The Penitent (TCG Edition) Read online

  BOOKS BY DAVID MAMET AVAILABLE FROM TCG

  The Anarchist

  China Doll

  Keep Your Pantheon (and School)

  The Penitent

  Race

  The Penitent is copyright © 2018 by David Mamet

  The Penitent is published by Theatre Communications Group, Inc., 520 Eighth Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10018-4156

  All rights reserved. Except for brief passages quoted in newspaper, magazine, radio or television reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or recording, or by an information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

  Professionals and amateurs are hereby warned that this material, being fully protected under the Copyright Laws of the United States of America and all other countries of the Berne and Universal Copyright Conventions, is subject to a royalty. All rights, including but not limited to, professional, amateur, recording, motion picture, recitation, lecturing, public reading, radio and television broadcasting, and the rights of translation into foreign languages are expressly reserved. Particular emphasis is placed on the question of readings and all uses of this book by educational institutions, permission for which must be secured from the author’s representative: Ron Gwiazda, Abrams Artists Agency, 275 Seventh Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10001, (646) 461-9325.

  The publication of The Penitent by David Mamet, through TCG’s Book Program, is made possible in part by the New York State Council on the Arts with the support of Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature.

  TCG books are exclusively distributed to the book trade by Consortium Book Sales and Distribution.

  Library of Congress Control Numbers:

  2017051553 (print) / 2017051632 (ebook)

  ISBN 978-1-55936-886-5 (ebook)

  A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

  Book design and composition by Lisa Govan

  Cover design by Lisa Govan

  Cover photo by Brigitte Lacombe

  First Edition, April 2018

  Contents

  Production History

  Characters

  Scene 1

  Scene 2

  Scene 3

  Scene 4

  Scene 5

  Scene 6

  Scene 7

  Scene 8

  About the Author

  PRODUCTION HISTORY

  The Penitent had its world premiere at the Atlantic Theater Company (Neil Pepe, Artistic Director; Jeffory Lawson, Managing Director) in New York City on February 8, 2017. It was directed by Neil Pepe. The scenic design was by Tim Mackabee, the costume design was by Laura Bauer, the lighting design was by Donald Holder; the production stage manager was Mary Kathryn Flynt. The cast was:

  CHARLES

  Chris Bauer

  KATH

  Rebecca Pidgeon

  RICHARD

  Jordan Lage

  AN ATTORNEY

  Lawrence Gilliard, Jr.

  CHARACTERS

  CHARLES, middle-aged man

  KATH, Charles’s wife, middle-aged woman

  RICHARD, their friend

  AN ATTORNEY

  I was covered with shame and tears for things past, and yet had at the same time a secret surprising joy at the prospect of being a true penitent . . .

  —DANIEL DEFOE, MOLL FLANDERS

  SCENE 1

  Charles and Kath.

  At rise, Kath is sitting at a table reading a newspaper.

  Charles enters.

  KATH: . . . Richard called. He . . .

  CHARLES: Yes, hold on.

  KATH: What is it?

  CHARLES: Can I sit for a moment?

  KATH: Of course.

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: I may need to go away.

  KATH: To go away?

  CHARLES: Yes.

  KATH: Why?

  CHARLES: . . . To think this through.

  KATH: You need to go away.

  CHARLES: Yes.

  KATH: Have you discussed it with Richard?

  CHARLES: No.

  KATH: Then who helped you arrive at this decision?

  CHARLES: I came to it on my own.

  KATH: With whose help?

  CHARLES: It doesn’t do any good. To disparage him . . .

  KATH: It does me good.

  CHARLES: Yes, all right. Kath. I’d like you to understand.

  KATH: Then you’re going to have to explain it to me.

  CHARLES: I need. To . . .

  KATH: To “find some solace,” is that right?

  CHARLES: That’s right.

  KATH: To “take yourself out of the fray”?

  CHARLES: Or: to find some “wisdom.”

  KATH: Because of the boy.

