ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
FIVE
Saturday, May 4, 2013
SHOW AND TELL: THE DEBUTANTE BALL
In honor of my ATKM ladies, I'm doing The Debutante Ball by Beth Henley.
The playwright, as I said, is Beth Henley. I have misplaced my copy, but I have read it more than once. To my knowledge, this play has not been on Broadway or off-Broadway, but I can tell you that is has been produced regionally. However, I do not think it is produced very often because it is not one of Henley's more famous plays like Crimes of the Heart. Obviously, all of this information is from my own memory as I have misplaced my copy and this info is not on the internet.
The plot of the play begins on the day of Teddy Parker's debutante ball. Teddy is an awkward girl who absolutely does not want to be a debutante. She has quite a few mental issues going on, and we find out that she is pregnant. Her mother, Jen was quite a beautiful socialite in Hattiesburg, but she has recently been shunned because of her questionable acquittal in her husband's murder. She has a new squeeze (her defense attorney), and is looking to make Teddy's ball her own "rebirth" in the social community. Along the way, we meet Teddy's completely crazy sister, the defense attorney's deaf niece, and the defense attorney's son who limps around on crutches. To say the least....the night is a hilarious and sad disaster. I'm not spoiling the rest...just read it.
The first interesting dramaturgical choice that I found is the absolute ambiguity of most of the characters. We really don't figure out all of the secrets of these characters until the bitter end. Henley intentionally makes us wonder what's underneath all of the characters at all time, and it certainly puts me on edge when I read it. The second choice that I find fascinating is the type of irony that Henley uses. It's a sort of dramatic irony in which we laugh because the characters don't know how f&*%ed they are. It really makes the entire show. It's a script of laughing at other people's pain.
The playwright, as I said, is Beth Henley. I have misplaced my copy, but I have read it more than once. To my knowledge, this play has not been on Broadway or off-Broadway, but I can tell you that is has been produced regionally. However, I do not think it is produced very often because it is not one of Henley's more famous plays like Crimes of the Heart. Obviously, all of this information is from my own memory as I have misplaced my copy and this info is not on the internet.
The plot of the play begins on the day of Teddy Parker's debutante ball. Teddy is an awkward girl who absolutely does not want to be a debutante. She has quite a few mental issues going on, and we find out that she is pregnant. Her mother, Jen was quite a beautiful socialite in Hattiesburg, but she has recently been shunned because of her questionable acquittal in her husband's murder. She has a new squeeze (her defense attorney), and is looking to make Teddy's ball her own "rebirth" in the social community. Along the way, we meet Teddy's completely crazy sister, the defense attorney's deaf niece, and the defense attorney's son who limps around on crutches. To say the least....the night is a hilarious and sad disaster. I'm not spoiling the rest...just read it.
The first interesting dramaturgical choice that I found is the absolute ambiguity of most of the characters. We really don't figure out all of the secrets of these characters until the bitter end. Henley intentionally makes us wonder what's underneath all of the characters at all time, and it certainly puts me on edge when I read it. The second choice that I find fascinating is the type of irony that Henley uses. It's a sort of dramatic irony in which we laugh because the characters don't know how f&*%ed they are. It really makes the entire show. It's a script of laughing at other people's pain.
DROWSY CHAPERONE
I think that progression and rhythm are the two biggest Hornby elements that would change the way you would analyze this musical. It seems to me that the music would do a a whole lot more than the script in terms of indicating the progression of a motif. The music allows you to hear the resolution of conflicts, the reshaping of themes, etc. that you may not necessarily see with the script. Tempo is also hugely important in a musical. Often, the tempo suggests a mood for the audience. Based on the music, the audience can often tell whether the tone of a scene or moment is comedic, dramatic, or something else entirely. Tempo within the music also indicates the level of tension of conflict present in the script. The lyrics may not indicate a build or rising action that the tempo of the music might.
THREE VIEWINGS
Okay. To start off with the easy question, Nettie James. But that's super duper obvious.
For the deeper question, I think a recurring theme is that "you don't know what you have until it's gone" kind of thing. In all three monologues, a character is longing for someone that they had or failed to get. These characters took their respective people for granted. For example, Virginia begins to miss her husband only after she has lost him. She finally has the time to look back on all of the time she shared with him and what it meant for her. Mac begins to miss her own family at the funeral of her grandmother. She realizes that she took her family for granted when she is faced with the death of her grandmother. It seems that only after coming out of her semi-suicidal phase, Mac can see the value of family and love. For Emil, Tessie doesn't mean nearly as much until after she is dead. He does not realize that even someone who knew him like Tessie was still a dear presence in his life.
