Dinner with Friends -- by Donald Margulies (2000)

Description
To be honest, I really do not remember much from reading this play and my notes were of little help. Here we go.

The play is in two acts with only four characters. Karen and Gabe are one couple; Tom and Beth are another couple. The setting jumps all over (both time and place, but mostly time). The first act focuses on Beth and Tom's apparent divorce. Beth announces the news and sheds a bad light on Tom, who is accused of having an affair. The news receives mixed emotions from Karen and Gabe as they assess their relationships with Tom and Beth and recollect memories differently. After the news drops of the divorce, the play switches to 12 years in the past when the two couples first met at Martha's Vineyard. In the flashback, the audience sees Beth and Tom in new ways. As Karen and Gabe consider the fate of their friends, they start to question their own relationship.

Candid Reactions

• Margulies gives wildly specific direction at the end of the publication. He certainly knows how he wants the play performed. He insists that the characters are not represented as "foodie caricatures" (75). At first, I found this off-putting, but when I started reading, I could see how his comment would be helpful in maintaining tone. 
• Margulies is massively anti-stagehand. Could he not elaborate on his strong feelings?
• Here is a prime example of Margulies' frankness: "Don't decide that [the play] should be played as a 'yuppie' comedy" (75). Message received. Loud and clear. 
• I seriously cannot understand my notes. 
• Why is the placemat gift such a sad and cringeworthy moment?
• Juxtaposition is the key word in appreciating this play. 
• How is Tom NOT a villain?
• Miscommunication central (whatever that meant)
• Beth must have said, "I'm beginning to think he was never that person" (28). Margulies hits the nail on the head for expressing the thoughts of individuals who undergo traumatic relationship crises. 
• I wrote the word "loneliness." I suppose I was thinking of theme? Beats me. 
• What a weird director's note for Margulies to say, "Everyone has more hair" (40).
• Beth now seems rude. 
• Karen and Beth's scene is difficult to get through comfortably. 
• Beth can be so biting. 
• I wrote "lego simile" . . . I think there was a simile in which one of the characters said that there relationship was crafted over a long amount of time to create something unique and intricate, like kids do with legos, and then all of the hours of hard work can be destroyed easily and quickly, just like relationships. I think. 
• I am not sure who said this, but I thought it was worth mentioning: "People don't usually go around discussing their affairs, do they? Otherwise they wouldn't be affairs" (68).
• Karen and Gabe question why they are not talking about their own relationship. 
• Karen asks unsettling questions at the end. She questions, "Don't you ever miss me, Gabe? How do we not get lost?" (71)
• Oh, yeah. I forgot about the whole "scare game" thing . . . Gabe plays this obnoxious game with Karen where he waits for a quiet moment to startle her. At first, the game seems flirtatious, however, the game evolves into an Albee-esque moment of human, primitive behavior. 

Top Two Aspects/Reasons for Winning
1. Relationship Warning
The play seems to urge the audience to leave and have real, meaningful conversations with their significant other. Relationships can fall apart due to growing miscommunication. To fail to express truth in relationships is to worsen a relationship. Margulies asks the audience to be like Karen-- to not merely watch the characters and observe other people's behavior. No, Margulies wants the audience to reflect also on their own behavior. 

2. Narrative Structure
The structuring of the play reminds me of The Last Five Years and Gone Girl. The flashbacks and motif development are expertly handled. To span so much time and make the characters believable throughout is a challenge. Margulies meets the challenge with much talent.

Classroom Implications
I cannot see high school students enjoying this read. Perhaps college-age would get more of a kick out of it. I would certainly emphasize structure and character development.

Personal Takeaway
If notes are unspecific, then the notes are worthless.

Ranking

	Dialogue	Characters	Plot/Conflict	Symbol/Literary Devices	Overall Enjoyment	TOTAL SCORE
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 (1.25)	Reader would re-read with pleasure and reminded of work (1.25)
2	Realistic; connotative; diction matches characters (1.75)	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	Reader would re-read the play on own volition, enthusiastically