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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)