Comment 1: http://korn2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-drowsy-chaperone.html?showComment=1367615094512#c8693470280771584161
Comment 2: http://sstev31.blogspot.com/2013/05/blog-post-13-three-viewings.html?showComment=1367615504314#c4232579707634460975
Comment 3: http://austinthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/prompt-twelve-on-verge-or-geography-of.html?showComment=1367616257544#c7570157251406328271
Comment 4: http://shelly2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/fires-in-mirror.html?showComment=1367616902680#c8186904855606076155
Comment 5: http://emilielegethtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/05/drowsy-chaperone.html?showComment=1367685974291#c8157919595381320754
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Show and Tell Post 3
For my 3rd show and tell post I've chosen the play, I Hate Hamlet.
I Hate Hamlet is a play written by Paul Rudnick in 1991 which was originally staged in the Walter Kerr Theater in New York with performances by:
Evan Handler as Andrew Rally and Nicol Williamson as John Barrymore
Synopsis:
Essentially the play is about a successful soap opera star named Andrew Rally who has just moved into the late great John Barrymore's apartment. Ironically Andrew has recently been presented with the opportunity to take the title role in Shakespeare's Hamlet. A fact that Andrew himself is completely turned off by. We are joined by several other characters including Andrew's girlfriend Deirdre McDavey whom Andrew expresses great sexual frustration towards essentially due to the fact that she won't give it up. Andrew's agent Lillian Troy shows up to express to him her feelings towards his career in she pushes him to go ahead with the Hamlet role. We also learn that she and Barrymore had a bit of a fling several years back, and she still holds him in high regard. We are later joined by Andrew's real estate agent Felicia Dantine. As they survey Andrew's new apartment we learn that Felicia is able to commune with the spirits and she intends to summon the spirit of John Barrymore in order to help Andrew with his hesitations to accept the Hamlet role. With the encouragement of Deirdre, Felicia begins a séance. She asks Andrew to ask Barrymore a question, it is then when Andrew shouts "I Hate Hamlet" and then there is a large dramatic gust of wind and a lighting flash in which Andrew briefly sees a shadow of a man cast upon the wall. It is later this evening in which the "ghost" of Barrymore makes his appearance to Andrew. The ghost explains that he makes himself seen to all young actors facing the daunting task of assuming the mantle of Hamlet.
From this point on the rest of Act One is mostly Barrymore coaching Andrew in acting, sex-life, etc.... which in turn leads to a kind of farcical sword fight between the two of them.
Act Two comes around and Andrew is now deeply engrossed in the role of Hamlet. He has completely converted the apartment into a medieval lair and is always in costume brooding and sulking around. Despite all of this Andrew's performance on opening night comes off as somewhat, weak. Deirdre agrees that Andrew's performance was rather awful but despite this fact she views him as being incredibly brave for not giving up on the role. She decides she wants to be with him and essentially they sleep together. In the end, Andrew declines a new television offer and opts to pursue a life on the stage. Barrymore proceeds to kind of gloat in a way telling Andrew that he essentially achieved what he set out for to begin with. In that the glory of Shakespeare has finally changed him. Barrymore then proceeds to teach Andrew one last lesson in how to bow properly. Essentially the moment in which he passes the torch onto Andrew. Barrymore leaves. Andrew bows dramatically to the audience, and the curtain falls.
