Dialectics of Dining Out
Here We Are, returning to Square One
A useful lens in any close reading is to consider various aspects of the plot vis-a-vis the dialectical process as cribbed from everyone's loose understanding of Hegel, why not? The dialectical process is, broadly speaking, a way of analyzing how things in a situation change over time. It does this by breaking the process of change into phases of thesis (the current "reading" of the situation), antithesis (facts that disprove that "reading"), finally, via the process of sublation the original reading and the new facts are integrated into a new "reading": the synthesis. The synthesis is now the new thesis, and the process begins anew.
Consider the situation that kicks off 'Here We Are'.
Thesis: Rafael, Fritz, Paul and Claudia arrive at the Brinks' apartment. The group intends to have brunch with Marianne and Leo.
Antithesis: Neither Marianne nor Leo know about this.
Synthesis: Marianne and Leo are happy to have brunch with their friends and intend to have their maid, Eva (played by the Woman) prepare a meal for them.
This becomes the new thesis - the starting state for the next round of the process, starting from the synthesis of the last "round"
Thesis: Marianne and Leo are happy to have brunch with their friends and intend to have their maid, Eva (played by the Woman) prepare a meal for them.
Antithesis: Eva has nothing prepared and refuses to cook.
Synthesis: There is no way forward at the Brinks' home - they will leave to find a place to eat.
From this perspective, we see the entire first act as a series of duplications of this process - they arrive at Cafe Everything, they're out of food, back to square one!, engine roar, road song. They arrive at Bistro a La Mode, there's a dead Frenchman in the party room, back to square one!, engine roar, road song, etc. We expect that the arrival of real food at the end of Act One would bring with it a resolution to this sequence, but our "core six" stubbornly refuse to be sated. Although the price for their meal was indeed the end of the world, it did not bring with it the end of their problems. In this sense this cycle that lasts through to the point where the music "drains out" of Act Two can be seen as the "core six"'s thesis: that they will be sated by the restaurants that make up their surreal world.
Meanwhile we also have Inferno (and Fritz's thesis): The world is awful and will be cured by destroying capitalism. At the end of act one, we're primed to evaluate the validity of this claim as Inferno has successfully gotten the fifty million dollars from "the rich assholes" and has proceeded with the plan to destroy capitalism. What's more, we just spent an hour or so with these people and have watched them wave away suicides, drug cartels and mass deforestation of virgin forests - which is to say, we're ready for a little comeuppance.
This makes the aforementioned critiques of modern theater, specifically at this venue, with this audience intensely pointed. It's as if the show is telling the audience (the one it made watch themselves ignore the "help" in the preshow) that they will remain unfulfilled if they only engage with art superficially. In "Shine" Marianne (in the one solo any of the "core six" sings) reveals the group's true thesis, the one that each member is secretly harboring from each other that ultimately leads to their entrapment: "give me what shines".
However, as Act Two continues, we quickly see it presents the antithesis not just that our "core six" haven't been sated by dining, but that Inferno (and by extension, Ives) has also failed to be fulfilled. Inferno is a kind of self-insert for Ives, orchestrating the torture of the "rich assholes". Which makes you, the audience, the "rich assholes" that he's going to "destroy capitalism" for. He has you trapped in the theater just as Inferno has the rich assholes trapped on stage. 'Here We Are' then is the metaphorical destruction of capitalism - which helps explain what exactly Inferno needed fifty million dollars for. All of the fourth wall-breaking (the vacuuming inches from the audience face, the gunshots, the lights up moment, etc) was done purposefully to expand the magic circle beyond the proscenium and explicitly include the audience.
Even as Inferno revels in harassing them, acknowledging that it leaves him stuck with this group, he enjoys it so much that he brings Leo back to life at one point just to torment him further. But there's only so much harassing of "rich assholes" that's fun, and eventually Inferno, like the audience, finds himself unfulfilled, simply stuck with them. Like Leo tells Fritz, burning stuff down is easy, but building stuff back up is hard.
So while Act One frames the "core six's" thesis as being sated by the restaurants of their surreal world, Act Two undercuts this not just through their failure to be fulfilled, but Inferno's own inability to find meaning in their torture and his revolution's failure to manifest. The antithesis reveals the vapidity of all their pursuits, artistic and materialistic alike, when viewed through a superficial lens.
It's important to note that the scene the group escapes their entrapment happens directly after Marianne engages with the Bishop and tries to understand what it means to be (in Interlude 3: Snow). Once again:
BISHOP
"Well first of all, you might say we are here, on earth... most likely. though perhaps not, as are other people and objects like these very beautiful satin slippers [...] And that means.. something. that we're here. We mean something.. apparently. we're what you might call "matter that matters" - or not, depending on who you read. So we're here, on possibly Earth. For a time. With these very soft slippers. and other people. et cetera. and we live our lives, and then we die. and then we spend eternity with God. Or go to hell. If there happens to be one. Or else, we pass into complete nothingness a total void forever and ever that we actually are unaware of because we're not here any more. the end. "
MARIANNE
I really enjoyed that.
[...] So just to be clear, if all of that is being, what are we supposed to do about it?"
BISHOP
"I suppose, be here. Until we're not. "
MARIANNE
"To be continued."
BISHOP
"Exactly! To be.. continued. Until otherwise notified."
MARIANNE
"(laughing) amen. Thank you father"
BISHOP
"Mrs Brink? Happy birthday. Make a wish. "
In this moment, we witness a pivotal instance of sublation, a key component of the dialectical process. The Bishop's dialogue with Marianne offers a profound—if somewhat uncertain—meditation on existence and purpose. The Bishop presents multiple perspectives on being, reflecting a diversity of philosophical and existential thoughts that could easily contradict each other. However, Marianne's response illustrates an acceptance of this plurality, highlighting a crucial aspect of the dialectical approach: the synthesis does not simply resolve contradictions but embraces and transcends them.
This scene thus subtly embodies the philosophical underpinnings of dialectics. Marianne does not press the Bishop for a singular truth. Instead, she accepts the multiplicity of meanings as part of the human experience. Her acceptance of continuing "to be" without a definitive answer or a clear path reflects a sophisticated understanding of existence as inherently complex and multifaceted. This aligns with the concept of sublation, where the synthesis integrates and transcends individual contradictions, leading to a more comprehensive understanding or state of being.
The Bishop's assurance that the only necessary action is to continue being "until otherwise notified" further emphasizes this point. It suggests a form of existential wu wei—engaging with life effortlessly and authentically, without forcing clarity or resolution where complexity and ambiguity naturally exist. This moment serves not only as a thematic pivot in the narrative but also as a meta-commentary on the nature of engagement with art and life. It challenges both the characters and the audience to consider the value of presence over resolution, of participation over conquest.
As Marianne and the Bishop discuss the ephemeral nature of being, the audience is invited to reflect on their own engagement with the play and, by extension, with life itself. This dialogue underscores the play's critique of superficial engagement with art and life, challenging the audience to consider deeper, more existential questions.
The dialectical structure of Here We Are thus serves not only as a narrative device but also as a mirror to the audience's own experiences and choices. By framing the characters' endless cycle of unfulfillment as a reflection of the audience's potential superficiality, the play offers a stark warning: without substantive engagement, both in art and in life, we risk remaining stuck in an endless loop of dissatisfaction.
This profound message, delivered through the innovative use of dialectical analysis and meta-theatrical techniques, marks Here We Are not just as a critique of modern theater but as a commentary on the human condition. As the play concludes, it leaves us with a challenge: to engage more deeply, to seek meaning beyond the surface, and to recognize our role in the narratives we observe and participate in.