I really like the concept of a play within a play. I am guilty of forgetting that the "Man" is indeed a character though. Partly because he seemed so familiar to me, and partly because he became so familiar to me. By this I mean that already the character seemed like someone I knew. But he is supposed to. I think that he is supposed to feel like a friend. In most musicals, the singing is never addressed. It is just part of the dialogue or the 'natural' progression of the scene. Thats why it is strange when the man talks about the music, the singing, and the lyrics. This is what initially separates him from the other characters. Instead of looking at him as part of the show, we begin to see him as another audience member. He is an analyzing spectator just like the rest of us. However, this is not the case. He is part of the show.
The two worlds of the play are extremely different. One is set in the late twenties and involves many different characters and events. The other world is set in a modern day apartment and involves one main character. I think that the biggest difference, as far as Hornby is concerned, is in tempo.
In the world of the Drowsy Chaperone, a lot happens in a little time. The tempo is extremely fast paced. Where as the world of the man, is very slow paced. He is just spending an evening alone in his apartment listening to old records. Weddings are planned and ruined, people are blackmailed, characters become stars, characters lose fame, characters have 'affairs'; all of this occurs in the same amount of time that it takes this man to put on a record, and take it off.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
The Three Viewings
I noticed a few similarities between monologues. The two similarities that include all three monologues are that they are centered around funerals and they each go to the Green Mill. Emil goes there on his date, Mac to get drunk, and Virginia to meet with Frank. The other things I noticed were really only between two monologues each. In the first monologue, the death of a 103 year old women is mentioned. In the second monologue, that women is Mac's grandma Nettie. In the second monologue, it is mentioned that Mac has to fly to Pittsburg for the funeral, and in the third monologue, Pittsburg is where Virginia and her husband lived. Then in the third monologue, Ed carpolotti, another mentioned death in the first monologue, is Virginia's deceased husband. Bob O'Klock is also mentioned in both the first and third monologues.
While each monologue is marked by a funeral, it is not the funeral itself that links them. I think it is the way they are handled. In the first monologue, the focus is that Emil is in love with a woman he can never have. Her funeral isn't the focus, in fact, the ending is Emil still trying to profess his love to her.
In the second monologue, Mac's grandmother has passed. However, the monologue is about how Mac robs corpses to make ends meet and how she accidentally killed her family. She never once genuinely morns the loss of her grandmother. Again, the ending is about how she dropped a stolen ring into the grave and how she prays, "for the touch of a hand that has known my touch".
In last monologue, it is Virginia's husband who has died. However the whole monologue is spent talking about money and debts.
I suppose another thing that links them all, is that each of them had the love of their lives stolen from them by death. None of them got the chance to say goodbye the way they wanted to. Emil had to embalm his true love. Mac killed her family in attempt to kill herself and when she recovered, they were already gone. Virginia's husband died alone, a week before Christmas. Funerals are a way of celebrating the life of a loved one and properly saying goodbye. But none of the characters were able to say goodbye the way they would've wanted to.
While each monologue is marked by a funeral, it is not the funeral itself that links them. I think it is the way they are handled. In the first monologue, the focus is that Emil is in love with a woman he can never have. Her funeral isn't the focus, in fact, the ending is Emil still trying to profess his love to her.
In the second monologue, Mac's grandmother has passed. However, the monologue is about how Mac robs corpses to make ends meet and how she accidentally killed her family. She never once genuinely morns the loss of her grandmother. Again, the ending is about how she dropped a stolen ring into the grave and how she prays, "for the touch of a hand that has known my touch".
In last monologue, it is Virginia's husband who has died. However the whole monologue is spent talking about money and debts.
I suppose another thing that links them all, is that each of them had the love of their lives stolen from them by death. None of them got the chance to say goodbye the way they wanted to. Emil had to embalm his true love. Mac killed her family in attempt to kill herself and when she recovered, they were already gone. Virginia's husband died alone, a week before Christmas. Funerals are a way of celebrating the life of a loved one and properly saying goodbye. But none of the characters were able to say goodbye the way they would've wanted to.
On The Verge
If I were to create a poster for this show, I would want it to be really abstract. I would want all of the concepts on the poster to make sense separately, but when compared to the other images, to seem strange. It would have the image of a large clock. Except that it would be huge and take up most of the poster. There would not be times on it, instead the image of an old map. This map would not make any sort of logical sense, but would have 'the jungle', the Himalayas etc. included on it. That way, it would have not only places that they experience throughout the play, but other environments as well. (small pictures of things they encounter or discuss in each place drawn in). The hands of the clock would be proportional in size to the clock, and pointing to the first and last place that the three women travel to. The three women, would be seen holding umbrellas and walking in a line on one of the hands of the clock. They would be black and silhouetted. The rest of the poster would vary in color. The bottom left corner would be completely in black and white and the top right corner completely in color. The middle would be a mixture of the two. The text would also vary in font. From extremely fancy, handwritten, Elizabethan looking script, to a typed looking text. The tagline would be "Nostalgia for the future". I think this line does a good job of expressing the idea of the play.