  (Pause.)

  It started with the boy.

  CHARLES: Please . . .?

  KATH: Didn’t it? Your “studies . . .”

  CHARLES: Yes. That’s right.

  KATH: . . . that “occupy” you . . .

  CHARLES: I’ve tried to explain it to you.

  KATH: Then you must be holding something back. Or else I’m stupid, which may be the case. Or insufficiently “moral.”

  CHARLES: Neither of which are the case.

  KATH: Well, then I don’t understand. And Richard needs to speak to you.

  CHARLES: About?

  KATH: . . . the “Manifesto” . . .?

  CHARLES: . . . it’s just a letter.

  KATH: The boy called it that.

  CHARLES: He never did. I don’t believe he did.

  KATH: The press did.

  CHARLES: That’s right.

  KATH: He wrote so vilely about you.

  CHARLES: I was one of a number on his list.

  KATH: Why did they publish it?

  CHARLES: I don’t know. Because it’s scurrilous.

  KATH: If they were “out to get you.”

  CHARLES: And you think they’re not?

  KATH: Why would they be?

  CHARLES: It’s human nature.

  KATH: What is?

  CHARLES: To turn vicious when frightened.

  KATH: Is that “wisdom”?

  CHARLES: I think it is.

  KATH: Why does Richard need to talk to you?

  CHARLES: Well, it would be a “legal matter.”

  KATH: About some “statement”?

  CHARLES: What statement?

  KATH: I don’t know. What is the legal matter?

  CHARLES (Gestures): It’s in the paper.

  KATH (Referring to the paper): It’s about what you wrote?

  CHARLES: I never wrote it.

  KATH: You didn’t write what they said?

  CHARLES: Of course not.

  KATH: Why of course?

  CHARLES: Do you think that’s what I ever felt?

  KATH: But it’s in the paper.

  CHARLES: Well, they’ve taken the side of the boy, then, haven’t they?

  KATH: Why would they do that?

  CHARLES: I told you.

  KATH: Tell me again.

  CHARLES: Because that’s their job.

  KATH: After what he did?

  CHARLES: Yes.

  KATH: I don’t understand.

  CHARLES: They’re in the business of selling papers. To do so, they reduce a horrifying, complex act, to a myth. A myth contains a monster and a victim. Every story needs a victim.

  KATH: But the people he killed. They’re the victims.

  CHARLES: But they’re not news. That was last month’s news.

  KATH: And so, their new victim. Is the boy?

  CHARLES: That’s right.

 
KATH: But he’s a murderer.

  CHARLES: But that’s no longer news.

  KATH: And so, now you’re the news?

  CHARLES (Referring to the paper): You read it.

  KATH: I did. But I don’t understand.

  CHARLES (Takes the paper): “Well-known and marginalized. In professional circles. For referring to homosexuality as an ‘aberration.’”

  (Pause.)

  KATH: And that’s why the boy wrote that he hates you?

  CHARLES: He hates everyone. He’s sick.

  KATH: But he hates you for writing that? He read it?

  CHARLES: He could not have read it as I never wrote it.

  KATH: That’s not what the paper says.

  CHARLES: I never wrote it.

  KATH: I don’t understand.

  CHARLES: I never wrote it. Do you want the page number? New Psychiatric Ethics, page 343. I wrote: “Homosexuality Considered As an Adaptation.” That’s the title of my paper.

  KATH: You never wrote it was an aberration?

  CHARLES: New Psychiatric Ethics, page 343. “Homosexuality Considered As an Adaptation.” That’s what I . . . Do you want to read the essay?

  KATH: And, so what does it mean?

  CHARLES: It means they committed libel.

  KATH: That the paper did?

  CHARLES: That’s right.

  KATH: They lied about you?

  CHARLES: Yes.

  KATH: And that constitutes libel?

  CHARLES: They lied, they did it knowingly, and it caused me injury.

  KATH: Has it?

  CHARLES: It will, if it’s not rebutted. And it may do so even then.

