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.
Show and Tell Post 2
For my second show and tell post I chose the play Oleanna by David Mamet. The play originally premiered in 1992 at Cambridge University and starred William H. Macy as the character John and Rebecca Pidgeon as Carol. Essentially the play is about a college professor and one of his young impressionable female students and the power struggle that they get into over the course of their interactions. Over the course of three separate act which lead to a road of self destruction that continues to spiral out of control throughout the show affecting both of the characters personal lives in the process.
Initially Carol approaches John in his office as an innocent impressionable student who just wants to learn from this accomplished professor who has a lot going from him. They go back and forth and we begin to see just how naïve and dare I say, "simple minded" Carol is as they continue to banter back and forth. During the second act Carol comes back in a completely poised and capable manner than compared to Act 1. It's in this act that Carol reveals to John that she's made a formal complaint with the College committee that John is a sexist and that she's been documenting daily sexual remarks that he's made/advances towards her. We also see that a lot of Carol's new ideas are being fueled by "the group" that she is in and we're lead to believe it's some sort of extremist women's lib type group. At this point John attempts to resolve the matter privately with Carol but she makes it clear she'd rather slander his name and end his career.
Carol decides it's best that she leave. As she does, John stands in front of the door and grabs hold of her. He physically prevents her from leaving. Carol then screams for help. End of Act II.
At the start of Act III John has been suspended from his position, and is in the process of packing up his office. John mentions that he has not been home recently to see his wife or his child. A phone call reveals that if he had, he would have learned that her charges against him now amount to attempted rape. Carol offers to drop all charges if John would agree to her group's list of books to be removed from the university, which includes his own. John refuses, and prefers to accept his dismissal from the university. He yells at her angrily asking her to leave when the phone rings again. This time it's John's wife. Carol tries to dictate how John should speak to his wife, after this John savagely beats her, verbally abuses her and holds a chair above his head as she cowers on the floor. The play ends with Carol saying, "Yes...that's right."
So, one of the interesting dramaturgical choices that I thought was noteworthy is the fact that the entire story plays out entirely in one location, John's office. I think this sets the tone in that you easily pick up on the very up close and personal one on one tension that is naturally inherent in the teacher student confrontation dynamic to begin with. I think that limiting the environment of the play to just John's office invokes a relatable setting and feeds into an underlying tension of socially unacceptable behavior in an school environment which is something that is already highly susceptible to possible negatively interpreted social perception. I think this is interesting because there is a fine line between teachers and students that is always drawn in the sand. It's an interesting relationship that borders between personal and professional and yet it only takes on inciting incident to change that dynamic completely. Oleanna takes this concept and steers it into a very tragic direction with the end result of two individuals lives being completely changed for the worse.
Another interesting dramaturgical choice I found was the way Mamet introduces his character John through basically what equates as a monologue which in the play is a conversation on the telephone. This is interesting because it immediately establishes a unique rhythm and tempo for the play by introducing the play in a distinctly different manner. Ultimately by listening in on this conversation we see first hand how John responds to his wife and their troubles at home, in turn giving us more insight into his personal life. Now both the audience and Carol have seen how John deals with the pressures he faces and we can see his frustration continue to mount over the course of the phone conversation with his wife and his real estate broker. Over the course of the play these seemingly insignificant phone conversations continue to show John's stress continuing to build and knowing that this young girl is trying to ruin his life on top of everything else it's only a matter of time before he finally loses it. Of course at the end John eventually gives in and assaults the girl, because he's finally been pushed to the brink and he makes his final incriminating choice. I think this is an important aspect of the play to note because Mamet is putting in motion a slow build of emotion that will eventually lead to John's downfall, but it's so subtle in its delivery that it's easy to dismiss these moments as "filler" for the play, when in fact they are crucial in setting the pace, rhythm and tempo.
Initially Carol approaches John in his office as an innocent impressionable student who just wants to learn from this accomplished professor who has a lot going from him. They go back and forth and we begin to see just how naïve and dare I say, "simple minded" Carol is as they continue to banter back and forth. During the second act Carol comes back in a completely poised and capable manner than compared to Act 1. It's in this act that Carol reveals to John that she's made a formal complaint with the College committee that John is a sexist and that she's been documenting daily sexual remarks that he's made/advances towards her. We also see that a lot of Carol's new ideas are being fueled by "the group" that she is in and we're lead to believe it's some sort of extremist women's lib type group. At this point John attempts to resolve the matter privately with Carol but she makes it clear she'd rather slander his name and end his career.
Carol decides it's best that she leave. As she does, John stands in front of the door and grabs hold of her. He physically prevents her from leaving. Carol then screams for help. End of Act II.
At the start of Act III John has been suspended from his position, and is in the process of packing up his office. John mentions that he has not been home recently to see his wife or his child. A phone call reveals that if he had, he would have learned that her charges against him now amount to attempted rape. Carol offers to drop all charges if John would agree to her group's list of books to be removed from the university, which includes his own. John refuses, and prefers to accept his dismissal from the university. He yells at her angrily asking her to leave when the phone rings again. This time it's John's wife. Carol tries to dictate how John should speak to his wife, after this John savagely beats her, verbally abuses her and holds a chair above his head as she cowers on the floor. The play ends with Carol saying, "Yes...that's right."
