Winning and Losing on the Digital Stage
As the performance begins, two men dutifully chalk a large rectangle around a long folding table, a chair positioned at either end, and two hotel call bells placed haphazardly atop the table. The lights abruptly shift, reinforcing the chalk rectangle of the playing space. The reverberations of a bell echo across the mostly bare stage, and the game begins. The rules are unclear, our only hint is the title of the performance, Winners and Losers. This 2014 piece by Canadian theatre company Theatre Replacement (performed at On The Boards in Seattle) asks us to take a closer look at these categories, how we decide the differences and if we, ourselves are winners or losers. As I watched the recording of this piece via On The Boards TV it became clear that little was lost in the translation of this piece from a live experience to a digital re-broadcasting and the questions at the core of this piece are just as striking across the digital divide.
Winners and Losers lures in the audience with an illusory sense of simplicity and clarity. The two actors, Marcus Youssef and James Long, also wrote the piece, play versions of themselves. The central conceit appears to be straightforward, Marcus and James (Jamie) bring up various things or concepts and debate whether it is a “winner” or a “loser”. Some examples of the topics they discuss include Hipsters, Pamela Anderson, Microwave ovens, and e-cigarettes. James and Marcus continually disagree in their assessments not only of which item is a loser or winner, but how those categories can or should be defined. The relentless pacing and wittiness of the dialogue transforms these mundane conversations into incisive cultural commentary on the nature of success and failure.
Just beneath the seemingly simple game is a much deeper and ultimately more fraught discussion. Understanding how each of these men conceptualize winning and losing means understanding how they came to these personal definitions. As we see their definitions unfold, the arguments and eventually attacks become more pointed, more personal, and startlingly revealing. The focus of the conversation shifts to more intimate subjects: street smarts, current events, even a brief foray into who is the better masturbator, and then continues to shift into economic status, race, inherited wealth, and personal mythologies. As their disagreements escalate James and Marcus physicalize their adversarial friendship through a game of ping-pong, a wrestling match, a quiz show, and continued verbal sparring. The seemingly simple distinction between winner and loser is blown wide open as the relentless exploration of these categories exposes the cultural and subjective understanding of what each idea means.
One might expect that the moments of physical violence or confrontation are the most shocking in the piece, but Youssef and Long craft the script and their performances in such a way that these more overt acts of aggression relieve the tension of their exchanges. Leading up to their wrestling match Jamie and Marcus have taken turns lording their specific strengths over each other that the possibility of violence between the two men begins to seem inevitable. At one point, Jamie makes an excuse to leave the stage in order to use the bathroom, a decision Marcus refers to as “the pee move… a significant move in the game” (0:49:14-30). When Jamie returns the two men clear the stage without speaking and assume the position of Olympic wrestlers at the beginning of a match. Jamie quickly overpowers Marcus and begins to humiliate him by tickling and repeatedly slapping him. The audience is left with the belabored breathing of the two men as they writhe on stage. As Marcus taps out, and Jamie leaves the stage, Marcus launches into a personal fantasy of physically overpowering a home invader to protect his family. As he recounts this fantasy through gulps of air, it is impossible not to see the delusion in Marcus’ words and the title of the piece demands that we make an evaluation. Despite his education, affluence, and charm, the piece asks if it is possible to see Marcus as a winner in this moment.
Ultimately, the piece refuses to give any answers, imploring the audience to reflect more critically on these categories and the ways they silently guide our perception. This exploration of winning and losing perhaps gains more poignance in the more solitary confines of the digital screening. There is no larger audience to find safety within, and the questions and challenges feel deeply personal and uncomfortable in such close quarters.