So in writing the synopsis I realized that this play could actually take a very dark turn. It really could be played as a serious drama, I hadn't even thought of that before. Anyway, just so we're clear this is definitely not a serious play, it's actually a very well written comedy that should be read by any individual who is actively seeking or is currently employed as a performer. It really taps into the level of narcissism, inflated ego, and self doubting nature of actors and they way they're perceived in society and kind of turns that on its head. The play does this in a very light-hearted manner really, but I think it's an interesting take on actors and the legacy they leave behind, regardless of whether it's the kind of legacy they wish it to be or not. To me this plays into Rudnick's choice to include a representation of a real-life actor (Barrymore) within the realm of fictional characters. Obviously there are several reasons to choose Barrymore and not create a fictional character given the connection to Barrymore and Hamlet. I just think that Rudnick's choice in Barrymore has other implications as well. I think this particular choice may allude to the fact that eventually either Andrew will become a great actor and live out a great long life. Which in turn would ultimately be John Barrymore's redemption in that he essentially squandered his money and wasted his talent towards the end of his life. Perhaps Rudnick chose to represent this story as just as much Barrymore's final performance as well. Maybe helping Andrew was Barrymore's chance at redemption after all and that could justify why he's even in the play to begin with. Although in contrast maybe the choice of including Barrymore is to allude to the idea of Andrew essentially going down the same path as Barrymore did. Maybe it's to show that Andrew would have been better off without Barrymore's intervention. All of this lends itself to the question of why Rudnick chose to blend real life with fiction by putting the character of a deceased John Barrymore into his play. Which ultimately winds up creating a type of ambiguous nature of the play. Granted this story is kind of silly and lighthearted, but it's never fully explained why Barrymore has become a "ghost" and why he's appearing to Andrew. Also, apparently Barrymore can make himself known to other people as well. There is a moment in which he actually interacts with other characters, the best example of this is when he basically seduces Lillian and despite the fact that he doesn't technically exist the fact that Barrymore is able to interact with her and she him is never fully explained, except the fact that she might have once had a fling with him. There is even a scene in which Barrymore and Deirdre have some close interaction. The initial impression is that Barrymore is only able to make himself known to the actors who are set to portray Hamlet. Again, what is it exactly that Barrymore wishes to accomplish? He feels the need to help Andrew but I got the sense that he was doing so almost as a kind of penance and not just by his good graces. It's almost as if all of the temptations from Barrymore's past are still haunting him and he's still struggling to let them go and focus on helping Andrew and pass the torch. I think Rudnick chose to write the character that way in order to make the audience kind of question his motives, but again we don't ever get a clear explanation as to the why. I felt that this was an element of ambiguous nature that lends itself to making the play and its characters resonate a little more with audiences.
I Hate Hamlet is a play written by Paul Rudnick in 1991 which was originally staged in the Walter Kerr Theater in New York with performances by:
Evan Handler as Andrew Rally and Nicol Williamson as John Barrymore
Synopsis:
Essentially the play is about a successful soap opera star named Andrew Rally who has just moved into the late great John Barrymore's apartment. Ironically Andrew has recently been presented with the opportunity to take the title role in Shakespeare's Hamlet. A fact that Andrew himself is completely turned off by. We are joined by several other characters including Andrew's girlfriend Deirdre McDavey whom Andrew expresses great sexual frustration towards essentially due to the fact that she won't give it up. Andrew's agent Lillian Troy shows up to express to him her feelings towards his career in she pushes him to go ahead with the Hamlet role. We also learn that she and Barrymore had a bit of a fling several years back, and she still holds him in high regard. We are later joined by Andrew's real estate agent Felicia Dantine. As they survey Andrew's new apartment we learn that Felicia is able to commune with the spirits and she intends to summon the spirit of John Barrymore in order to help Andrew with his hesitations to accept the Hamlet role. With the encouragement of Deirdre, Felicia begins a séance. She asks Andrew to ask Barrymore a question, it is then when Andrew shouts "I Hate Hamlet" and then there is a large dramatic gust of wind and a lighting flash in which Andrew briefly sees a shadow of a man cast upon the wall. It is later this evening in which the "ghost" of Barrymore makes his appearance to Andrew. The ghost explains that he makes himself seen to all young actors facing the daunting task of assuming the mantle of Hamlet.
From this point on the rest of Act One is mostly Barrymore coaching Andrew in acting, sex-life, etc.... which in turn leads to a kind of farcical sword fight between the two of them.
Act Two comes around and Andrew is now deeply engrossed in the role of Hamlet. He has completely converted the apartment into a medieval lair and is always in costume brooding and sulking around. Despite all of this Andrew's performance on opening night comes off as somewhat, weak. Deirdre agrees that Andrew's performance was rather awful but despite this fact she views him as being incredibly brave for not giving up on the role. She decides she wants to be with him and essentially they sleep together. In the end, Andrew declines a new television offer and opts to pursue a life on the stage. Barrymore proceeds to kind of gloat in a way telling Andrew that he essentially achieved what he set out for to begin with. In that the glory of Shakespeare has finally changed him. Barrymore then proceeds to teach Andrew one last lesson in how to bow properly. Essentially the moment in which he passes the torch onto Andrew. Barrymore leaves. Andrew bows dramatically to the audience, and the curtain falls.