So, one of the interesting dramaturgical choices that I thought was noteworthy is the fact that the entire story plays out entirely in one location, John's office. I think this sets the tone in that you easily pick up on the very up close and personal one on one tension that is naturally inherent in the teacher student confrontation dynamic to begin with. I think that limiting the environment of the play to just John's office invokes a relatable setting and feeds into an underlying tension of socially unacceptable behavior in an school environment which is something that is already highly susceptible to possible negatively interpreted social perception. I think this is interesting because there is a fine line between teachers and students that is always drawn in the sand. It's an interesting relationship that borders between personal and professional and yet it only takes on inciting incident to change that dynamic completely. Oleanna takes this concept and steers it into a very tragic direction with the end result of two individuals lives being completely changed for the worse.
Another interesting dramaturgical choice I found was the way Mamet introduces his character John through basically what equates as a monologue which in the play is a conversation on the telephone. This is interesting because it immediately establishes a unique rhythm and tempo for the play by introducing the play in a distinctly different manner. Ultimately by listening in on this conversation we see first hand how John responds to his wife and their troubles at home, in turn giving us more insight into his personal life. Now both the audience and Carol have seen how John deals with the pressures he faces and we can see his frustration continue to mount over the course of the phone conversation with his wife and his real estate broker. Over the course of the play these seemingly insignificant phone conversations continue to show John's stress continuing to build and knowing that this young girl is trying to ruin his life on top of everything else it's only a matter of time before he finally loses it. Of course at the end John eventually gives in and assaults the girl, because he's finally been pushed to the brink and he makes his final incriminating choice. I think this is an important aspect of the play to note because Mamet is putting in motion a slow build of emotion that will eventually lead to John's downfall, but it's so subtle in its delivery that it's easy to dismiss these moments as "filler" for the play, when in fact they are crucial in setting the pace, rhythm and tempo.
Water by the Spoonful
I chose to focus on the scene in which Elliot and Yaz's world intersects with the online world that Odessa has established. I think this scene is the most important moment of intersection because it's the hinge in which the entire play precariously hangs from, essentially the inciting incident that changes everything. From a reader's standpoint this was really cool too because up until this point I had no idea where this play was going, I personally was really thrown off by the internet chat room stuff and found myself confused as to how it related to the play. Then realizing that these characters were all going to be connected both in and out of these two separate storylines I began to grasp the overall depth of this play. This scene also is the moment in which Odessa's secrets are revealed to the audience and the online characters. Up until this incident there really hasn't been much to link these two separate worlds together and now it's revealed that there is a direct connection and it has a much deeper meaning than the first few acts of the play would have you believe. I think the reason that this scene is here in the play is to serve as an explanation as to why Elliot has so much resentment towards his real mother Odessa. I also think that this was essential in deconstructing and then reconstructing initial character perceptions that both audience and characters have established. This scene also shows Elliot's is vindictive feelings towards Odessa and how he begins to put the wheels in motion that will basically send her back down the road to drug abuse. This is why this moment is crucial, because it's pivotal to the entire story in that it is essentially the inciting incident that then changes all the character's worlds in an instant.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Buried Child
Ok so when asked to pick out some elements that counter the perception of reality in the story, I couldn’t help but think about my initial response to the characters. I kept coming back to the surrealistic nature of the play and the emotions they triggered for me personally while reading. There obviously a level of ambiguity achieved while reading this because of the nature of the actions of some of the characters. I found myself confounded by them, but also intrigued as I continued to read. After I gave myself some time to let the story percolate I realized that I was trying to ground the characters in reality, but the very concept of the play was to mix the elements that are familiar with actions and responses from the characters that are not. I couldn’t help but think about Fuchs, and how she talked about imagining the world of the play. When thinking of the play in this regard I felt it added another layer of intricate detail to this play that I’d yet to conceive. I say this because, it seems as if in order to understand or view the world of this play that you have to imagine it only exists within the boundaries of the characters’ house, and that the world as we know it, doesn’t exist within the bizarre realm that they’ve created for themselves. I think that the environment itself is a major element of the story that counters the more overall illusionistic setting of the play, because once we see what goes on in this house we're introduced to very unfamiliar behavior, and personalities that go against the somewhat mundane setting in which we understand or relate to. Even the character Shelly is under the initial assumption that she'll feel at home as they approach the house. She quickly has this idea yanked out from under her so to speak, when the Norman Rockwell type concept of “The Great American Life” is replaced with the complete opposite concept when Shepard reveals his characters in their most intimate, and personal state of being. It’s at this point that the idea of reality comes into question and the portrait becomes that of a dangerously dysfunctional family, to put it lightly. Shepard doesn’t hold back in his portrayal of the surreal mixed with the real, it’s as if we’re put in the house through the character of Shelly as the voice of normality straining to stay sane within the realm of the abnormal. In my opinion this contradiction of elements helps to create an unnerving feeling or tension that continues to mount throughout the play and defines the story as a whole.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Noises Off
I really enjoyed Noises Off, I'm certain that I would thoroughly enjoy a production of Noises Off, but I have to say, I did not enjoy reading Noises Off at all. Simply due to the fact that too much of it's consistency of flow is completely lost in its fumbling textual format, and trying to read sight gag humor doesn't really translate well at all. It's a great play and well written it's just a lot to follow in it's subtle approach to borderline outlandish humor. Ok so enough of my critique,(way too sidetracked) on with my perception of motif within the play.
