until Gabe stumbles incoherently onto the truth. He misses the passion of their youth. What has happened to them is “what happens when practical matters . . . begin to outweigh . . . abandon.” Deeply saddened by this discovery, Karen wonders, “How do we not get lost?” They hold each other as the play concludes.

Much of the play’s “cut to the bone” realism is achieved by the use of overlapping dialogue. Characters engage in a very natural, humorous interplay of ideas, often speaking simultaneously. At times, the lines illustrate the comfort that the speakers feel with one another. During the opening scene, Karen and Gabe seem to speak as one when they describe Italian cuisine: Gabe: Anyway, the pomodoro. Karen: The pomodoro was amazing. Gabe: And simple. Karen: Amazingly simple.

Gabe and Karen seem like Olympic skaters, executing an improvised routine with practiced ease. Here Margulies uses the humor of simultaneous speech to create the impression of closeness. However, Margulies also uses overlapping dialogue as a symbol of the characters’ inability to communicate deeply. As Karen and Beth share lunch several months after Beth’s breakup with Tom, Karen tries to catch up with her friend:Karen: I’d leave messages and you’d wouldn’t call back right away. . . . Beth: (Over “. . . right away. . . .”) I know, I’m sorry. I needed some time to myself. You know. Karen: You’re not mad at me or anything, are you? Beth: (Over “. . . are you?”) Mad at you? Why should I be mad at you?

Beth’s too-quick responses signal Karen that something is indeed wrong. She is unable to discover the problem until Beth angrily accuses her of wanting Beth to be “a mess.” Margulies’s use of run-on sentences and overlapping dialogue illustrates the subtext underneath each scene.

Just as Pinter does in Betrayal (pr., pb. 1978) and Stephen Sondheim does in Merrily We Roll Along (pr. 1981, pb. 1982), Margulies uses flashback to layer bittersweet irony upon the play’s action. The flashback scene in act 2 introduces the characters as idealistic, vigorous men and women in their thirties. Impressions developed in act 1 color the way the audience perceives each character. Tom appears more sensual and more childish. Beth’s flightiness seems to stem from the artist-role she chooses to play. Gabe and Karen, madly in love, are physically affectionate in a way that appears nowhere else in the play.

Finally, Margulies frequently draws on food preparation and dining as a metaphor. During the flashback scene at Martha’s Vineyard, Gabe and Karen work as one in the kitchen, but Beth is unable to master even the simplest of tasks without injuring herself. Ironically, while folding down the bed with practiced sterility, Karen and Gabe comment on how happy Tom and Beth seem now that they have found new partners. The couple experience more passion in the kitchen discussing and preparing food than in the bedroom.

At first, food provides comfort for Tom and Beth. They eagerly consume large portions of Karen and Gabe’s perfectly prepared food, even as each describes marital loneliness. It is not advice they seek from their friends, but a listening ear and a second helping. Toward the end of the play, as each describes his or her new relationships, food is not discussed. As Tom and Beth move away from their friends, they rely less upon food for comfort.

Strolling through any bookstore, it's evident that one prevalent topic capturing Americans' attention is divorce. There are more than three thousand books available that address various aspects, such as surviving divorce, being creative with it, finding joy in it, supporting children through it, and dealing with a partner who wants to reconcile. Additionally, there are videos, websites, and songs about divorce. The Monthly Vital Statistics report notes that in 1994 alone, over one million divorces occurred in America. Although national divorce rates have slightly declined in recent years, New York City has seen an increase. This makes the topic of Margulies' play particularly timely, given the sheer number of divorces and the many people, especially baby boomers, who resonate with the characters.

In the U.S., between the end of World War II in 1945 and 1964, seventy-eight million baby boomers were born. Today, this demographic means that four out of ten heads of households are aged between thirty-five and fifty-four, placing Margulies' characters squarely in the middle of the baby boomer generation.

Baby boomers matured and fell in love during a period of significant change in the United States. These were times of social upheaval, political turmoil, economic downturns, and general chaos. This era experienced the worst unemployment and economic recession since the Great Depression of the thirties and forties. It was also the period of the Cold War, which heightened awareness of potential global ecological disasters and nuclear annihilation. While their parents' generation held optimistic dreams for the future—benefiting from the GI Bill for education, affordable suburban housing, and modern conveniences like automatic washing machines—baby boomers grew up fearing that the future might not come. This fear widened the generational gap, leading many baby boomers to define themselves in opposition to their parents, asserting "We are NOT our parents."

Add to these factors the impact of a midlife crisis—a period of psychological stress in middle age, often triggered by significant physical or domestic events and marked by a strong desire for change—and you have a comprehensive picture of the life and circumstances depicted in Margulies' play.

