The Mystery of Irma Vep response

The Mystery of Irma Vep response
Matt Weinstock


I didn’t think this play was enjoyable to read, although I was constantly picturing how enjoyable it would be to see performed. Irma Vep is almost like a sketch from a variety show, where the humor doesn’t come so much from the material as the theatricality of performance: for example, from the frantic quick changes of the actors (and the times when one takes longer than expected and the other has to stall frantically, or they accidentally leave on the mittens of another character) and the line delivery, complete with thick Cockney or uppercrust British accents. I think seeing it performed would clear up some things I was confused about while reading—like the tone. I was continually wondering how campy the play was supposed to be. Is the plot-heavy story of Irma Vep meant to be authentically thrilling and suspenseful, or is it all overplayed for laughs? I’m still not sure. The fact that (in the introduction) Steven Samuels mentions Ludlam’s affection for “character and plot,” as well as his love for the Classics and other stray bits of pop culture, suggest that perhaps Ludlam is sincerely trying to “reanimate tradition-bound classics” like the Alfred Hitchock movie Rebecca (the plot of which is lifted, whole-hog, for Irma Vep—even the names of the estates, Mandacrest and Manderley, are practically identical). (Ludlam also references The Raven, Hamlet, and probably a bunch of other works I didn’t pick up on.) On the side of “it’s meant to be camp,” though, Ludlam does allow for the possibility that his audience might “hiss” at a couple of his puns, and he specifically requests that Alcazar and Lord Edgar pronounce sarcophagus “sarcoFAGus.” I guess the ultimate goal is to be both campy and suspenseful—like that play with Ludlam played a drag queen and had the audience, according to Samuels, both in laughter and in tears.

Questions
Did you guys think the play was meant to be totally campy or totally sincere? If it’s meant to be a mix of both, was Ludlam able to pull this off? Or did it feel like an uneasy balance?
What did you think of the cuts made for the 1998 production? (They were mostly for the scene between Edgar and Alcazar, I think. The cuts tend to reduce this scene down to its bare bones, like, just what the audience needs to understand how the plot is progressing—and several good jokes are cut, as when Alcazar says to “Leave some wine for the return trip.”) Do you think the cuts were an improvement?
Is this a “gay” play? Could it be performed by two straight actors, or a man and a woman? (Since they’ll probably say no: why not?) (After writing this question, I learned that Ludlam has a clause in the play’s licensing that requires that the play always be performed by two same-sex actors.)