I really feel like the idea of physicality is a central motif within this play. There are so many moments within this play that are based heavily on movement, whether it be the characters missing their marks, physically abusing one another, breaking props and using props, there is just a lot of physical interaction in this play, and I think that it's done so well that we forget how much effort is going into all of the physical movement of the play. It actually becomes a part of the pace itself in regard to rhythm and tempo as well. For instance, the entire second act is established as a very tense, kind of "on-edge" fast paced tempo all due to the fact that some of the characters are trying to physically harm or hinder each other, while others are literally holding them back from doing so, and preventing certain disaster. This is a great example of how a motif can kind of structure or even dominate the pace of a play.
"Good Sardines, Bad Intentions." is my tagline for Noises Off. I'd say I chose this because it represents the absurdity of events based off of the importance of seemingly insignificant props and the ironically pivotal role they play within the story. The relevance of the plate of sardines is the perfect metaphor representing the amount of time and effort the people performing the play spend on being completely wrapped up in their own behind the scenes drama. The chaos ensues stirring up character envy, jealousy, and sometimes rage towards each other and when it all boils down to it, it's all based off of the equivalent of a plate of sardines.
I really feel like the idea of physicality is a central motif within this play. There are so many moments within this play that are based heavily on movement, whether it be the characters missing their marks, physically abusing one another, breaking props and using props, there is just a lot of physical interaction in this play, and I think that it's done so well that we forget how much effort is going into all of the physical movement of the play. It actually becomes a part of the pace itself in regard to rhythm and tempo as well. For instance, the entire second act is established as a very tense, kind of "on-edge" fast paced tempo all due to the fact that some of the characters are trying to physically harm or hinder each other, while others are literally holding them back from doing so, and preventing certain disaster. This is a great example of how a motif can kind of structure or even dominate the pace of a play.
"Good Sardines, Bad Intentions." is my tagline for Noises Off. I'd say I chose this because it represents the absurdity of events based off of the importance of seemingly insignificant props and the ironically pivotal role they play within the story. The relevance of the plate of sardines is the perfect metaphor representing the amount of time and effort the people performing the play spend on being completely wrapped up in their own behind the scenes drama. The chaos ensues stirring up character envy, jealousy, and sometimes rage towards each other and when it all boils down to it, it's all based off of the equivalent of a plate of sardines.
Glass O Water
Initially when asked who I thought the protagonist in Glass of Water was I was more inclined to believe that the question was slightly irrelevant. I say this due to the fact that the play centers around several fairly likeable characters as opposed to just having one central protagonist. The play in its very nature presents a more lighthearted/farcical approach to character development, and gives us a chance to indulge ourselves in the story of several different characters, some of which we root for, and some we don't. This also leaves one character (the dutchess) to pick up the slack and carry the mantle of antagonist. So, there in lies the question: If there is an antagonist then surely there must be a protagonist right?
So that being said I just couldn't really accept the idea of there being just one protagonist in Glass of Water, it just didn't seem to be the case me, but I knew there just had to be a way of determining this. Then after thinking about the question in regard to he amount of stage time, and overcoming of character conflicts I started to narrow down a selection within the list of characters. Then when taking into consideration that even though the majority of the characters wound up getting what they wanted it all came down to the cunning and savvy of one individual in particular who made it all possible. I had to choose Bolingbroke, I say this because he is the orchestrator of all the events that transpire, and the audience can easily back him as he plays his mind games with the Dutchess. Plus, due to the fact that there's hints of deceit from time to time we're not entirely sure that we can trust Bolingbroke. This makes for a level of ambivalence towards the audience in which an individual might want to root for Bolingbroke as a protagonist, but perhaps is unsure that one should root for Bolingbroke. Also just from a technical standpoint, if you don't have Bolingbroke in the story, you don't have a story....so there's that argument too.
So that being said I just couldn't really accept the idea of there being just one protagonist in Glass of Water, it just didn't seem to be the case me, but I knew there just had to be a way of determining this. Then after thinking about the question in regard to he amount of stage time, and overcoming of character conflicts I started to narrow down a selection within the list of characters. Then when taking into consideration that even though the majority of the characters wound up getting what they wanted it all came down to the cunning and savvy of one individual in particular who made it all possible. I had to choose Bolingbroke, I say this because he is the orchestrator of all the events that transpire, and the audience can easily back him as he plays his mind games with the Dutchess. Plus, due to the fact that there's hints of deceit from time to time we're not entirely sure that we can trust Bolingbroke. This makes for a level of ambivalence towards the audience in which an individual might want to root for Bolingbroke as a protagonist, but perhaps is unsure that one should root for Bolingbroke. Also just from a technical standpoint, if you don't have Bolingbroke in the story, you don't have a story....so there's that argument too.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Show and Tell Post # 1
For my show and tell I chose the play, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (hope this was acceptable). Anyway, the play is a British drama based on the novel of the same name written by Muriel Spark in 1961. Which was later adapted into a play by Jay Pressen Allen. Since then the play has been interpreted into a film which debuted in 1969 with Dame Maggie Smith playing the main role of Jean Brodie for which she won the Academy Award. All three iterations of the story shared international acclaim and continued to be successful even enjoying a stint on Broadway in 1966 in which Zoe Caldwell starred in the main role and went on to win the Tony Award for her performance. More recently the play has been making a bit of a comeback and in 2005, the novel was chosen by Time magazine as one of the one hundred best English-language novels from 1923 to present. In 1998, the ranked The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie #76 on its list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century.
