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.
I like that you contrasted an element between the man's world and the record's world. You are totally right, the tempo is completely opposite. While reading it, I felt like I was watching The Drowsy Chaperone, just with commentary as if it were a DVD. But he was awesome.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that most people pick up on the idea of the man as being "familiar" or relatable. What's even more interesting to me is, why don't we question this more fully? Who is he to us, we don't know him, but he seems to know us. In this sense we become just as much a part of his world as he has become a part of the musical's world. Anyway, I think that's part of why it's easy to forget to view him as being an active character within the play.
ReplyDeleteI’m usually pretty guilty of forgetting about “tempo” as a means of analysis, but you’re totally right, Laine. The numerous actions and plot points going on in the fictional musical are what really separate it from the frame story, where almost nothing happens. I suppose that’s what happens when a character is essentially just an active listener, right? Obviously he has a much more important role than, say, a member of the audience, but he doesn’t exactly have that much more to do. I’ll bet this is the case for every frame story; the stories that characters tell are much more interesting and active than the circumstances in which they tell the stories. Look at Titanic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion on which element is most noticeably different between The Drowsy Chaperone and its meta-show being the tempo. Although I didn’t choose this personally, I agree that the change in tempo is significant as it helps establish two completely different worlds, and acknowledge its consistency throughout the play as the playwright(s) way of hinting its importance. I don’t agree with, however, your take on the man and how you relate to him more personally than with the characters in the meta-show. I found myself more connected to the story being retold, and viewed the man as the key ingredient. I didn’t think of him as a part of the audience, but rather as the MC that made the story come to life.
ReplyDelete