Flashback
Margulies starts his play in what he describes as the present. As the first act unfolds, time moves forward. To provide background information and showcase the characters experiencing their first love, he shifts the timeline back twelve and a half years before the opening scene. This flashback not only brings both couples together but also adds emotional depth to the impact of Tom and Beth's divorce.

The use of a flashback allows the characters to enact their past instead of having the playwright awkwardly insert past details into their current conversations. This approach gives the characters more depth, as the audience observes the evolution of their lives firsthand rather than just hearing about it. It also engages the audience actively, rather than passively. The playwright can leave gaps, unanswered questions, and silences in dialogue and action, prompting the audience to fill in the blanks and draw their own conclusions.

Comedy Drama
Despite its serious subject matter, Margulies' play contains humor that begins in the opening lines and persists throughout. The comedy is understated. Given that the narrative centers on divorce and the difficulties of maintaining love, anything more than subtle humor would detract from the play's more serious themes.

The gentle humor serves to alleviate the tension that accumulates. An example is found in the final scene, where Gabe and Karen engage in a playful game, with Gabe pretending to scare Karen. They feel tension due to a certain envy of their friends, which makes them uneasy. Gabe diffuses this tension by making Karen laugh.

Mood
The mood, or dominant emotion, of the play shifts with each scene. However, one constant is that every scene features more than one intense emotion.

The play opens with a mood of excitement. Karen and Gabe are animated as they share details of their recent European trip. Even their meal is thrilling—a gourmet feast. In contrast, their friend Beth is in a completely different state, feeling exhausted, suffering from a headache, and dealing with loss.

Margulies juxtaposes these contrasting moods throughout the play, setting anger against frustration and sincerity against sarcasm. Then, he reverses the characters' emotions, causing the play to turn on itself. Where there was once sadness, there is now excitement; where there was once security, there is now doubt. Through his manipulation of mood, Margulies captures the complexities of life, illustrating how emotions are ever-changing.

Point of View
The perspective in this play is omniscient, meaning it observes everything. Margulies intentionally does not prioritize one character or couple over another. He presents all characters equally, allowing the audience to form their own opinions about whom they relate to, who they believe is making the right choices, and who seems the most logical. Each character is depicted in various situations. Additionally, Margulies pairs different characters together, such as Tom with Gabe and Beth with Karen, to reveal different facets of their personalities. This approach highlights both their strengths and weaknesses, contributing to the play's overall sense of balance.

Margulies crafted the screenplay for the film adaptation of Dinner with Friends, directed by Norman Jewison for HBO and released in 2001.

Sources
Albis, Theron, "In the Spotlight, Donald Margulies," http://www.stagenscreen.com/ (2000).

Denton, Martin, "Dinner with Friends," http://www.nytheatre.com/nytheatre/dinner.htm (November 11, 2000).

Feingold, Michael, "Fable Settings," in Village Voice, November 17-23, 1999.

Hartigan, Patti, "Dinner with Friends Satisfies," in Boston Globe, November 9, 2000, p. E1.

Lyons, Donald, "Delicious 'Dinner' a Winner," in New York Post Online Edition, http://www.nypost.com/theatre/17595.htm (1999).

"Online NewsHour, Pulitzer Prize Winner-Drama," http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/jan-june00/margulies_4-13.html (April 13, 2000).

Phillips, Michael, "A Delicious 'Dinner with Friends,'" in Los Angeles Times, October 6, 2000.

"Playbill On-line's Brief Encounter with Donald Margulies," http://www.playbill.com/ (April 18, 2000).

Scheck, Frank, "Hollywood Reporter Reviews," www.hollywoodreporter.com/reviews/IndividualReview.asp?StaffReviewID=2326 (November 5, 2000).

Sheward, David, "Show Guide, 'Dinner with Friends'" http://www.backstage.com/ShowGuide/offbroadway/sobl999111740202.asp (November 14, 2000)
Simon, John, "Friends," in New York Magazine, November 22, 1999, pp. 89-90.

Further Reading
Janich, Kathy, "Margulies Sees Pulitzer as Career-Affirming Prize," in Atlantic Journal and Constitution, October 1, 2000, p. L3. Janich offers an interview with Donald Margulies where he talks about his play Dinner with Friends and shares his views on American theater.

Margulies, Donald, "Theater; A Playwright Has His Dinner and Diner, Too," in New York Times, January 16, 2000. Margulies shares his thoughts on the French adaptation of his play Dinner with Friends which debuted a few months before its New York, off-Broadway premiere.