Saturday, April 13, 2013

Comments

Thanks to Austin for the considerate and wonderful idea:











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. 

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Noises Off


        One motif in Noises Off is doors. Like in most farces, the characters are constantly making quick and perfectly timed entrances and exits. Because of the multiple doors, characters are getting 'shut off' from other characters, hiding, getting invited in or intruding. However, these actions are not only occurring in the play within the play. The strange part about the play is that we get to see whats happening behind 'the scenes' of the play they are performing. We get to see all of the drama; what happens behind closed doors. All of the actual relationships, the gossip, the addictions, and the infidelity of the 'actors'.
       I think a good tag line would be "can't even get the door open". This has a lot of meaning for the play. Doors are terribly important to the play the characters are performing. It expresses how they can not perform the play correctly and smoothly. It also comments on the drama going on between the 'actors'. Opening a door seems like a fairly easy task, just like putting a play together with an experienced team. However, just as the doors frequently get stuck so do the performers. Overall, Noises Off is filled with failures and ridiculousness. Thats why " can't even get the door open" would make a good tag line.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

The Glass Of Water

      Usually, identifying the protagonist of a story isn't difficult. The story is about them. They are often the first character we meet and the character that we follow throughout the plot. however in The Glass of Water, we follow the lives of five characters. They each have their struggles and triumphs. however, the character whose struggles are most central to the plot would have to be Abigail's. To determine this, I thought about the goal of each character. Then I asked three questions: "which 'want' is the most important to the plot?", "which 'want' is the most difficult to satisfy?", and "which 'want' is satisfied?". Abigail's was the answer to all three. Abigail's want is centered around Masham. Therefore anything in the play that sets him back or separates the two of them counts as an Abigail struggle. Almost every conflict in the show does or both of those things. The feelings of the queen for Masham, the feelings of the Duchess for Masham and even Masham's mistake of killing Bolingbroke's cousin all stand in the way of Abigail and Masham's happiness. Scribe makes it easy to lean towards Abigail as the protagonist because he gives her a lot of stage time and made her a likeable character. She is the most innocent character that we follow and her wants are the most pure.
      There are times that we root for everyone in the play. I would say that the next most frequent would be Masham. He is the second most innocent character with the second purest motives. After him would be Bolingbroke because he is an advocate for peace and is constantly aiding Masham and abigail. The Queen and the Duchess would probably be tied for last because they are what intentionally stands in the way of Masham and Abigail. There are times that we feel pity for the Queen and times that we like the Duchess. For example the first time that the Duchess and Bolingbroke, she keeps up with him while they banter. It presents her as a sort of badass female character. That said, if I had to chose a protagonist for The Glass of Water it would definitely be Abigail.