So the play takes place in Edinborough Scotland in the early 1930's and focuses on a teacher named Jean Brodie who is as she would say, "In her Prime". Miss Brodie is in her early 40's and has a over active sex drive that projects itself into her everyday teachings and personality. She is also an admirer of the fascist dictators Benito Mussolini and Francesco Franco in which she romanticizes their actions to her students. This becomes projected out to her pre-pubescent students as well, becoming a part of her everyday teachings essentially affecting the girls lives as well. There are four girls in particular that Ms. Brodie goes out of her way to "groom" them up into being little carbon copies of herself, making them emulate her actions and thoughts. This quickly becomes a problem when the school's head mistress Mrs. Mackay starts to pick up on the negative impact that Miss Brodie is having on her students. Eventually we come to find out that Miss Brodie is involved with a married man named Teddy Lloyd, who is her ex-lover and an art teacher in the senior section of the school. Mr. Lloyd is still very much obsessed with Miss Brodie, so much so that he paints portraits of her constantly in order to keep his passion at bay. Also, Jean catches the eye of music teacher/church choirmaster Gordon Lowther, in which she and the wind up spending a lot of time at his home in Cramond, a seaside village on the outskirts of Edinburgh. Throughout the whole affair Miss Brodie will sometimes spend the night with Mr. Lowther and keeps it a secret to everyone else. Mr. Lowther wants them to get married, but Brodie will not commit to him, this will eventually cause Mr. Lowther to leave her and marry the chemistry teacher Miss Lockheart. As the girls get older into their teenage years we see Miss Brodie starting to manipulate the girls into doing her will, in order to live out her own fantasies vicariously through them. Later in the play Miss Brodie trys to set events in motion that will entice Mr. Lloyd into having an affair with one of her more "mature" students, named Jenny. Throughout this time she uses another student named Sandy to spy on Jenny and Mr. Lloyd in order to eventually catch them in the act. However, it is actually Sandy, who has become very increasing spiteful towards Miss Brodie and Jenny (for her beauty), who eventually incites an affair with Mr. Lloyd. Eventually Sandy calls off the affair when she discovers Mr. Lloyds obsession with Miss Brodie is still intact. In the end we see that Miss Brodie's impact on her girls has basically started to claim lives when her most incorrigible student Mary Macgregor goes of to Spain in order to become involved in the Fascist uprising and gets killed on a train that is bombed by rebel forces. This leads to Miss Mackay's termination of Miss Brodie in which Brodie puts all the blame on poor Sandy by the end of the play calling her an "assassin" and storming out of the room. The play ends as it begins with a nun who we now know is an adult Sandy speaking with an American journalist recalling her memories of Miss Jean Brodie in her prime.
I honestly chose this play because I just saw the performance at the Shaver Theatre Weds night and I wanted to support our theatre department's production by saying some positive words about the play, that and well, it's the first play I've seen in quite a while :). Anyway, the performances were wonderful but honestly, I am kind of on the fence about this play. The subject matter is morally questionable, I'm not a prude, but I also don't agree with underage sexual abuse, consensual or not, it's not something I take lightly. So I find it hard to stomach a play about a character that instigates these actions amongst her highly impressionable female students. Anyway, that being said, I do think that it is important to note that Spark specifically chose to make these students very young to begin with because it sets up the creepy/morally wrong vibe throughout the show and it definitely gives the audience a strong idea of how twisted the adult characters both Jean Brodie and Teddy Lloyd are. I find this interesting because Spark could have strayed away from being controversial but instead opted to take the route that he know would affect the reader(eventually the audience) more personally and that shows how strong of an impact a dramaturgical choice can have.
Sequence is also important in this play because again, it establishes a time frame in which these events are happening. It's important to know when the interactions with Mr. Lloyd are happening with both Jenny and Sandy due to the fact that they were nine years old when the play begins. If the audience or reader is unsure of the age of these girls when he begins painting them and making sexual advances towards them then society might revolt against the play. It's interesting that just due to the fact that time passes and the girls are older, it becomes slightly more acceptable that they are being painted nude by an older man. Whereas had these events taken place only a few years earlier this book/show might have been deemed unsuitable for society consumption. This just confirms how important a writer's or playwright's choice to establish a time frame/sequence of events makes a huge difference in a play, especially when dealing with such strong subject matter.