So in writing the synopsis I realized that this play could actually take a very dark turn. It really could be played as a serious drama, I hadn't even thought of that before. Anyway, just so we're clear this is definitely not a serious play, it's actually a very well written comedy that should be read by any individual who is actively seeking or is currently employed as a performer. It really taps into the level of narcissism, inflated ego, and self doubting nature of actors and they way they're perceived in society and kind of turns that on its head. The play does this in a very light-hearted manner really, but I think it's an interesting take on actors and the legacy they leave behind, regardless of whether it's the kind of legacy they wish it to be or not. To me this plays into Rudnick's choice to include a representation of a real-life actor (Barrymore) within the realm of fictional characters. Obviously there are several reasons to choose Barrymore and not create a fictional character given the connection to Barrymore and Hamlet. I just think that Rudnick's choice in Barrymore has other implications as well. I think this particular choice may allude to the fact that eventually either Andrew will become a great actor and live out a great long life. Which in turn would ultimately be John Barrymore's redemption in that he essentially squandered his money and wasted his talent towards the end of his life. Perhaps Rudnick chose to represent this story as just as much Barrymore's final performance as well. Maybe helping Andrew was Barrymore's chance at redemption after all and that could justify why he's even in the play to begin with. Although in contrast maybe the choice of including Barrymore is to allude to the idea of Andrew essentially going down the same path as Barrymore did. Maybe it's to show that Andrew would have been better off without Barrymore's intervention. All of this lends itself to the question of why Rudnick chose to blend real life with fiction by putting the character of a deceased John Barrymore into his play. Which ultimately winds up creating a type of ambiguous nature of the play. Granted this story is kind of silly and lighthearted, but it's never fully explained why Barrymore has become a "ghost" and why he's appearing to Andrew. Also, apparently Barrymore can make himself known to other people as well. There is a moment in which he actually interacts with other characters, the best example of this is when he basically seduces Lillian and despite the fact that he doesn't technically exist the fact that Barrymore is able to interact with her and she him is never fully explained, except the fact that she might have once had a fling with him. There is even a scene in which Barrymore and Deirdre have some close interaction. The initial impression is that Barrymore is only able to make himself known to the actors who are set to portray Hamlet. Again, what is it exactly that Barrymore wishes to accomplish? He feels the need to help Andrew but I got the sense that he was doing so almost as a kind of penance and not just by his good graces. It's almost as if all of the temptations from Barrymore's past are still haunting him and he's still struggling to let them go and focus on helping Andrew and pass the torch. I think Rudnick chose to write the character that way in order to make the audience kind of question his motives, but again we don't ever get a clear explanation as to the why. I felt that this was an element of ambiguous nature that lends itself to making the play and its characters resonate a little more with audiences.
Drowsy Chaperone
I really think that the play and the play within the play are incredibly similar, in that both worlds thrive off of each other in order to co-exist. Two of the most noteworthy elements that further strengthen that statement are found within the of rhythm and complexity of the story.
The fact that the man enjoys this particular play suggests that the very reason why he's showing us is because he is assuming that we share in his sense of humor. Therefore we enter the play under the general consensus that we should enjoy the play because the man does and we can trust the man's judgment right? Wait, what? Is this to suggest that we know this man? Why is he showing us this play in the first place, it's almost as if we're cast in the role of "the man's friend" right from the get go. This in-turn implies that we are just as much a part of the man's world as he is the world of the musical. Thus creating an endless mirror effect of a world, within a world, within our world and so on. I think that this feeds into an element of complexity stating that every element of the play exists within a world in-turn creates a complex symbiosis with ours. Adding the satirical aspect of the play only strengthens the idea that each world created in a sense all share a common element. It's that element which grounds them to a basis of reality, whatever that may be.
In regard to the rhythm and the similarities shared between the different worlds, I would argue that the upbeat, silly nature of play reinforces the idea that we're are linked to these worlds just as much as the characters are. The elements of rhythm that establish a fun, fast-paced, rollicking feel is an element that links these worlds together, in that these feelings are shared through a common love, or interest in music or musicals. Going back to the endless mirror analogy, we too are linked to the play in a sense due to the fact that the very reason the audience has come to the theater is to enjoy their evening further by sitting down to watch a musical. So again there is an established connection of worlds that is reinforced by the literal rhythm and elemental rhythm of the play as well, because typically if you're going to go watch a musical, odds are you like musicals. Getting back to how the different worlds thrive off of each other and create a flow that compliment one another, I find a good example of this can be found when the music is interrupted by a record skipping or lights going out within the man's apartment. Instead of ruining the play it becomes a part of the play itself and establishes a rhythm of its own creating a parallel to the other story that the audience is a part of. This is an example of how the rhythm of the play and the literal rhythm of the music within the play changes, but also compliments the quick upbeat tone that the play establishes early on.
So in essence, these elements establish themselves as being different from each other, but also express the idea of we're witnessing a story in which it's natural to interpret with a disconnect of worlds in-that, the man is just simply recreating the musical for us. However, the man in fact is the musical, and the rhythm and complexity created within lend themselves to binding our worlds together.