For the deeper question, I think a recurring theme is that "you don't know what you have until it's gone" kind of thing. In all three monologues, a character is longing for someone that they had or failed to get. These characters took their respective people for granted. For example, Virginia begins to miss her husband only after she has lost him. She finally has the time to look back on all of the time she shared with him and what it meant for her. Mac begins to miss her own family at the funeral of her grandmother. She realizes that she took her family for granted when she is faced with the death of her grandmother. It seems that only after coming out of her semi-suicidal phase, Mac can see the value of family and love. For Emil, Tessie doesn't mean nearly as much until after she is dead. He does not realize that even someone who knew him like Tessie was still a dear presence in his life.
ON THE VERGE
I'm going to have to do the "optional" portion of this prompt, because I have absolutely no clue where to start for a promotional image.
I think that Mr. Coffee is one of two things--Death or God. Really, he could be one and the same. I think that his very ambiguous nature is important in realizing that he is less of a character and more of an idea. The fact that he says that they'll meet again is a huge indicator that he's one of the two.
Sorry this isn't a very meaty post...I don't have a whole lot else to say. :)
I think that Mr. Coffee is one of two things--Death or God. Really, he could be one and the same. I think that his very ambiguous nature is important in realizing that he is less of a character and more of an idea. The fact that he says that they'll meet again is a huge indicator that he's one of the two.
Sorry this isn't a very meaty post...I don't have a whole lot else to say. :)
FIRES IN THE MIRROR
This piece was not written to discuss what happened in Crown Heights. If that was the point, the playwright could have simply written the events into play form or simply re-capped the news. This piece is about identity, how we express it, and how identities can clash with others. Most importantly, it is about the disastrous results when people who share in an "identity" conflict with another group of similar people.
Without the first chunk of monologues in the piece, Smith accomplishes nothing more than a news report. These monologues not only frame the events surrounding the riot, they make the events RELEVANT. The playwright here is more interested in what these events say about us as individuals, not the effect these riots had on a nation. One of the reasons that there are so many of these "introductory" monologues is to establish a point. People of different ages and backgrounds can share in an aspect of life that binds them together in a single identity. This could be a race, a religion, or even hair texture. Smith is interested in what connects these people before she explores what happens when conflicts arise between them.
So, by cutting them out, what would we lose? We would lose the part of Smith's work that is art. We would lose what distinguishes her from a newscaster or a novelist. Smith's craft is to take events and make us examine them in a way that we may not have before.
Without the first chunk of monologues in the piece, Smith accomplishes nothing more than a news report. These monologues not only frame the events surrounding the riot, they make the events RELEVANT. The playwright here is more interested in what these events say about us as individuals, not the effect these riots had on a nation. One of the reasons that there are so many of these "introductory" monologues is to establish a point. People of different ages and backgrounds can share in an aspect of life that binds them together in a single identity. This could be a race, a religion, or even hair texture. Smith is interested in what connects these people before she explores what happens when conflicts arise between them.
So, by cutting them out, what would we lose? We would lose the part of Smith's work that is art. We would lose what distinguishes her from a newscaster or a novelist. Smith's craft is to take events and make us examine them in a way that we may not have before.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
SHOW & TELL: ASSASSINS
I thought this would be appropriate because we were talking about Stephen Sondheim and dissonance the other day in class. **My information for this post comes from my own copy of the play.
Assassins was written in the late 1980's. The music is by Stephen Sondheim and the book is by John Weidman. It premiered off Broadway in 1990 with the original cast featuring Victor Garber, Patrick Cassidy, Annie Golden, etc. It received a combination of good and bad reviews/responses. A revival was put together originally in 2000-2001, but the production was postponed because of the events of 9-11. In 2004, the revival began at Roundabout. The cast featured Neal Patrick Harris, Michael Cerveris, Marc Kudisch, and Alexander Gemignani. For this production, Assassins won the Tony Awards for Best Revival of a Musical, Best Featured Actor in a Musical, Best Lighting Design, Best Direction of a Musical, and Best Orchestration. In this revival a few things were added and changed from the original production; Neil Patrick Harris played both the Balladeer and Lee Harvey Oswald. Kendra Kassebaum entered the production to play an added role, the Housewife, and a new song entitled "Something Just Broke" was added to the score. The play is staged fairly often in colleges and regional theatres. However, the intense issues and nature of the show often make it fit a featured or limited timeslot rather than a mainstage production spot.
