a woman of Ouisa's doggedness should be able to find him and at least find out to whom he referred the arrest, opening up some kind of channel for research.
I regard this as a minor matter, however. I won't even describe it as a flaw, since it's possible she found the detective, he wasn't as helpful as I assume, and they just don't bother to mention that, since it's ultimately irrelevant.
In a way, it's interesting to me that this discussion even pops up. It's a discussion of plot, rather than purpose, and moreover, it discusses the very ending of the story, which we are meant to understand as not the last thing that happens, but rather the last thing we're told about. It's not the end of the story; it's just where they stopped telling it. Let's imagine, for a moment, that all our advice on how to find Paul is followed by Ouisa, just the day after the film wraps. Does that change the experience she's so fiercely determined to honor? No. Was it Ibsen who described drama as not a self-contained slice of life, but rather a glimpse through a keyhole, wherein we see a slice-shaped fraction, but the life goes on in each direction, unknown to us? Either Ibsen or Chekhov; I forget. What Guare wants us to focus on, I think, is not how Ouisa could have located Paul, but instead, what she learned from knowing him.
I was lucky to see the play before I saw the film. I'm not sure if that's why I love the film so much, but I know it didn't hurt. Now, if only I'd been privileged to see Stockard Channing in the original production...
reply
share
padzok
16 years ago
...and moreover, it discusses the very ending of the story, which we are meant to understand as not the last thing that happens, but rather the last thing we're told about. It's not the end of the story; it's just where they stopped telling it.
I agree.
For one thing, I think that Paul was responsible for the fact that Ouisa couldnt find him. I mean how hard would it have been to find Paul for someone who has as many contacts as her? All else being equal, some junior oik at the DA's office or NYPD would have been instructed to go through every arrest record for that area; and in return his/her boss would have got a posh dinner invitation. However, Paul is just as good at the schmooze as she is. He's spun his captors a good enough tale, and they've fallen for it, and kept his whereabouts hidden from Ouisa.
For another thing, as Ouisa realises when she looks in the flower shop, Paul isnt finished with her. Later on - in a few weeks, or a few months - he'll contact her again with a new angle. Probably he'll be pulling on her heart strings 'coz she didnt get to the meeting place on time.
She seemed to be lookin' forward to hearing from him again.
reply
share