So the play takes place in Edinborough Scotland in the early 1930's and focuses on a teacher named Jean Brodie who is as she would say, "In her Prime". Miss Brodie is in her early 40's and has a over active sex drive that projects itself into her everyday teachings and personality. She is also an admirer of the fascist dictators Benito Mussolini and Francesco Franco in which she romanticizes their actions to her students. This becomes projected out to her pre-pubescent students as well, becoming a part of her everyday teachings essentially affecting the girls lives as well. There are four girls in particular that Ms. Brodie goes out of her way to "groom" them up into being little carbon copies of herself, making them emulate her actions and thoughts. This quickly becomes a problem when the school's head mistress Mrs. Mackay starts to pick up on the negative impact that Miss Brodie is having on her students. Eventually we come to find out that Miss Brodie is involved with a married man named Teddy Lloyd, who is her ex-lover and an art teacher in the senior section of the school. Mr. Lloyd is still very much obsessed with Miss Brodie, so much so that he paints portraits of her constantly in order to keep his passion at bay. Also, Jean catches the eye of music teacher/church choirmaster Gordon Lowther, in which she and the wind up spending a lot of time at his home in Cramond, a seaside village on the outskirts of Edinburgh. Throughout the whole affair Miss Brodie will sometimes spend the night with Mr. Lowther and keeps it a secret to everyone else. Mr. Lowther wants them to get married, but Brodie will not commit to him, this will eventually cause Mr. Lowther to leave her and marry the chemistry teacher Miss Lockheart. As the girls get older into their teenage years we see Miss Brodie starting to manipulate the girls into doing her will, in order to live out her own fantasies vicariously through them. Later in the play Miss Brodie trys to set events in motion that will entice Mr. Lloyd into having an affair with one of her more "mature" students, named Jenny. Throughout this time she uses another student named Sandy to spy on Jenny and Mr. Lloyd in order to eventually catch them in the act. However, it is actually Sandy, who has become very increasing spiteful towards Miss Brodie and Jenny (for her beauty), who eventually incites an affair with Mr. Lloyd. Eventually Sandy calls off the affair when she discovers Mr. Lloyds obsession with Miss Brodie is still intact. In the end we see that Miss Brodie's impact on her girls has basically started to claim lives when her most incorrigible student Mary Macgregor goes of to Spain in order to become involved in the Fascist uprising and gets killed on a train that is bombed by rebel forces. This leads to Miss Mackay's termination of Miss Brodie in which Brodie puts all the blame on poor Sandy by the end of the play calling her an "assassin" and storming out of the room. The play ends as it begins with a nun who we now know is an adult Sandy speaking with an American journalist recalling her memories of Miss Jean Brodie in her prime.
I honestly chose this play because I just saw the performance at the Shaver Theatre Weds night and I wanted to support our theatre department's production by saying some positive words about the play, that and well, it's the first play I've seen in quite a while :). Anyway, the performances were wonderful but honestly, I am kind of on the fence about this play. The subject matter is morally questionable, I'm not a prude, but I also don't agree with underage sexual abuse, consensual or not, it's not something I take lightly. So I find it hard to stomach a play about a character that instigates these actions amongst her highly impressionable female students. Anyway, that being said, I do think that it is important to note that Spark specifically chose to make these students very young to begin with because it sets up the creepy/morally wrong vibe throughout the show and it definitely gives the audience a strong idea of how twisted the adult characters both Jean Brodie and Teddy Lloyd are. I find this interesting because Spark could have strayed away from being controversial but instead opted to take the route that he know would affect the reader(eventually the audience) more personally and that shows how strong of an impact a dramaturgical choice can have.
Sequence is also important in this play because again, it establishes a time frame in which these events are happening. It's important to know when the interactions with Mr. Lloyd are happening with both Jenny and Sandy due to the fact that they were nine years old when the play begins. If the audience or reader is unsure of the age of these girls when he begins painting them and making sexual advances towards them then society might revolt against the play. It's interesting that just due to the fact that time passes and the girls are older, it becomes slightly more acceptable that they are being painted nude by an older man. Whereas had these events taken place only a few years earlier this book/show might have been deemed unsuitable for society consumption. This just confirms how important a writer's or playwright's choice to establish a time frame/sequence of events makes a huge difference in a play, especially when dealing with such strong subject matter.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Hornsby Patterns/Foreshadowing
In regard to Hornsby and how his idea of motif relates to Conduct of Life one of the blaring instances for me was the consistant character contradictions that make up the character of Leticia. This is a pattern that reoccurs throughout the play and I think this depiction of character is implemented by Fornes in order to establish a pattern of conflicting emotion and personality of this character to the audience. The reason I chose this to represent the idea of motif is because Fornes's choice to depict her characters this way sets the tone of the play so well and within itself creates a distance between the audience and the character that establishes the character as someone we can't invest our trust in.
Orlando is harder to figure out because we see many layers to his volitile personality and that is precisely why I chose to focus on Leticia in relation to motif and patterns. From the very start we hear Leticia making claims that she can't stand deer hunting and that she would save the innocent deer by stepping in front of a bullet for it. Later in the play she also claims that if she had money she would give back to the community and help those in need. This is another instance in which she contradicts her words when later we see her refusing to give her house maid money to buy a new cooking pot. Fornes establishes early on that Leticia's weaknesses outweigh her strenghts and this pattern repeats throughout the play. Fornes creates an interest in the character that makes the audience want to see where the story will take them. The pattern of character depiction resonates througout the play, raises questions, will Leticia stand up to Orlando in the end?; Will Leticia make good on her word and protect this child from her abusive husband? This is why I chose character motif in response to our blog question.
