4:48 Psychosis: A curiosity, a crackup

Saw "4:48 Psychosis" last night at the Gamm Theater, in Pawtucket. A 72-minute one act about a total and complete mental breakdown, only 2 characters, with the patient being by far the lead/central character. This play is more of a curiosity than a drama. I've heard that the playwright killed herself in an institution and left this work as an unfinished fragment (she'd written other plays). This adds a certain, I don't know, poignancy or chill to 4:48, in that it truly is a document of despair. But is it worth seeing? I don't really think so. It's a rant, essentially, without any shape or form or direction. A play needs to be based on some kind of conflict and it has to move from one point to another, that is, the characters or at least the protagonist has to grow or change - or maybe we have to grow or change. Other than, at the end, when I felt terribly sorry for this woman and I had more of a sense of the torment of mental illness, had I really learned or experienced anything? There are much better and more sophisticated and thoughtful works about mental illness, many of them, e.g., Girl, Interrupted. At least 4:48 didn't succumb to the cliched story of psychiatrist sicker than patient, etc. (though it hints at such, in one of the few actual exhanges in the play). But it would have benefited from more "sessions" with the therapist, or, failing that, more clear revelations from the patient. After the show, with some friends, we (working therapists in the group particularly) made some attempts at diagnosis, based on hints and fragments - but frankly the material wasn't there to make sense of the patient's condition. It's admirable in a way that it didn't decide into a trite family history of abuse as cause of all contemporary woes, etc., but the material just feels raw, undigested, which it probably is, and I think left us with sense of witnessing a crackup, or the aftereffects of a crackup more accurately, without any sense of the human life contained within the rantings and ravings. We also discussed movies with sympathetic views of analysts. Ordinary People. 10. Others?