  KATH: Why did they do it?

  CHARLES: I told you.

  KATH: No. No, you didn’t. Why did the paper write it? If it was a lie? Because they’re evil?

  (Pause.)

  Charles?

  CHARLES: Human nature is evil.

  KATH: Well. That’s a new view of the world. Isn’t it? For a doctor? Charles?

  CHARLES: No. It’s an ancient view. Which we embrace. When we are turned upon. Through no fault of our own . . . When a false accusation . . .

  KATH: But . . .

  CHARLES: And I’d so like you to understand it.

  KATH: I . . .

  CHARLES: . . . because you’re going to share it with me.

  KATH: It?

  CHARLES: The trauma.

  KATH: And so you want me to understand it?

  CHARLES: Because I need to protect you.

  KATH: Is that what the “rabbi” says?

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: Kath. I’m being attacked.

  (Pause.)

  Undeservedly. That’s true. And greatly troubling. I determined. I needed some wisdom. So I have been speaking with the rabbi.

  KATH: And what is the “wisdom”?

  CHARLES: The wisdom is in seeking wisdom.

  KATH: He can’t help you with “the law.”

  CHARLES: No.

  KATH: Only with “wisdom” . . .?

  CHARLES: When did you speak to Richard?

  KATH: Just now. A while ago.

  CHARLES: Was he at his office?

  (Charles picks up the phone.)

  KATH: . . . at the office? I don’t . . .

  CHARLES: Did he call you?

  KATH: He called here, yes.

  CHARLES: Al . . .

  KATH: Looking for you.

  CHARLES (Hanging up the phone): All right, he isn’t at the office?

  KATH: I don’t know where he is.

  CHARLES: He . . .

  KATH: He said he’d call back.

  CHARLES: What does he mean “a statement”?

  KATH: They want you to make a statement.

  CHARLES: Who?

  KATH: The press; I . . .

  CHARLES: Ab . . .?

  KATH: I don’t know, about the boy . . .?

  CHARLES: Yes, I understand. But, what, what sort of a “statement” can I make? Doesn’t he know that? You know that.

  KATH: I do?

  CHARLES: Well, for God’s sake, yes. How can I . . . What does he expect that I can “comment” on? For God’s . . . what the hell, am I supposed . . .

  KATH: Don’t . . .

  CHARLES: . . . to . . . to issue what? A disclaimer?

  KATH: Please don’t raise your voice at me.

  CHARLES: I beg your pardon.

  (He picks up the phone and dials again.)

  KATH: He said he’d call back.

  CHARLES: He’ll “call back,” because I couldn’t reach him?

  KATH: All I can tell you are his exact words. And this is all I know. That Richard? Needs to speak with you. Regarding “making some sort of . . .”

  CHARLES: “On”?

  KATH: . . . I don’t know. He can’t be reached, and he will call you back. That’s all he said. You’ve spoken to the press before.

  CHARLES: Never about one of my patients.

  KATH: He isn’t your patient anymore. Charles?

  CHARLES: The rules still appl . . . Why did he call when he knew I’d be out?

  KATH: How would he know that?

  CHARLES: What time did he call?

  KATH: I don’t know. An hour?

  CHARLES: Why would he call me here?

  KATH: Why won’t you make a statement?

  CHARLES: The rules, all right, the rules about prin . . .

  KATH: . . . an hour ago? I think that’s when he called.

  (Charles tries the phone again.)

  The “rules”?

  CHARLES: What?

  KATH: The rules? About privilege?

  CHARLES: About confidentiality, yes.

  KATH: Mean that you can’t “make a statement”?

  CHARLES: Yes.

  KATH: Why?

  CHARLES: Because the interchange is protected. So that the patient is protected.

  KATH: So . . .?

  CHARLES: So that he’s free to speak.

  KATH: So then you can’t reveal “your thoughts”?

  CHARLES: Essentially, yes.

  KATH: Or what a patient may have said.