Assassins is very much a nightmare sequence. It opens with a Proprietor enticing the assassins to follow their dreams and sells them weapons. There are nine assassins: John Wilkes Booth, Leon Czolgosz, Charles Guiteau, Giuseppe Zangara, Lee Harvey Oswald, Samuel Byck, John Hinckley, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, and Sarah Jane Moore. These are all people who lived and actually tried to assassinate presidents, however successfully. The show interchanges scenes with musical numbers. The setting is very ambiguous. Some believe that the play is set in a kind of hell that these assassins meet and function in. Throughout the show, they meet and find common ground in their feelings of inadequacy an injustice. John Wilkes Booth emerges as a clear leader and setter of precedents. In the show's climax (the climax to me anyway), the assassins sing "Another National Anthem," which sums up their feelings of injustice in America and the impossibility of achieving dreams without drastic measures.
As far as dramaturgical choices, I think the most interesting one is that the Assassins have relationships with one another. None of these people really met or shared interests. In fact, they often felt isolated and unheard. I think that it's really noteworthy that Weidman and Sondheim are suggesting that these assassins are in a kind of alternate society. This show seems to suggest that there will always be an undertow of unsatisfied and unheard people in this nation, and the thought of them banding together the way they do in Assassins is terrifying. The other choice that I find noteworthy is the decision to add the song "Something Just Broke" to the revival score. Previously, the show was about the nine assassins and their point of view. Someone seeing the original production would likely have left the theater feeling no resolution or sympathy for anyone but the nation. In the case of the revival, this new song told the stories of everyday Americans who experienced the consequences of these assassins and their actions. I think that that completely changes the way that someone would view the play and the central story of the play.
Assassins was written in the late 1980's. The music is by Stephen Sondheim and the book is by John Weidman. It premiered off Broadway in 1990 with the original cast featuring Victor Garber, Patrick Cassidy, Annie Golden, etc. It received a combination of good and bad reviews/responses. A revival was put together originally in 2000-2001, but the production was postponed because of the events of 9-11. In 2004, the revival began at Roundabout. The cast featured Neal Patrick Harris, Michael Cerveris, Marc Kudisch, and Alexander Gemignani. For this production, Assassins won the Tony Awards for Best Revival of a Musical, Best Featured Actor in a Musical, Best Lighting Design, Best Direction of a Musical, and Best Orchestration. In this revival a few things were added and changed from the original production; Neil Patrick Harris played both the Balladeer and Lee Harvey Oswald. Kendra Kassebaum entered the production to play an added role, the Housewife, and a new song entitled "Something Just Broke" was added to the score. The play is staged fairly often in colleges and regional theatres. However, the intense issues and nature of the show often make it fit a featured or limited timeslot rather than a mainstage production spot.
Assassins is very much a nightmare sequence. It opens with a Proprietor enticing the assassins to follow their dreams and sells them weapons. There are nine assassins: John Wilkes Booth, Leon Czolgosz, Charles Guiteau, Giuseppe Zangara, Lee Harvey Oswald, Samuel Byck, John Hinckley, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, and Sarah Jane Moore. These are all people who lived and actually tried to assassinate presidents, however successfully. The show interchanges scenes with musical numbers. The setting is very ambiguous. Some believe that the play is set in a kind of hell that these assassins meet and function in. Throughout the show, they meet and find common ground in their feelings of inadequacy an injustice. John Wilkes Booth emerges as a clear leader and setter of precedents. In the show's climax (the climax to me anyway), the assassins sing "Another National Anthem," which sums up their feelings of injustice in America and the impossibility of achieving dreams without drastic measures.
As far as dramaturgical choices, I think the most interesting one is that the Assassins have relationships with one another. None of these people really met or shared interests. In fact, they often felt isolated and unheard. I think that it's really noteworthy that Weidman and Sondheim are suggesting that these assassins are in a kind of alternate society. This show seems to suggest that there will always be an undertow of unsatisfied and unheard people in this nation, and the thought of them banding together the way they do in Assassins is terrifying. The other choice that I find noteworthy is the decision to add the song "Something Just Broke" to the revival score. Previously, the show was about the nine assassins and their point of view. Someone seeing the original production would likely have left the theater feeling no resolution or sympathy for anyone but the nation. In the case of the revival, this new song told the stories of everyday Americans who experienced the consequences of these assassins and their actions. I think that that completely changes the way that someone would view the play and the central story of the play.