As far as motif is concerned in other dramatic productions I've chosen to focus on Christopher Nolan's strategic use of foreshadowing at the end of the film Batman Begins. There are several films I could have chosen and honestly there are far better examples im sure, but I ultimately chose Batman Begins because there is a clear cut moment in the film that foreshadows events on the horizon. As an audience member watching the film for the first time, we've just sat down and have experienced a great comic book character origin story unfold before us and just as we reach the point of denouement the film and we think things couldn't get any better we're given a glimpse of something quite unexpected and an idea of things to come. Batman has just defeated the films antagonist and we come to a final scene between the Batman and Commissioner Gordon. The two exchange words and discuss things to come atop the Police Headquarters. As the conversation continues we see Commissioner Gordon hand Batman a new piece of evidence in regard to a new criminal menace in Gotham City. Turns out it's none other than the Joker who has left his calling card for the police. Granted this is a pretty straight forward example of foreshadowing, but I can't help to admire it because it just sets up so many possibilities for things to come.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
How I Learned To Drive: The Post
Ok so, I'll jump on the, " I liked, How I Learned to Drive more, compared to Conduct of Life" bandwagon. Because honestly, even though the subject matter is very similar in both, Conduct of Life is so much harder to stomach in comparison to How I Learned to Drive. So in regard to Dr. Fletcher's first question(which we touched on in class today): I think it is absolutely paramount for a playwright to at times, remind the audience that indeed the overall message the reality is, we're still an audience in a theater watching a play. This is especially important when your subject matter contains characters that exhibit a socially unacceptable behavior. I might even be so bold and assume that this is why such a dramaturgical choice was made to depict a chorus that serves as a reminder of the theaters of old. This element of familiarity creates a general reassurance amongst the populace that even though the subject material is socially unacceptable (and for good reason) it opens the audience up to accepting the characters for who they are and not judge them souly on their actions. The addition of the chorus also sets the tone of the play right from the begginning and show the audience that it is ok to enjoy elements of the play, even when some of the character's actions are very inappropriate.
In response to Question 2: If I had to pick a moment in the play that seemed juxtaposed to the pattern established in the rest of the play; it would have to be the scene in which Peck takes cousin Bobby to go fishing. The reason I chose this scene in particular is because Vogel makes an interesting dramaturgical choice to stick this monologe within the play, just as the audience begins to get a sense of what the character of Peck is all about. After this scene you get the impression that he may not be an "ok" guy after all and you start to question why you had any empathy towards him to begin with(at least for me). Vogal creates a very powerful sense of dramatic irony in this scene leaving the audience to question what Peck's true intentions are and the result is a very subtle yet ambiguously tense situation. I think it's also important to note that Vogal chooses to take the chorus out of the picture(for the most part) in order to keep focus on the character of Peck in this scene. I think this choice puts the audience back into a more grounded mindset by taking the "play element" out of the scene and makes the mood slightly unnerving, especially towards the end in which we're given the impression that Peck may be planning to molest the boy. Obviously the subject matter here is cringeworthy, but I think it speaks to Vogel's writing talent that this play is more well received than oh, say, Conduct of Life for instance.
In response to Question 2: If I had to pick a moment in the play that seemed juxtaposed to the pattern established in the rest of the play; it would have to be the scene in which Peck takes cousin Bobby to go fishing. The reason I chose this scene in particular is because Vogel makes an interesting dramaturgical choice to stick this monologe within the play, just as the audience begins to get a sense of what the character of Peck is all about. After this scene you get the impression that he may not be an "ok" guy after all and you start to question why you had any empathy towards him to begin with(at least for me). Vogal creates a very powerful sense of dramatic irony in this scene leaving the audience to question what Peck's true intentions are and the result is a very subtle yet ambiguously tense situation. I think it's also important to note that Vogal chooses to take the chorus out of the picture(for the most part) in order to keep focus on the character of Peck in this scene. I think this choice puts the audience back into a more grounded mindset by taking the "play element" out of the scene and makes the mood slightly unnerving, especially towards the end in which we're given the impression that Peck may be planning to molest the boy. Obviously the subject matter here is cringeworthy, but I think it speaks to Vogel's writing talent that this play is more well received than oh, say, Conduct of Life for instance.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
My input on Conduct of Life:
This is heavy subject matter indeed, obviously pedophilia and rape are not exactly what people go into a theater hoping to see. For me personally, it's definitely challenging to pick out some positive aspects within this play, but not completely impossible. I think it's worth noting that regardless of the despicable nature Fornes was still able to create such strong and well rounded characters in turn forcing the reader to be invested in the story in a way that perhaps they don't really wish to pursue, but must in order to know how the story turns out. I found that my focus was on the actual characters and not strictly restricted to my formulating opinions on them by their actions alone. For example: While I don't condone or accept any of Orlando's actions within the play, I recognize that he is a broken human being and what he's been exposed to in his life has caused him some serious psychological damage. I became engrossed in Fornes character creation in that she actually lets us into the minds of these characters without an abundance of inner monologues. It's impressive that, while yes, her dramaturgical style is more abrupt and pared down you're still able to pick up on strong character definition before the second act of the play even begins. It's easy to recognize right off the bat that Orlando is a really unstable and terribly twisted individual and the characters around him are being sucked into his world of pain and despair. I also appreciated and immediately recognized her choice to make the play a little more disjointed and not overly structured for the sake of character portrayal. Orlando has taken all these innocent people down with him into his downward spiral and I think Fornes choice to throw the audience off balance with this jarring transition of scenes and dialogue makes it all the more enveloping. This was a great way to represent the fractured world in which these characters dwell and it creates a tension that stays with the reader until the final shocking conclusion. Overall I am not a fan of this play, I am however very interested in reading more from Fornes in the future, hoping to get a better understanding of who she is as a playwright.