  CHARLES: That’s correct.

  KATH: Unless he chooses to have it revealed.

  CHARLES: That’s right.

  KATH: But then he did choose to reveal it. The boy. The, the content of your sessions.

  CHARLES (Simultaneously with “sessions”): Who told you that?

  KATH: Didn’t he?

  CHARLES: Did Richard tell you that?

  (Pause.)

  KATH: Yes.

  CHARLES: What else did he say?

  KATH: I told you all he said.

  CHARLES: Well, hold on. Because you said . . .

  KATH: I can’t remember all he said. He called to say you had to speak to him. He said he’d call back. He said perhaps you should make a statement.

  CHARLES: I should make it? Or that they requested it?

  KATH: Please don’t interrogate me.

  CHARLES: Why did he call here?

  KATH: Why shouldn’t he call here?

  CHARLES: All right. I need to talk to him. When I’ve talked to him. Several things will become more clear. Now? I cannot divulge: confidential information gained through my interchanges with . . .

  KATH: Unless it constitutes “danger to oneself or others.”

  CHARLES: Ah-huh.

  KATH: What does that mean?

  CHARLES: It means I believe you should not be involved.

  KATH: How can I not be involved when I’m your wife?

  CHARLES: Then as my wife. As difficult as this may be? I require . . .

  KATH: Require?

  CHARLES: You: to stand with me. I have to navigate a. A difficult . . . Kath, what you may see as my reluctance, or “intransigence,” if you will, is not a “lack of trust,” but, an obligation. To protect, my pat . . .

  KATH: He’s not your patient.

  CHARLES: He was. And myself, and to protect you.

  KATH: By
refusing to talk to me?

  CHARLES: That’s right.

  KATH: And that will somehow “protect” me?

  CHARLES: Yes. It will.

  KATH: I told you. It would come to this . . . because I saw. And you said I was a fool.

  CHARLES: I never sss . . .

  KATH: I told you. And you wouldn’t listen.

  CHARLES: . . . and I . . .

  KATH: At the time I told you. At the very time. That you should speak to the press.

  CHARLES: What do you think I should have told them?

  KATH: . . . which refusal . . .

  CHARLES: . . . what . . .?

  KATH: Predictably infuriated . . .

  CHARLES: What could I . . .?

  KATH: You could have expressed: sorrow, you . . .

  CHARLES: He was my patient. I could not, by my oath, comment on his treatment. And, it was deemed inappropriate. For me. To express sorrow. For the victims.

  KATH: How could that have been inappropriate?

  CHARLES: As it could have been seen as a violation of my oath.

  KATH: Why?

  CHARLES: As Richard said, as an indictment of an act allegedly committed by a patient in my care.

  KATH: I don’t understand.

  CHARLES: Listen to me: in what capacity. All right? Would I comment on the act of a patient under my care, who was “presumed innocent”?

  KATH: . . . I . . .

  CHARLES: My comment, wait, could only have been taken as acknowledgment of his guilt.

  KATH: You couldn’t express sorrow that those people died?

  CHARLES: In what capacity?

  KATH: But it’s absurd.

  CHARLES: I agree with you. But I was advised. And I took the advice.

  KATH (Referring to the paper): And now they’ve found this: “Homosexuality as an aberration . . .”

  CHARLES: It’s a lie. And easily disproved.

  KATH: And the boy wrote that you hate him. Because he was gay.

  (Pause.)

  In his letter.

  CHARLES: That’s what he wrote of everyone. Didn’t you read it?

  KATH: . . . but.

  CHARLES: It’s a lie. Don’t you know it’s a lie?

  KATH: Yes, but he wrote it. That you wouldn’t help him. Because he was gay. Charles?

  CHARLES: That he wrote it. Does not make it true. You know what the boy is.

  KATH: What is he?

  CHARLES: He’s a psychopath. And he’s a murderer. And his “letter” . . . his “letter” . . . his “Manifesto” . . .