DETROIT
So. Detroit. I also really like this one. I like that D'Amour gives the actor and the director choices in her stage directions. I also like that she's such a casual writer.
So why is the play called Detroit? I think that she's trying to emphasize the increasing anonymity between people living in communities. Detroit is a place that's kind of known for having a huge economic center and a bunch of surrounding suburbs because of the car industry. Recently, this city has undergone quite a transformation because of the economic recession and the state of industry in general. This really fits with Ben's character who's been laid off from his job. With this recession, people in the United States are increasingly concerned with their own lives and not with connecting with others. Community isn't something that exists anymore. So, I don't think that D'Amour cares if the play is set in Detroit, but I think she named it that to emphasize that she wanted the suburb to crumbling money wise and community wise.
So why is the play called Detroit? I think that she's trying to emphasize the increasing anonymity between people living in communities. Detroit is a place that's kind of known for having a huge economic center and a bunch of surrounding suburbs because of the car industry. Recently, this city has undergone quite a transformation because of the economic recession and the state of industry in general. This really fits with Ben's character who's been laid off from his job. With this recession, people in the United States are increasingly concerned with their own lives and not with connecting with others. Community isn't something that exists anymore. So, I don't think that D'Amour cares if the play is set in Detroit, but I think she named it that to emphasize that she wanted the suburb to crumbling money wise and community wise.
WATER BY THE SPOONFUL
First of all, I just want to say that I LOVED reading this play. I think it's phenomenal, and I would really like to see it performed.
There are quite a few sections in which the two stories begin to overlap or interact. I think the biggest example is when Yaz takes over the website. Yaz and Elliot pretty much always stay outside of the world of the chatroom. When Odessa is unable to contribute to the website after her relapse, Yaz takes over as administrator. I think that for the unifying principle and Hudes' story, this scene is important because it demonstrates what Yaz and Elliot have learned from their experiences. They have to think about how they affect others with their own actions. The events in Water by the Spoonful lead both of them to broaden their horizons and broaden their social interactions for the greater good. I think the central motif of the play is providing for others, so the scene with Yaz in the chatroom is really crucial to showing that.
There are quite a few sections in which the two stories begin to overlap or interact. I think the biggest example is when Yaz takes over the website. Yaz and Elliot pretty much always stay outside of the world of the chatroom. When Odessa is unable to contribute to the website after her relapse, Yaz takes over as administrator. I think that for the unifying principle and Hudes' story, this scene is important because it demonstrates what Yaz and Elliot have learned from their experiences. They have to think about how they affect others with their own actions. The events in Water by the Spoonful lead both of them to broaden their horizons and broaden their social interactions for the greater good. I think the central motif of the play is providing for others, so the scene with Yaz in the chatroom is really crucial to showing that.
BURIED CHILD
I think that ambiguity is the biggest thing that makes Buried Child stick out from other illusionistic plays. Throughout the play, there are numerous examples of ambiguity. To name a few:
1. The source of all of these vegetables that Tilden has gotten a hold of. Did he plant them? Is he stealing them from a neighbor? Are they miraculously growing in the yard?
2. What's up with Ansel? He's barely mentioned, and that plot never really gets resolved. We never get to know if Ansel really passed the way that Halie said he passed.
3. Why doesn't anyone acknowledge who Vince is? They couldn't have just forgotten who he was after a few years. What kind of games is this family playing?
4. What happened to Tilden in New Mexico? Did he commit a crime or get into trouble? Or, is he completely insane and just thinks that he is in trouble?
In general, the family doesn't have the kind of structure or the kinds of norms that other illusionistic plays have. It's more than just a power struggle. This family is playing a game, and only they know the rules to the game. To sum it all up, the family is living in a world of real circumstances, but their relationships with one another are not illusionistic.
1. The source of all of these vegetables that Tilden has gotten a hold of. Did he plant them? Is he stealing them from a neighbor? Are they miraculously growing in the yard?
2. What's up with Ansel? He's barely mentioned, and that plot never really gets resolved. We never get to know if Ansel really passed the way that Halie said he passed.
3. Why doesn't anyone acknowledge who Vince is? They couldn't have just forgotten who he was after a few years. What kind of games is this family playing?
4. What happened to Tilden in New Mexico? Did he commit a crime or get into trouble? Or, is he completely insane and just thinks that he is in trouble?
