Between Riverside and Crazy -- by Stephen Adly Guirgis (2015)

Description

The Pulitzer website describes the show as "a nuanced, beautifully written play about a retired police officer faced with eviction that uses dark comedy to confront questions of life and death." It is essential to recognize the play is a dark comedy, otherwise, you are going to be left awkwardly trying to discern what commentary this show offers. Check out a trailer for the show here.   

Characters
Walter "Pops" Washington (retired police officer, widow of Delores)
Junior (Pops' son)
Lulu (Junior's girlfriend)
Owaldo (Junior's friend)
Detective O'Connor (former coworker of Pops)
Lieutenant Caro (recent fiance of O'Connor)
Church Lady (worker at the church)

Pops is the clear protagonist of the show. He mourns the loss of his wife, Delores. His hurt is noticed through his blatant denial: he sits in his wife's wheelchair; he still has the Christmas tree up from the year she died (it is needless, but lit-- a striking symbol); he eats comfort food and more comfort food . . . and more comfort food. Junior lives with Pops, but struggles to accept his role as a provider for both Pops and Lulu who eventually announces her pregnancy. Oswaldo yearns to find compassion, but his habits stunt his growth. 

The central plot revolves around Pops' 8-year civil suit. SPOILER ALERT: It is revealed that Pops was shot 6 times by a white policeman. Pops was drunk and was stumbling around in a shady part of town. The shooting was unjustified, according to Pops; therefore, Pops fights to receive justice. The police department does not honor Pops' request, but instead urges him to essentially call everything off by signing a settlement. Pops refuses. He battles with O'Connor and Caro about the issue. I will not give away the ending, but I must say that the deliberation scene was gripping, which led to a moving ending. In fact, the final line of the play is the best ending yet, of the plays I've read for this project. 

The role of the Church Lady . . . it is just awkward all around . . . not even going there . . . I was really confused at her inclusion, but her role seemed more sensible given the final scene. 

An important subplot is Lulu and Junior's relationship. Talk about a dynamic relationship!

And the dog. Can't forget about the dog. A wonderful motif to address the theme of responsibility. 

Candid Reactions

• Yikes. Years-old dog feces on the floor? Way to set a scene
• Interesting for the stage directions to be interrupted by an em dash. I felt like that little detail kinda jolted my awareness as a reader. I wonder what the actors think of that stage direction moment. 
• Generational differences seem to be a main topic in this play.
• Pops assures Oswaldo, "Guests don't pay no rent" -- this helps develop his character as compassionate. 
• The dog is an effective symbol from the first reference. 
• The concept of provision is highlighted in this play. Plot is easy to view as "someone wants something, but someone/something is in the way." To ask, "What is this character trying to provide? Who is the recipient of this provision?" is to identify the plot.
• What a guilt trip, Pops!
• Lulu, Junior, and Oswaldo's consistent delay of chores and responsibilities is off-putting. I think these moments in the play are subtle hints at the topic of provision. 
• If Lulu smoking pot while pregnant telling Pops that he needs to take better care of his health is not a clear enough sign of the show being a dark comedy, then I don't know what is. 
• Poor Mayor Giuliani. He gets ROASTED.
• The play reminds me of A Raisin in the Sun at some points. 
• WOW. So THAT'S what happened with Pops . . . 
• Funniest line of the show comes from Lt. Caro arguing with Pops in Act One Scene Three: "And personally, I would love to be able to agree with you completely. Because if not for the fact you happen to be totally wrong, you'd probably be right" (31). 
• Ummm. You asked the WRONG question, O'Connor. 
• Poor Pops--he is abandoned and exploited. 
• Oswaldo, NOOOOOOOO.
• This playwright realllllllly loves to use a colon. 
• Man, Pops' demand of O'Connor's ring is striking. The statement he makes in doing so is apparent to the reader/audience member, but is confounding to O'Connor. I'm amazed at how Guirgis executed that!
• The final scene is completely satisfying.    

Top Two Aspects/Reasons for Winning

1. Black/Blue Lives Matter

Unfortunately, race-based shooting is a contemporary issue with historical roots in America. The Black Lives Matter movement has found itself at the forefront of American culture/society. Several tragic stories like Pops' story have gained national attention especially in the past 5 years. The argument the police officers have with Pops regarding the blame of his shooting is relevant. Honestly, Act One Scene 3 alone could have won the Pulitzer. When the police officers try to argue that race had nothing to do with the shooting, Pops counters with passion. The argument does justice to the complex issue of injustice.      

2. Raw Dialogue

The amount of foul language in this play exceeds all literature I have encountered. However, the language is appropriate for these characters to be using. I do not contend that the use of foul language qualifies the work for a Pulitzer, but I do uphold that the dialogue does reflect speech that Americans do use (foul language included). What amazes me about the dialogue is the presence of fillers such as "like," "um," etc. The people talk like people. It is difficult for playwrights to balance poetic and realistic language. Guirgis excels in his creation of realistic dialogue; the poetry of his writing is more apparent in the structure and motifs employed.

Classroom Implications

Due to the language and church lady, I would absolutely not use this text in high school.

The text could be used for sociology and criminal justice courses.

In a writing course, I would use this text as an exemplar for dialogue and motifs.

Personal Takeaway

It is exciting to think that people are writing plays expertly about current issues right now!

Ranking

	Dialogue	Characters	Plot/Conflict	Symbol/Literary Devices	Overall Enjoyment	TOTAL SCORE 8.5
0	Unfollowable; unrealistic; diction does not match character	Undeveloped; does not reflect humanity	Not engaging; predictable; reader can step away from text because it isn’t gripping	Devices are apparent for cleverness and do not enhance the story	Reader has no interest in re-reading play
1	Not consistently realistic	Well-developed; most depictions reflect humanity	Semi-engaging; some unnecessary plot-points (1.5)	Devices somewhat enhance story	Reader would re-read with pleasure and reminded of work (1.5)
2	Realistic; connotative; diction matches characters (2)	Fully-developed; depictions reflect humanity (1.75)	Engaging; unique; reader finds it impossible to put down text because the conflict is so gripping!	Devices seamlessly enhance the story and provide rich interpretation (1.75)	Reader would re-read the play on own volition, enthusiastically