COMMENTARY: After the honeymoon – A masculine perspective

Many times we hear people say that marriage changes people.  Is it a matter of change? or is it a matter of reverting to the characteristics we have managed to hide during the beautiful time of courtship to the honeymoon?   How does it change from the Honeymoon to the Sourmoon? How close should your friends be in your marriage? Who is really the head of the Home, the man or the woman? I intend to ponder on marriage as was raised in the weekend’s performance of the New Dimension Theater’s production “After the Honeymoon.”

I know many reading this have seen the production “After the Honeymoon” since on both nights I went I endured the atmosphere of a packed Arawak experience.  However I will explore the play which begins with a man name Thomas dressing in his beautifully decorated house.  The white valance in the kitchen, the Jesus picture hanging on the wall of the bedroom, the white three piece sofa, well arranged dressing table and more; gave us a picture of an organized Home, rather than a House.

It is commonly thought that the wedding day and the honeymoon are the most enjoyable times. One would see the couple making a valiant effort to look the part of the Husband and Wife. Let us begin with the character Thomas (played by Lloyd Benjamin) .  He looked the part of the husband from the onset of the play, being the only masculine figure on the stage when the play opened.  The contents of his speech contains definitive affirmations that he was the “I am” “The Boss” “Man of the House”.  Then there was the genealogical boast that “He is the carbon copy of his Father”; his biological father that could do no wrong.  Such a behavior from Thomas seemed to have been released after the honeymoon was over.  This is a common occurrence that can be found in marriages today; most persons enter into a union with the one they perceive to be their love of their life, then the “I do” becomes the welcome mat to no longer hidden but released intolerable behaviors.  How honest are we in our relationships?

Thomas’s wife Abigail (played by Doniel Blackmoore) is presented with a husband who she believes has “Changed” after the honeymoon; The move from honeymoon to the sourmoon.  However for one to understand the real role of this character, Abigail, we are forced to investigate the conditions under which she was presented before the honeymoon or the courtship.

In the pre-honeymoon, did Abigail not see the signs of Thomas’ behaviors? Many who would have left the Arawak would believe that Thomas was to blame solely for the conditions of ‘After the Honeymoon’. It is not remissive to think so. This is because in relationships many of us see the signs that there are incompatibility issues and we choose to ignore it.  The signs of chauvinism, abuse and lack of housetraining cannot be masked successfully in the period of courtship; it does not matter how long of the period.  “THERE ARE ALWAYS SIGNS.”

Pre-honeymoon Abigail was probably caught up in a pseudo romance that usual comes about when we highlight the wedding day as the mainstay of the marriage. So in her glow of a pseudo romance she had missed the signs which may have slapped her harder than the physical one she received the night.  This is where the “quality versus quantity of actions” comes into play.   Quality versus quantity actions is the conflict between the type of action and the amount of times can an action be repeated.  In the play Thomas had to only hit Abigail once for her to walk out on him.  The quantity was one and the quality was that of abuse.  Prior to the honeymoon, quantity overrides the quality. This means that the signs of abuse, “Malagosh” behaviors and egotistic chauvinism come out at erratic moments, but are ignored because the frequency is what counts.  If at time we would correct these signs as soon as they are identified…the After the Honeymoon would be better…That being said “ I  blame Abigail for Thomas’ behavior.

This brings in the “FRIENDS” Pudding (played by Melisha Joseph) and El (played by Jerry Coipel).  How essential or rather what can friends contribute to your relationship?  Friends contribute base on their experiences. This means for instance, if your friend is part of an abusive relationship, within that sphere of abuse she/he would seek to interpret, guide and advice your relationship. A next example of this is if your friend is in a marriage that lacks communication and love, they would seek to advice and operate with you in that sphere.  Let us begin with the character El.  One would interpret El as the protagonist with the wise words of wisdom and the conscience of Thomas.

However various lines within the play would give you the hint that this character was having marital problems.  Allow me to enumerate the evidence, one his advice to Thomas was clear that he had been down this road before, he knew the outcome.  Two, there is a lack of communication between El and his wife Rita (A character only mentioned in conversation).  Rita is responsible for withdrawing El’s account without his consent. El in the same light has the audacity to not confront his wife, but rather approaches pudding to borrow money from her.

Three, El admits to be the one who cooks, cleans and stay home as the house husband to Rita.  Finally Four, The fact that El admits to having affairs more than six times with the other friend Pudding.  Have you all realized that El had been present at almost all instances of argument between the couple? Do you all realize that at all times instead of being the neutral mediator, he frequently sided with Abigail instead of Thomas?  This is my summary of El (BEWARE OF THOSE FRIENDS), at first he strives on the arguments Between Thomas and Abigail in order to create a need for his presence.  El needs company!! He fuels the tension by agreeing with the wife against the husband.  It is beneficial for him that the wife and husband continue to argue, however it is not beneficial to him for them to SPLIT UP.  So after he attempts to diffuse the situation he has fuel with wise words which I believes speaks of his experience. BEWARE OF THOSE FRIENDS

Pudding, this character is Abigail’s friend and the one who Thomas blames for the problems in his marriage.  This is the most interesting character in the play and the female friend every man would wish there wife NOT to have.  Pudding’s experience is that of a bad girl gone almost good, from a multitude of men to two, her Financial Minister and her Minister of Home Affairs.  She takes the two extremes of men as her lovers; The Financially stable man vs the Malibu Ken with looks and No money.  Now because her experience is of such she explains and seeks to entice Abigail subliminally to become an unfaithful wife and displays an overt expression of lack of respect to Marriage.  As I said, MEN! From the time you recognize during the period of courtship your girlfriend have that type of friend get rid of her BEFORE THE HONEYMOON.

Let us begin with her challenge in her first entrance.  She walks into a recently married couple’s house without knocking and goes into their bedroom.  Upon meeting with Thomas who was alone home, she states that if she had walked in on them together she would have “joined”.  Joke?  No! that is a cause of eyebrows being raised. Pudding is hinting her preference that a relationship need to be that of one with two spouses (I call that the Threesome Mentality).  Pudding is disrespectful to the intuition of marriage between one man and one woman.  Sociology would have called pudding a proponent of polyandry and or group marriage. It must be added that this character uses well masked sexual undertones to promote her point to the Naïve Abigail the Tabula Rasa.

Like El there seem to be a benefit for Pudding to allow the arguments in the house to continue, but a break up would not benefit.  The character Pudding enters at moments of calm, during that moment she entices Abigail into male bashing themed conversations in which Thomas is painted the worst.  She blatantly disrespects the rules of the house since she knows that her presence is not allowed, so much so she hides when she realizes that Thomas is around.  Her motive therefore is to execute her powers as the mistress of the proprietor of the house (her minister of finance) in which Abigail and Thomas lives.  Like the puppet master she controls her minister of finance money and seeks to control his material possession (the house) and the elements inside (Thomas and Abigail).  It would not benefit her if the couple splits, then she would not have no reason or access to the material possession and the elements inside.

All in all this play is a masterpiece of a play to have relationship discourse on.  The intriguing plot is meaty and full of subliminal messages that gives insight into the heart of relationships.  I saw it all three nights and can tell you it is worth seeing…. A word to the men though when going GO AS MEN, do not allow yourself to be caught up with the overwhelming hatred many would have for Thomas, look at the subliminal and Learn.