In general, the family doesn't have the kind of structure or the kinds of norms that other illusionistic plays have. It's more than just a power struggle. This family is playing a game, and only they know the rules to the game. To sum it all up, the family is living in a world of real circumstances, but their relationships with one another are not illusionistic.
NOISES OFF
An obvious but not-so-explored motif in Noises Off is doors. Doors are constantly opening and closing in the scenes, and these entrances and exits dictate a lot of the play's plot. The doors seem to separate the outside "world" of the play in which the actors are having relationship problems and the world of the play in which the characters are interacting. The doors also separate different complications for the play. A lot of times, the entrances and exits of the characters determine the next problem that the actors will be going through. The opening and shutting of doors also gives the characters a chance to put aside different relationships or moments in the play to start a new one.
As far as a tag line, I'm sure there have been hundreds for this play. I would probably choose, "Oh, the sardines." I think the misplacement of the sardines is really hilarious throughout the play, and, to me, a tagline reminds you of the thing that you remember after the play is finished. I cannot even begin to come up with a unifying principle for this play, so I have "got nothing" as far as how this tagline would relate to a unifying principle.
As far as a tag line, I'm sure there have been hundreds for this play. I would probably choose, "Oh, the sardines." I think the misplacement of the sardines is really hilarious throughout the play, and, to me, a tagline reminds you of the thing that you remember after the play is finished. I cannot even begin to come up with a unifying principle for this play, so I have "got nothing" as far as how this tagline would relate to a unifying principle.
Monday, March 25, 2013
GLASS OF WATER
Woo! It's been a while.
I believe that the protagonist in Glass of Water is Abigail. I think her struggles are the most central to the plot, and I think she is certainly the most likable character. I definitely think that Scribe wanted us to root for Abigail. Abigail is the one character who pursues a clear goal throughout the script and achieves this goal in the end of the play. Her goal, of course, is to be with Masham.
I will say, however, that I am not convinced that finding a protagonist or antagonist within this script is explicitly useful. During my analyses, I have not come across a point in which ranking characters in terms of importance or considering who has the most conflict in a script has served a purpose. I think that analyzing this play is possible without answering the question Dr. Fletcher has posed. I think discussing the group of characters who play within the main action as a whole is sufficient.
I believe that the protagonist in Glass of Water is Abigail. I think her struggles are the most central to the plot, and I think she is certainly the most likable character. I definitely think that Scribe wanted us to root for Abigail. Abigail is the one character who pursues a clear goal throughout the script and achieves this goal in the end of the play. Her goal, of course, is to be with Masham.
I will say, however, that I am not convinced that finding a protagonist or antagonist within this script is explicitly useful. During my analyses, I have not come across a point in which ranking characters in terms of importance or considering who has the most conflict in a script has served a purpose. I think that analyzing this play is possible without answering the question Dr. Fletcher has posed. I think discussing the group of characters who play within the main action as a whole is sufficient.
Friday, February 15, 2013
SHOW & TELL: BLACKBIRD
For my first show-and-tell post, I'd like to
share with you one of my favorites:
Blackbird by
David Harrower
This play premiered in 2005 at the Edinburgh International Festival. Since then, it has ben produced by the West End Albery Theatre, off-Broadway, and at venues all over the world. (This information comes from my copy of the play.)
This is a really unusual play. The way it's written
is very different from what most of us are used to reading. There are two
characters, Ray and Una. Ray is 55 years old and Una is 27 years old. The play
is one act, ninety minutes, and takes place in one room. The room is in Ray's
workplace--the break room. Una has come to confront Ray about their
relationship that unfolded fifteen years prior--when Una was only 12. Since
that relationship ended in a climatic set of circumstances, Ray has been
arrested, served time, been released, and started a new life. Una has tracked
him down after seeing a photograph of him, and has come to ask him a long line
of pointed questions. The two of them, after breaching the extreme level of
awkwardness, begin to re-examine what happened 15 years ago and why, after all
of this time, they still find themselves attracted to the other.
Sounds cool, right? It is. Two dramaturgical choices make it so:
1. The dialogue is
written in a really unconventional style in which the two characters often cut
each other off and finish one another's sentences. The dialogue is also chopped
up quite a bit: Harrower begins a new line with every new thought. In fact,
sometimes there is merely one word per line. I've never seen this play produced
but I am dying to see how actors could portray this unique method of
storytelling. I think this is really an unprecedented way of writing and I know of no other play that resembles the text of this one. IT GETS BETTER...