As far as Mr. Coffee goes, he is obviously a sort of omniscient being. He doesn't seem to be from any time or place. In my opinion, I think he is god. Or at least the "god-like" character of the play. Fanny is the only one who really interacts with him. She is also the one who repeats the phrase, "vaya con dios" which translates to mean "go with god".
Fires In The Mirror
The beginning of Fires In The Mirror is extremely important to not only the development of the characters but to the effectiveness of the story telling. It introduces the topic and eases the play into the plot. The story is that a Jewish driver, hit a young African American boy, killing him. Then a group of African Americans, murdered a young Jewish boy in revenge. This caused tension, hostility and riots in Brooklyn. That is the story of Fires In The Mirror, but it is NOT the plot.
Anna Deavere Smith, with the inclusion of the first few 'irrelevant' monologues, makes the story real. Often, even when stories are completely true, they actually happened to real people, they are difficult to connect to. There is a reason people don't always cry when they turn on the news. It is not because they don't see horrible things happening to innocent people. It is because we have created fortresses in our minds that allow us to disconnect. It doesn't make sense that if I hear about thousands of people drowning, getting killed in a war, or starving on the news, that I don't burst in to tears. But if I saw someone or new someone who was killed I would never be the same. Anna Deavere Smith introduced us to those people we see on the news. She puts us in their kitchen and in their offices and forces them to become familiar to us. Then, once this horrible sequence of events is discussed, we feel it. It isn't just a bad thing that happened to some people in one part of the world. It is a heinous, unfair, poorly handled, misinterpreted, jumble of pain that was experienced by fellow human beings.
Allowing the characters to discuss their traditions, beliefs, experiences, and families gives them a chance to just be people before they are forced to become witnesses, by-standards, and victims.
Anna Deavere Smith, with the inclusion of the first few 'irrelevant' monologues, makes the story real. Often, even when stories are completely true, they actually happened to real people, they are difficult to connect to. There is a reason people don't always cry when they turn on the news. It is not because they don't see horrible things happening to innocent people. It is because we have created fortresses in our minds that allow us to disconnect. It doesn't make sense that if I hear about thousands of people drowning, getting killed in a war, or starving on the news, that I don't burst in to tears. But if I saw someone or new someone who was killed I would never be the same. Anna Deavere Smith introduced us to those people we see on the news. She puts us in their kitchen and in their offices and forces them to become familiar to us. Then, once this horrible sequence of events is discussed, we feel it. It isn't just a bad thing that happened to some people in one part of the world. It is a heinous, unfair, poorly handled, misinterpreted, jumble of pain that was experienced by fellow human beings.
Allowing the characters to discuss their traditions, beliefs, experiences, and families gives them a chance to just be people before they are forced to become witnesses, by-standards, and victims.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Show and Tell Post 2
Basic Information About the Play:
All
I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten was actually a book before
it became a play. It was originally written by Robert Fulghum and published in
1988. It was later conceived and adapted by Ernest Zulia. The music and lyrics
were added by David Caldwell. The play has been produced multiple times and has
earned standing ovations from Singapore to Prague and from L.A. to D.C. I could
not find the first production of All I
Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten, but I assume that means that
there are too many productions (considering the range of audiences). One could
find a copy of the play online. One could also find the original book online or
in a library. (http://www.dramaticpublishing.com/p47/All-I-Really-Need-to-Know-I-Learned-in-Kindergarten/product_info.html)
The Basic Plot:
The plot of All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten is very
interesting. It is both a drama and a comedy. There isn’t necessarily a plot
per say. It is a compilation of short stories/scenes/ and monologues that
demonstrate life lessons. Each story is lesson based but very heartwarming. The
characters are challenged with the task of playing multiple characters of
varying backgrounds and ages. The same character that, like all the characters
in the beginning, portrays a five year old kindergartener must later portray a
very elderly women whose husband is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. That story in particular is extremely
charming. It is set in a hospital
waiting room. It is about how every now and then this woman’s husband thinks it
is Christmas morning when it is not. So all day long he sings Christmas Carols,
asks his wife to tell him about Christmases past (which gives her the
opportunity to give him better memories than the Christmases he’s experienced),
and the wife even ends up inviting over their children for food and presents
sometimes. The scene ends when the wife says, “the girls think of it as
Father’s day, and I…I think of it as Valentine’s Day. Merry Christmas.” Which
is one of the sweetest things I have every heard in my life. All of the stories
come together to create a powerful and entertaining show.