This is heavy subject matter indeed, obviously pedophilia and rape are not exactly what people go into a theater hoping to see. For me personally, it's definitely challenging to pick out some positive aspects within this play, but not completely impossible. I think it's worth noting that regardless of the despicable nature Fornes was still able to create such strong and well rounded characters in turn forcing the reader to be invested in the story in a way that perhaps they don't really wish to pursue, but must in order to know how the story turns out. I found that my focus was on the actual characters and not strictly restricted to my formulating opinions on them by their actions alone. For example: While I don't condone or accept any of Orlando's actions within the play, I recognize that he is a broken human being and what he's been exposed to in his life has caused him some serious psychological damage. I became engrossed in Fornes character creation in that she actually lets us into the minds of these characters without an abundance of inner monologues. It's impressive that, while yes, her dramaturgical style is more abrupt and pared down you're still able to pick up on strong character definition before the second act of the play even begins. It's easy to recognize right off the bat that Orlando is a really unstable and terribly twisted individual and the characters around him are being sucked into his world of pain and despair. I also appreciated and immediately recognized her choice to make the play a little more disjointed and not overly structured for the sake of character portrayal. Orlando has taken all these innocent people down with him into his downward spiral and I think Fornes choice to throw the audience off balance with this jarring transition of scenes and dialogue makes it all the more enveloping. This was a great way to represent the fractured world in which these characters dwell and it creates a tension that stays with the reader until the final shocking conclusion. Overall I am not a fan of this play, I am however very interested in reading more from Fornes in the future, hoping to get a better understanding of who she is as a playwright.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Trifles, by Susan Glaaspell:
This is another play that deals with strong character traits and depicts how those traits are perceived within our society. Overall it portrays women in both a positive and negative light, while the men tend to come off as being chauvinistic and downright inept.
Now, this is an early 20th Century play and Glaspell makes a great point in showing that women are just as capable as men are at solving issues or conundrums and still they can be often overlooked as a source of positive contribution to the society in which they live. This is slightly less relevant by today's standards, but the central idea of the play still resonates within today's society. The reason being is that it speaks to us as human beings and we can relate to how it might feel to be someone who gets overlooked by their peers and yet is more than capable of performing an action just as well as they. The feel and look of this play are clearly defined by the surrounds of a rural town consisting of down-home folks who know each other well and are typically in each other's business.
That being said, Dr. Fletcher's question is a very interesting one indeed, because this play is very much naturalistic by design and might not work as a more abstract stripped down version of itself....or maybe it could work.
It's quite possible that a blatant white-wash of these characters' environment may take away from the overall effect and meaning of the play itself in which Glaspell intends to convey natural human reactions. Then again, it could make the characters strengths and weaknesses come across more effectively than the standard set piece of the play might achieve. The reason being is that if we take away the backdrop of this play we're still left with some very defined central characters that stand out from the tertiary characters (the men) thus granting the slightly feministic overtones to truly shine without distraction. However, I tend to be of the mind that if you strip away these character's surroundings the play will likely suffer and lose it's effectiveness in portraying true to life reactions that would likely happen in reaction to a situation like murder. If you take away the defined time, place, era, and cultural background of these characters the audience will most likely miss out on the central theme of this play. It might be harder to even invest in the moments of tension that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peter share when they discover the truth about Mrs. Wright murdering her husband if all of their surroundings become more of a question than an exact depiction. In my opinion the play stands to lose more than gain from a minimalist approach to the production design. That's not to say it couldn't be done, on the contrary it most definitely could be, of course, that's not to say it should be.
This is another play that deals with strong character traits and depicts how those traits are perceived within our society. Overall it portrays women in both a positive and negative light, while the men tend to come off as being chauvinistic and downright inept.
Now, this is an early 20th Century play and Glaspell makes a great point in showing that women are just as capable as men are at solving issues or conundrums and still they can be often overlooked as a source of positive contribution to the society in which they live. This is slightly less relevant by today's standards, but the central idea of the play still resonates within today's society. The reason being is that it speaks to us as human beings and we can relate to how it might feel to be someone who gets overlooked by their peers and yet is more than capable of performing an action just as well as they. The feel and look of this play are clearly defined by the surrounds of a rural town consisting of down-home folks who know each other well and are typically in each other's business.
That being said, Dr. Fletcher's question is a very interesting one indeed, because this play is very much naturalistic by design and might not work as a more abstract stripped down version of itself....or maybe it could work.