2. Although the play takes place in one room with no
intermission or break, the events of their past unfold in this weird, ethereal
reality that the reader/audience experiences with them. Within the rising
action, both Ray and Una have a monologue in which they relate to the other
their experience of the night that their relationship simultaneously peaked and
ended. The story is told in a strange present-past that I find so stimulating. Not only are you seeing and living two stories at once..you also experience how each character remembers it AND how they feel about it. Again, I think this is noteworthy because few other plays that I've read tell two stories at once while only one is actually happening in front of you.
I won't give anything else away or reveal any details but you NEED to read
it. It's one of the most unique and thrilling reading experiences I've ever
had. You won't be able to put it down.
HORNBY: MOTIFS
So, after reading Hornby, we have many new lenses through which we can look at plays. One of the newer things that we're keeping in mind is motifs.
In How I Learned to Drive:
The "largest" or most obvious motif is Vogel's use of the gears of a car to indicate her "roadmap" for the play. For example, one scene is called "Idling in First Gear." I think that this motif does many things, but it primarily reflects the action of the scene and how it should fit into the play given the names of the other scenes. Although the motifs of the names of the scenes does repeat, it is modified throughout. As the play progresses, the gears change. Sometimes, Vogel even uses more direct titles, such as "You and the First Gear." That's a very direct indication that she wants her audience to identify with Lil' Bit or at least think about our own developments when we were learning to drive.
In The Rescuers (yes, the childhood favorite of many)
I saw this film for the first time in years the other day. I had forgotten what a beautiful movie it was. In The Rescuers, Penny has a teddy bear that comes up a lot. She and Madame Medusa fight over the teddy bear, the teddy bear is damaged and stolen at some points, etc. However, the teddy bear comes back again and again. What's interesting is that this really simple motif drives Penny's entire character home. (for the adults watching, anyway.) Penny's teddy bear mirrors Penny's desires for a family and her need to be taken care of. When Madame Medusa takes her teddy bear until she can find the Devil's Eye Diamond, a climax is reached wherein Penny must fight for what she wants. It's really a cute and very simple symbol/motif.
Scripts v. Productions
I think that a motif is certainly different in the script than it is in a fully realized production. For one, it can be hard, sometimes, to really notice a motif in a production if you only see it once. The focus is the acting, so if the actors aren't using, interacting with, or speaking about a motif, the audience may not see it or understand its significance. I also think motifs can be more powerful in a script because the reader is prepared to think about what every detail means and can go back and read a page again if he finds something that could be significant. It's tricky to convey a motif in a production, in my opinion.
In How I Learned to Drive:
The "largest" or most obvious motif is Vogel's use of the gears of a car to indicate her "roadmap" for the play. For example, one scene is called "Idling in First Gear." I think that this motif does many things, but it primarily reflects the action of the scene and how it should fit into the play given the names of the other scenes. Although the motifs of the names of the scenes does repeat, it is modified throughout. As the play progresses, the gears change. Sometimes, Vogel even uses more direct titles, such as "You and the First Gear." That's a very direct indication that she wants her audience to identify with Lil' Bit or at least think about our own developments when we were learning to drive.
In The Rescuers (yes, the childhood favorite of many)
I saw this film for the first time in years the other day. I had forgotten what a beautiful movie it was. In The Rescuers, Penny has a teddy bear that comes up a lot. She and Madame Medusa fight over the teddy bear, the teddy bear is damaged and stolen at some points, etc. However, the teddy bear comes back again and again. What's interesting is that this really simple motif drives Penny's entire character home. (for the adults watching, anyway.) Penny's teddy bear mirrors Penny's desires for a family and her need to be taken care of. When Madame Medusa takes her teddy bear until she can find the Devil's Eye Diamond, a climax is reached wherein Penny must fight for what she wants. It's really a cute and very simple symbol/motif.
Scripts v. Productions
I think that a motif is certainly different in the script than it is in a fully realized production. For one, it can be hard, sometimes, to really notice a motif in a production if you only see it once. The focus is the acting, so if the actors aren't using, interacting with, or speaking about a motif, the audience may not see it or understand its significance. I also think motifs can be more powerful in a script because the reader is prepared to think about what every detail means and can go back and read a page again if he finds something that could be significant. It's tricky to convey a motif in a production, in my opinion.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
HOW I LEARNED TO DRIVE
As I've mentioned, I love this play. It is, without a doubt, one of my favorites, and I read it all the time. This time, getting out my copy to re-read for about the 10th time, I read it for the details...