The fact that the man enjoys this particular play suggests that the very reason why he's showing us is because he is assuming that we share in his sense of humor. Therefore we enter the play under the general consensus that we should enjoy the play because the man does and we can trust the man's judgment right? Wait, what? Is this to suggest that we know this man? Why is he showing us this play in the first place, it's almost as if we're cast in the role of "the man's friend" right from the get go. This in-turn implies that we are just as much a part of the man's world as he is the world of the musical. Thus creating an endless mirror effect of a world, within a world, within our world and so on. I think that this feeds into an element of complexity stating that every element of the play exists within a world in-turn creates a complex symbiosis with ours. Adding the satirical aspect of the play only strengthens the idea that each world created in a sense all share a common element. It's that element which grounds them to a basis of reality, whatever that may be.
In regard to the rhythm and the similarities shared between the different worlds, I would argue that the upbeat, silly nature of play reinforces the idea that we're are linked to these worlds just as much as the characters are. The elements of rhythm that establish a fun, fast-paced, rollicking feel is an element that links these worlds together, in that these feelings are shared through a common love, or interest in music or musicals. Going back to the endless mirror analogy, we too are linked to the play in a sense due to the fact that the very reason the audience has come to the theater is to enjoy their evening further by sitting down to watch a musical. So again there is an established connection of worlds that is reinforced by the literal rhythm and elemental rhythm of the play as well, because typically if you're going to go watch a musical, odds are you like musicals. Getting back to how the different worlds thrive off of each other and create a flow that compliment one another, I find a good example of this can be found when the music is interrupted by a record skipping or lights going out within the man's apartment. Instead of ruining the play it becomes a part of the play itself and establishes a rhythm of its own creating a parallel to the other story that the audience is a part of. This is an example of how the rhythm of the play and the literal rhythm of the music within the play changes, but also compliments the quick upbeat tone that the play establishes early on.
So in essence, these elements establish themselves as being different from each other, but also express the idea of we're witnessing a story in which it's natural to interpret with a disconnect of worlds in-that, the man is just simply recreating the musical for us. However, the man in fact is the musical, and the rhythm and complexity created within lend themselves to binding our worlds together.
Friday, May 3, 2013
3 Viewings
I see Three Viewings as being about character revelation and over arching character change to its very core. Each character has a realization or finding of themselves that essentially brings about a change in their personality or mindset whatever it may be. All of these elements of personal change are related due to the fact that each character undergoes their revelations after the passing of an individual that was close to them. Not to mention the fact that each individual story takes place within the same world of the play. Also, these stories in themselves are all related in a way that they are happening in the same plane of existence. The common motif of death surrounds this play, so much so I believe that within the world of this play death itself is almost like a rite of passage awaking new emotions and reactions that the characters never realized were there. If I were to come up with a unifying principle for this play I would choose, Death evoking life. To me that represents the idea that these characters are able to move forward and change their perspectives but only after the person whom has passed imparts some wisdom on them, be it direct or indirectly. progression and realization. It could be argued that individual characters must experience the passing of a friend or family member before they can move on to the next phase of their lives. What's interesting about the realization concept is that it's not only a self-awareness realization for the characters directly but it's also a realization for the audience as well. The fact that each story includes an "ah-ha" moment in a literary sense, actually makes the world of the play enter into our world as well. I know I'm trying to get deep and meta again with this concept, but hey, it's my damn blog.
On the Verge
Tagline:
On the Verge: Oh What Tangled Word Webs We Weave.
Well, I came up with this tagline because obviously there is a plethora of very distinct and overly complex terminology within this play. It's apparent that the use of such verbose terms becomes a rhythm in itself that creates a flowing complexity of words that can be at times somewhat overwhelming to comprehend. My tagline plays into this concept by creating a tounge-twisting description of the very element that creates the play’s unique and distinct take on some interesting and arguably archaic vocabulary. I think this tagline is jocluar by its own right, because it also can allude to the idea of the flora and fauna you might discover whilst traversing throughout the untamed jungle. I think also this serves to represent the strange tangle of character interaction and the relationships that are present throughout the entire play along with the random assortment of characters involved. The story of the play is just as much an adventure in the use of words as it is a trip through time and space. So I believe it’s just as important to represent the adventure in vocabulary of the story as it is to represent the adventure itself. Since the story is kind of absurdist and lighthearted I feel that this tagline keepts in line with that overall tone.
I think I'll take a stab at attempting to answer the question pertaining to who Mr. Coffee is because I think this interaction is particularly interesting. So we discussed in class that Mr. Coffee is supposed to represent death which is an idea reinforced by his ability to predict events to come. I actually believe that the reason why the character is titled Mr. Coffee is due to the fact that it's a brand name from the future that represents man's progress in his ability to create technology to make his life easier. That is to say that it's man's dependency on this technology that will eventually lead to his downfall. A little too meta? Perhaps, but I'd say that it makes more sense than saying coffee equals death.