It's quite possible that a blatant white-wash of these characters' environment may take away from the overall effect and meaning of the play itself in which Glaspell intends to convey natural human reactions. Then again, it could make the characters strengths and weaknesses come across more effectively than the standard set piece of the play might achieve. The reason being is that if we take away the backdrop of this play we're still left with some very defined central characters that stand out from the tertiary characters (the men) thus granting the slightly feministic overtones to truly shine without distraction. However, I tend to be of the mind that if you strip away these character's surroundings the play will likely suffer and lose it's effectiveness in portraying true to life reactions that would likely happen in reaction to a situation like murder. If you take away the defined time, place, era, and cultural background of these characters the audience will most likely miss out on the central theme of this play. It might be harder to even invest in the moments of tension that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peter share when they discover the truth about Mrs. Wright murdering her husband if all of their surroundings become more of a question than an exact depiction. In my opinion the play stands to lose more than gain from a minimalist approach to the production design. That's not to say it couldn't be done, on the contrary it most definitely could be, of course, that's not to say it should be.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
So, I thoroughly enjoyed Overtones, even though initially I expected it to be slightly droll, but in the end I was pleasantly surprised. I quickly determined that there is clearly more to the play than meets the eye. It is obviously more than just some weird story about two snobby women and their "alter-egos". And there in lies the question: What's the deal with these alter egos?
So, pertaining to Dr. Fletcher's question, what are the logistics/rules of Hetty and Maggies' world, how are they communicating? Are they actually communicating to one another? Can they see each other, etc.......
Well, In short, I believe they can see each other and are indeed communicating with one another, if only just in brief instances. My personal analysis would indicate that although the audience is left to fend for themselves to determine how Hetty and Mattie interact with one another there is still has to be a reason for their ability to converse with each other even though one could argue that they don't technically exist. I think perhaps Gerstenberg's intention was to portray the two characters in stark contrast to their "trained selves", in order to define for the audience, a sense of the familiar existing in an alternate reality. Now, albeit this alternate reality an unrealistic concept(especially in 1913), it's a strangely believable alternate reality that Gerstenberg creates here with ease. No matter how you pick this play apart, it all comes down to basic human emotions and when dealing with emotions, typically rules go out the window. The concept of this is really quite remarkable, and the fact that Gerstenberg pulled it off in 1913 is even more remarkable. Not only does the play draw the audience in, but it also takes a somewhat fantastical premise, puts it directly in the audience's face almost immediately and more often than not the play is ultimately accepted in a positive light, because the audience can relate to the characters and their basic human traits, even when in this particular instance these two individuals don't really exist.
Now, for my take on how, or why Hetty and Maggie seem to be capable of communicating to each other is a little more thought-provoking, I hope. I believe that in the final moments of the play in which we hear Hetty scream to Maggie as they part ways, "I Hate You!" And then almost immediately following we hear Maggie's fierce response, "I Hate You! This is the culmination of the emotions that these two women have been feeling towards one another for quite some time. Perhaps it is in that very instant that both Maggie and Hetty actually catch a glimpse of one another and are actually acknowledging one another. Harriet and Margaret's emotions are running so high at this moment that their inner selves are just waiting to break out and tear the other apart. And its in this time, when dealing with human emotions that even a simple nod of the head can mean death. With a mind full of emotions lacking reason, one's true self has a way of being revealed. And still these two women, part ways as "friends". Oh what tangled webs we weave.......
So, pertaining to Dr. Fletcher's question, what are the logistics/rules of Hetty and Maggies' world, how are they communicating? Are they actually communicating to one another? Can they see each other, etc.......
Well, In short, I believe they can see each other and are indeed communicating with one another, if only just in brief instances. My personal analysis would indicate that although the audience is left to fend for themselves to determine how Hetty and Mattie interact with one another there is still has to be a reason for their ability to converse with each other even though one could argue that they don't technically exist. I think perhaps Gerstenberg's intention was to portray the two characters in stark contrast to their "trained selves", in order to define for the audience, a sense of the familiar existing in an alternate reality. Now, albeit this alternate reality an unrealistic concept(especially in 1913), it's a strangely believable alternate reality that Gerstenberg creates here with ease. No matter how you pick this play apart, it all comes down to basic human emotions and when dealing with emotions, typically rules go out the window. The concept of this is really quite remarkable, and the fact that Gerstenberg pulled it off in 1913 is even more remarkable. Not only does the play draw the audience in, but it also takes a somewhat fantastical premise, puts it directly in the audience's face almost immediately and more often than not the play is ultimately accepted in a positive light, because the audience can relate to the characters and their basic human traits, even when in this particular instance these two individuals don't really exist.
Now, for my take on how, or why Hetty and Maggie seem to be capable of communicating to each other is a little more thought-provoking, I hope. I believe that in the final moments of the play in which we hear Hetty scream to Maggie as they part ways, "I Hate You!" And then almost immediately following we hear Maggie's fierce response, "I Hate You! This is the culmination of the emotions that these two women have been feeling towards one another for quite some time. Perhaps it is in that very instant that both Maggie and Hetty actually catch a glimpse of one another and are actually acknowledging one another. Harriet and Margaret's emotions are running so high at this moment that their inner selves are just waiting to break out and tear the other apart. And its in this time, when dealing with human emotions that even a simple nod of the head can mean death. With a mind full of emotions lacking reason, one's true self has a way of being revealed. And still these two women, part ways as "friends". Oh what tangled webs we weave.......
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)