1) The Greek Chorus. To me, this choice indicates that Vogel believes Lil' Bit and Uncle Peck to be the only two characters in a lot of ways. This is their story. There are other parts of their lives, but this play is the story of their relationship and the effect it had on the two of them. Writing a chorus kind of makes the other characters run together like wet paint. I love that about this script. We get the overall intention of these outside influences without specifically seeing many characters. For example, when Uncle Peck is fishing with BB, we get this tremendous concentration from Uncle Peck, and we aren't tempted to look at the little boy or his reaction to Uncle Peck. We get such tiny, concentrated bits from the secondary characters played by the Greek chorus that we only get their essence--which is all we need. I think it's brilliant.
2) The first time I read the play, I thought "How can/why is one actress playing one person over a span of decades?" It didn't make much sense to me that Lil' Bit was eleven, seventeen, thirty-five, etc. But, the more I read the play, the more I love that choice. We get to see the effect of Uncle Peck on Lil' Bit AFTER he's gone. It's like a "Where Are They Now?" segment. We get to grow up with her. I think Vogel made this choice because it really lets us get personal with Lil' Bit. We don't just see this glimpse of life like we do with a lot of characters in a lot of plays. We get a really well-rounded story about a person coming to terms with a relationship. And yet, even though we see a lot, I can't help but wonder about the gaps in the story we don't see. And that's the beauty of it--Vogel's still left some intrigue in there.
Here's a BONUS:
One choice that I've always wondered about is Vogel's decision to include the story of Uncle Peck going after BB on the fishing trip. It really makes me wonder if Uncle Peck was in love with Lil' Bit or if he was just looking for ANYONE to fill the gap. What do y'all think? Why do we see Uncle Peck being inappropriate with someone other than Lil' Bit?
1) The Greek Chorus. To me, this choice indicates that Vogel believes Lil' Bit and Uncle Peck to be the only two characters in a lot of ways. This is their story. There are other parts of their lives, but this play is the story of their relationship and the effect it had on the two of them. Writing a chorus kind of makes the other characters run together like wet paint. I love that about this script. We get the overall intention of these outside influences without specifically seeing many characters. For example, when Uncle Peck is fishing with BB, we get this tremendous concentration from Uncle Peck, and we aren't tempted to look at the little boy or his reaction to Uncle Peck. We get such tiny, concentrated bits from the secondary characters played by the Greek chorus that we only get their essence--which is all we need. I think it's brilliant.
2) The first time I read the play, I thought "How can/why is one actress playing one person over a span of decades?" It didn't make much sense to me that Lil' Bit was eleven, seventeen, thirty-five, etc. But, the more I read the play, the more I love that choice. We get to see the effect of Uncle Peck on Lil' Bit AFTER he's gone. It's like a "Where Are They Now?" segment. We get to grow up with her. I think Vogel made this choice because it really lets us get personal with Lil' Bit. We don't just see this glimpse of life like we do with a lot of characters in a lot of plays. We get a really well-rounded story about a person coming to terms with a relationship. And yet, even though we see a lot, I can't help but wonder about the gaps in the story we don't see. And that's the beauty of it--Vogel's still left some intrigue in there.
Here's a BONUS:
One choice that I've always wondered about is Vogel's decision to include the story of Uncle Peck going after BB on the fishing trip. It really makes me wonder if Uncle Peck was in love with Lil' Bit or if he was just looking for ANYONE to fill the gap. What do y'all think? Why do we see Uncle Peck being inappropriate with someone other than Lil' Bit?
Friday, February 1, 2013
CONDUCT OF LIFE
Fornes. Fornes, Fornes, Fornes.
The choice I'm going to focus on is Fornes' tendency to have the characters speak their minds and emotions aloud. Almost nothing is hidden away in the characters. We get a very clear picture of who the characters are trying to be. For example, we know within the first pages of the play that Orlando is dissatisfied with his position in the military and yearns for power. We also see that Leticia puts on as if she's a peacekeeping do-gooder. Fornes is crystal clear about these characters and their intentions and displays that through their various monologues.