On the Verge: Oh What Tangled Word Webs We Weave.
Well, I came up with this tagline because obviously there is a plethora of very distinct and overly complex terminology within this play. It's apparent that the use of such verbose terms becomes a rhythm in itself that creates a flowing complexity of words that can be at times somewhat overwhelming to comprehend. My tagline plays into this concept by creating a tounge-twisting description of the very element that creates the play’s unique and distinct take on some interesting and arguably archaic vocabulary. I think this tagline is jocluar by its own right, because it also can allude to the idea of the flora and fauna you might discover whilst traversing throughout the untamed jungle. I think also this serves to represent the strange tangle of character interaction and the relationships that are present throughout the entire play along with the random assortment of characters involved. The story of the play is just as much an adventure in the use of words as it is a trip through time and space. So I believe it’s just as important to represent the adventure in vocabulary of the story as it is to represent the adventure itself. Since the story is kind of absurdist and lighthearted I feel that this tagline keepts in line with that overall tone.
I think I'll take a stab at attempting to answer the question pertaining to who Mr. Coffee is because I think this interaction is particularly interesting. So we discussed in class that Mr. Coffee is supposed to represent death which is an idea reinforced by his ability to predict events to come. I actually believe that the reason why the character is titled Mr. Coffee is due to the fact that it's a brand name from the future that represents man's progress in his ability to create technology to make his life easier. That is to say that it's man's dependency on this technology that will eventually lead to his downfall. A little too meta? Perhaps, but I'd say that it makes more sense than saying coffee equals death.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Fires in the Mirror
There is no way around the fact that if you cut out the monologues from this play you're essentially cutting out the very soul of the play itself. I can understand that it's easy to disassociate oneself from the individual monologues especially if you can't relate to them on a personal level in any way. I'll even entertain the notion that sometimes production/time restraints sometimes elements of the play have to be cut. I'm afraid these separations from personal investment do not justify stripping this play of it's soul. I say this because the monologues are what establish a steady tempo early on in the play, they set the overall tone of the by adding representation of the two distinct races involved in the later mentioned riots letting us delve further into their psyche and further providing insight into the racial prejudices that plague them. So, all that being said, not only are these monologues important for their part in grounding the play and setting the tone they even further enhance the play due to the fact that they are all given by a single actress. This play is a tour de force for any individual to perform. It's a play that is taylormade to be presented by an individual and it's in that performance that so much of the heart of the play is invested in. If you were to take away the majority of the monologues there is no doubt in my mind that the play would suffer overall because the impact will be lessened due to the fact that it would become more of a documentary instead of a play. I would suggest that if it is absolutely necessary to cut down the monologues then it should be more a condensing of the monologues instead. That is to say that, the monologues could just be edited down a bit in order to save some time and perhaps whittle down a few of the lesser impactful moments. Again, I strongly disagree with the idea of cutting any of the monologues because I really believe that it would have a profound negative impact on the play.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Detroit
Honestly, when I think of Detroit, I think of a crime addled city that has fallen from grace and has yet to gain any momentum in rebuilding itself to it's former glory. So with that in mind I believe that the title Detroit perhaps allude to the characters Sharon and Kenny's seedy backgrounds. I say this because I feel like these two characters are a lot like the city of Detroit in that, they both have had trying times and like the city, they are in desperate need of someone or something to pull them out of their current destructive state. I believe that these two characters are trying so very hard to attain some aspect of normality so much so that they break into the home that Kenny's great uncle owns and start to play house with the neighbors. It's a cry for help, they want to stay sober they want to rebuild their lives but there are forces at work that keep them from doing so, the temptation of drugs and alcohol are strong influences that continue to draw them back into a downward spiral. Eventually, in their drunken state they even start a fire which leads to the destruction of Ben and Mary's home which to me, directly symbolizes how drugs and alcohol are inherently destructive. Again I think the parallel is strongly in place with the images that come to mind in regard to Detroit or a typical city in which crime and drugs are a constant problem, something that eats away at the soul of the city. Detroit is also a city that people can easily recall, people remember what Detroit once was, and look back on it with fond memories of old time America. After all, D'Amour did chose to place these characters in houses that were build in the 1950's, a time in which the perfect American household was clearly defined and commercialized. I think that the overall motif in this play is rebuilding, and if any city ever needed rebuilding, it would be Detroit. If any couple needed to rebuild their lives it would be Sharon and Kenny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)