The Critical Take:
Two dramaturgical choices that
Ernest Zulia made were to create the script as a compilation of stories and to
add music to it. The play is made up of short, varying scenes that have little
or no relation to one another. This
makes them like little mini plays rather than one big play. The effect that
this has is amazing. It allows multiple morals and lessons to be taught with
really good examples. Rather than fewer lessons, not being taught as well
because they must all connect. How else could you fit kindergarteners, a deaf
teenager, a groom, a holocaust survivor, and a professor all in to one story?
The music in the play is beautiful. It helps the stories to flow into each
other and also makes the story more playful. So much of growing up is
experienced through music. The songs also help carry the meaningful messages
throughout the play. Just like the abc’s they help reinforce the lessons and
make them enjoyable. I’m really glad that Zulia decided to make Robert Fulghum’s
book into a show.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Detroit
This play was really strange to me. It wasn’t extremely
abstract or terribly confusing—which is part of what made it so weird. Anything
that was odd was very subtle. Throughout reading the whole play I felt myself
becoming more and more uncomfortable but I couldn’t quite determine why.
Everything just seemed to be a little off.
It was like walking into your bedroom, realizing a picture was tilted
and something was missing from your nightstand. You are in a familiar place,
but it’s been compromised. From then on you are just waiting for something bad
or weird to happen. Both couples seem to be ‘normal’ and nice. However, as the
play unfolds, characters constantly reveal something very personal about
themselves This contributes to the overall ‘icky’ feeling of the play because
it seems as if they are making themselves just a little too vulnerable. Something bad is
bound to happen but the entire time they are oddly nonchalant and comfortable
with one another.
As far as
the title goes, I don’t think it really mattered what city the play was named
after. There is ultimately a feeling of ambiguity and familiarity surrounding
the script. Although these are almost contrasting ideas, they seem to combine
together to create the theme of “Detroit”. The name didn’t have to be Detroit, I think it
could have been any ‘average’, mid-sized American city with a suburb. The play
needed a non-specific, known but not special setting. I think the whole point
of the play is to show that no one really ever KNOWS anyone. Even the kindest,
most open and friendly neighbors could be recovering crackheads who eventually
burn your house down. The play needed to
occur in a country, in a city, in a town, in a neighborhood, and in a home. Where the exact location of the country,
city, town, neighborhood, and house is has no bearing on the fact that people
are people. And people are unpredictable no matter where they live. Lisa D’Amour
wanted an easily recognizable city as her title, but it didn’t really matter
which one. Thus, this theme of ambiguity and familiarity is reinforced.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Water By The Spoonful
Within the play, two major worlds are created: the online world and interactive world. The online world consists of anonymous screen names associated with former/ struggling crack heads. The interactive world consists of two cousins dealing with the death of their aunt. Not until we realize that the leader of the crack heads anonymous chat room is the sister of the cousins' aunt, do the two worlds collide. This revelation occurs halfway down page forty three. They begin to mix when the ghost that haunts Elliot repeats the phrase, "Momken men-fadluck ted-dini gawaz safari" (which to us is just gibberish), in between the 'online-ers'' dialogue. The two worlds are able to mix here because they share a common theme: being unable to escape something that haunts them. As the online-ers' dialogue seems to naturally speed up and become more playful, the ghost's repeated line becomes increasingly ominous and menacing. The two scenes begin not to morph together, but to mirror one another. In this scene, "Haikumom"/Odessa realizes that her sister is deceased after reading her obituary in the newspaper. Simultaneously, Elliot is boxing a punching bag and trying to ignore his hurt leg. Both characters experience defeat. When Odessa realizes that her sister has passed away, she is overwhelmed and drops the newspaper. At the same time, Elliot can not ignore the pain any longer and collapses. Both present the visual of something falling. This intersection of worlds occurs at this moment because it is extremely common ground.
Buried Child
This play was extremely confusing. It is filled with ambiguity
and complexity. It seemed as if answers are expected to be created in the minds
of the audience rather than found in the context of the play. Throughout the
play I had no idea who the ‘buried child’ was or even if there was one at all.
There were a few times that I had an idea of who it was but I was never sure.
Everything with in the play seems to be a little off. Nothing seems for sure.
The family doesn’t even seem to know one another. It is hard for me to
understand and know characters that don’t know and understand themselves. The two
characters that were even close to being credible are Shelly and Preacher Dewis.
These two characters are already singled out because they do not live in the
crazy house. Even though it is naturalistic in that there is a house, they are ‘real’
people and nothing is extremely exaggerated or theatricalized, the whole piece feels
really abstract. It is different from the worlds of other plays we’ve read
because it is drastically more ambiguous. Not much is apparent and even less is
spelled out for you. This play is far from black-and-white. Everyone can
interpret this play differently and for different reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)