Exploring the greatest new and classic plays


Photo © Marc Brenner

Clybourne Park – Footnotes

Apr 18, 2022 | Footnotes | 0 comments

The Footnotes to our episode on Clybourne Park include listening for the echoes of the first act in the second half of the play, the small things that reveal the characters’ unconscious bias, and how we define the tribes we belong to.

The structure of the play cleverly draws lines between the characters in the first and second acts to underline the connections that history creates in the lives of individuals and communities. The echoes between the acts are clearly sounded by the doubling up of the actors, but there are also details that connect the characters:

  • Betsy and Lindsey are both pregnant – the beginning of new lives and another generation in the community their parents choose.
  • Kathy is the child Betsy was pregnant with in Act 1, and we discover from her that her parents moved out of the neighbourhood shortly after Russ and Bev’s house was sold to the “coloured” family, as in fact Karl predicted that change would follow one house at a time.
  • Francine and Albert, and Lena and Kevin, both have three children.
  • It was Lena’s great aunt who moved into Russ and Bev’s house in 1959, after whom Lena is named. It was also ‘Lena’ Turner who bought the original house in Lorraine Hansberry’s play A Raisin in the Sun.
  • I think that we can assume that Tom Driscoll, the real estate agent in the second act, is related to Ted Driscoll, the agent who sold Russ and Bev’s house in Act 1. Some continuity in the community through the enduring family business perhaps.

All of these echoes suggest the legacies that we leave to subsequent generations, and also highlight the comparative changes that have occurred in the fifty years between the acts.

Renaissance echoes, 2019
by Olafur Eliasson
Photo: Jens Ziehe


Institute of Race Relations

Unconscious bias
The explicit racism on display in the first act of the play is clearly shocking. However, the unconscious bias the characters reveal is just as telling of the deeply ingrained prejudice that is born of their social conditioning. Bev’s claim that she and Francine are “friends”, for example, is of course tone deaf. Much as she would like to think it is the case, she is hidebound by the historical paradigm of their relationship. Her attempt to give away the chafing dish is founded on her assumption of their need and subservience. The fact that she does not know that Francine and Albert have three children, not two, puts paid to the closeness of their relationship.

When Jim answers the door to Albert and learns that he has arrived to collect Francine, he hesitates because he’s not sure if he should invite him into the house. Albert himself waits until Bev expressly asks him if he would like to wait inside. It is not a given that he should.

And then after Albert comes in, Bev and the Reverend continue their personal conversation about Russ’s mental health when Albert is still within earshot. They behave almost as if he isn’t there, or at least doesn’t count. The most egregious example of this is that they all continue the conversation that Karl initiates about the sale of the house to the “coloured” family in the presence of Francine and Albert, seemingly oblivious to them as witnesses of their explicit prejudice. You can say what you like in front of the servants.

In the second act Lindsey and Steve are so entangled by their unconscious bias that they are unable to speak normally or freely to Lena and Kevin. Lindsey is determinedly polite to Lena by way of affirming her liberal credentials, while Steve is so paralysed by the dangers of talking about race that when he chooses to address the elephant in the room he is almost physically tongue-tied. Their excessive sensitivity to race betrays their fundamental discomfort.

Steve attributes the argument with Lena about the house to be about race because he is predisposed to feel any conflict with a black person must have its source in historical racial resentment. This paradigm of race relations is so persistent for him that he cannot escape responding in these terms. It is very difficult to escape the bias that history conditions.

There’s a glimpse in the play of another take on how we label people as members of a social tribe, based not on race or economic wealth, but on political views or allegiance. Again Norris challenges the simple stereotyping.

Steve is outraged by what he calls the “white suburban assholes” who are displaying ‘Support our Troops’ magnets on their cars, because Steve assumes that every sensible, liberal-minded person should now be against the “bullshit war” in Iraq.  Steve is somehow claiming distance from this tribe of “white suburban assholes”, while confident that present company will share his views.

He particularly seems to be believe that Kevin would be against the war, either because he assumes blacks are likely to be Democrats, or perhaps because Kevin would object to the historical fact that blacks have been disproportionately active in the US army. In fact Kevin has three members of his family serving overseas, and has three yellow-ribbon magnets on his car. He and Steve are not of the same tribe in this case after all.



The Texts
If you are interested in buying the play text or other related books, we’d be delighted if you choose to purchase them by following the links below. We will earn a small commission on every book you purchase, which helps to keep the podcast going. You will also be supporting an independent bookseller. Thank you.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You might also be interested in …
080 – Long Day’s Journey into Night, by Eugene O’Neill

080 – Long Day’s Journey into Night, by Eugene O’Neill

Eugene O’Neill wrote his autobiographical magnum opus, Long Day’s Journey into Night, in 1941, but because of the personal revelations it contained he gave explicit instructions that it was not to be published until 25 years after his death and that it should never be staged. In the event his widow allowed both to occur in 1956, only three years after his death, when the play won O’Neill his fourth Pulitzer prize.

As we record this episode, a powerful new production of the play is playing in London, with Brian Cox and Patricia Clarkson heading the cast. I am delighted and privileged to talk with the production’s director, Jeremy Herrin, about O’Neill’s monumental play.

Photo by Johan Persson.

079 – The Hills of California, by Jez Butterworth

079 – The Hills of California, by Jez Butterworth

A new Jez Butterworth play is a theatrical event. The Hills of California is currently running at the Harold Pinter theare in London’s West End, directed by Sam Mendes. Do not be misled by the title, however, we are not in sunny California, but in the back streets of Blackpool, where four daughters come together to say goodbye to their dying mother. The play is a portrait of lost dreams, of deeply ingrained patterns of love and hurt within a family, and of suppressed and mutable memories.

I’m joined to explore this major new work by Sean McEvoy, author of Class, Culture and Tragedy in the Plays of Jez Butterworth.

078 – The Lover and The Collection, by Harold Pinter

078 – The Lover and The Collection, by Harold Pinter

We have a double-bill in this episode of two short plays written by Harold Pinter in the early 1960s: The Lover and The Collection, both of which explore sexual compulsion and the manipulation of truth within marriage or partnerships. As we record this episode a new production of both plays is playing at the Theatre Royal in Bath, directed by Lindsay Posner.

I’m delighted to welcome Lindsay back to the podcast to talk about these two Pinter gems.

Claudie Blakley and David Morrissey in The Lover
Photo by Nobby Clark