Now, what effect do I think that has on the play and its themes? In my opinion, it sucks the curiosity out of the show. I never felt myself questioning what a character was going to do. I will say that I was surprised at Leticia's turn of character, but that moment caught me by surprise. I think that keeping everything so very straight forward doesn't keep an audience on the edge of their seats. It makes them sit back and ponder. **I** would rather see a play that keeps me guessing. But, as Dr. Fletcher mentions, not all plays are for all people. This show is for a particular audience. This dramaturgical choice does, however, do a lot for the themes of the show. It lets an audience think about the themes of the play WHILE its happening versus AFTER. That's cool. (To me anyway)
The choice I'm going to focus on is Fornes' tendency to have the characters speak their minds and emotions aloud. Almost nothing is hidden away in the characters. We get a very clear picture of who the characters are trying to be. For example, we know within the first pages of the play that Orlando is dissatisfied with his position in the military and yearns for power. We also see that Leticia puts on as if she's a peacekeeping do-gooder. Fornes is crystal clear about these characters and their intentions and displays that through their various monologues.
Now, what effect do I think that has on the play and its themes? In my opinion, it sucks the curiosity out of the show. I never felt myself questioning what a character was going to do. I will say that I was surprised at Leticia's turn of character, but that moment caught me by surprise. I think that keeping everything so very straight forward doesn't keep an audience on the edge of their seats. It makes them sit back and ponder. **I** would rather see a play that keeps me guessing. But, as Dr. Fletcher mentions, not all plays are for all people. This show is for a particular audience. This dramaturgical choice does, however, do a lot for the themes of the show. It lets an audience think about the themes of the play WHILE its happening versus AFTER. That's cool. (To me anyway)
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
TRIFLES
Okay, so I'm going to break this down into two parts.
1. Gains: I think that the production would gain some things. First and foremost, the audience is not immediately separated from the world of the play via costumes and set design. This "place" or "world" can be any world or every world. Therefore, the production gains an entirely new "relatable" factor. No longer is the audience going to say, "Well, those are just unintelligent Southern men in a different time." Suddenly, that can be our dad, our mom, or our neighbors. The other thing that I see as a gain is the fact that the audience gets to create their own view of the play. When the women pick up the quilt and it is suddenly a beige color instead of a log cabin print, that person gets to imagine their very own quilt and stick it into the play. That is immensely cool to think about.
2. Losses: I think that the play would probably lack cohesion. The writing and speech patterns suggest a specific group or region, so that element would be completely gone. It would be strange to listen to these ways of speech and not have any other indication of place or time. I think that the audience would likely spend much of the performance trying to "figure out" the show as though it were a puzzle. This would obviously be a huge distraction.
To answer the last question, I cannot imagine a production of Trifles done as Dr. Fletcher described without it losing ANYTHING significant.
1. Gains: I think that the production would gain some things. First and foremost, the audience is not immediately separated from the world of the play via costumes and set design. This "place" or "world" can be any world or every world. Therefore, the production gains an entirely new "relatable" factor. No longer is the audience going to say, "Well, those are just unintelligent Southern men in a different time." Suddenly, that can be our dad, our mom, or our neighbors. The other thing that I see as a gain is the fact that the audience gets to create their own view of the play. When the women pick up the quilt and it is suddenly a beige color instead of a log cabin print, that person gets to imagine their very own quilt and stick it into the play. That is immensely cool to think about.
2. Losses: I think that the play would probably lack cohesion. The writing and speech patterns suggest a specific group or region, so that element would be completely gone. It would be strange to listen to these ways of speech and not have any other indication of place or time. I think that the audience would likely spend much of the performance trying to "figure out" the show as though it were a puzzle. This would obviously be a huge distraction.
To answer the last question, I cannot imagine a production of Trifles done as Dr. Fletcher described without it losing ANYTHING significant.
OVERTONES
Clearly, Harriet and Margaret can always be seen and heard. Maggie and Hetty have different rules; sometimes they can only be heard by Margaret and Hetty respectively, and sometimes they can hear one another. The general rule seems to be that Maggie and Hetty can hear each other when the discussion between Harriet and Margaret omits the desires of Hetty and Maggie. It is difficult to say how an audience would react to this. My instinct is that an audience would pick up on these conventions fairly quickly because people are often in tune to what another person's body language says about their true feelings. This is a familiar situation. These rules are typically consistent throughout, but occasionally, Margaret and Harriet's conversation leads the reader to believe that they are in tune with the other's "inner self." These moments create huge suspense because the reader begins to wonder if and how Maggie and Hetty will almost emerge, in a bigger way, into the world of the play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)