http://austinthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/prompt-eleven-fires-in-mirror.html?showComment=1367618339183#c7137138722515499774
Friday, May 3, 2013
Show and Tell Post 3
Elephant's Graveyard
Basic Information about the play: Elephant’s
Graveyard was Written in 2008 by George
Brant. Apparently it has been produced over one hundred times just in the past
few years. I know that it has been produced at many colleges. Including LSU, Utah
Valley University and Auburn. To read the whole thing/get a copy visit this
website: http://www.samuelfrench.com/p/1939/elephants-graveyard-full-length-version
Basic Plot Summary: The play is about a horrific
event that occurred on September 12, 1916 in Kingsport, Tennessee. To begin
with, there was a traveling circus. This particular circus had the largest
elephant in any circus at the time, five tons. Her name was Mary. Back then,
people really did run off to join the circus. A man named Red Eldridge did just
that. He was hired as an assistant elephant trainer. He really wanted to ride
Mary in circus’ parade. The circus decided to let him, despite the protest from
the trainer. It ended up that the day after he joined the circus, once they got
to the next town over, Red was killed. While he was riding Mary, she saw a
piece of watermelon off the course of the parade route. Red tried to stop her
from going towards it, but he hadn’t been properly trained. He repeatedly
struck her, which aggravated her. She ended up removing him with her trunk and
accidently stepping on him. He was killed. The towns people were infuriated. They
demanded that she be punished for the murder of an innocent towns person.
When the incident occurred, the town sheriff tried to shoot
Mary. Her skin was too tough. With this in mind, and anger in their hearts,
they thought of a cruel way to execute her. They said that she was like any
other murder and should be treated as such. It was decided that Mary would be
hung. They used the railroad’s crane and a thick chain to take the life away
from a scared animal.
The play follows that storyline. It shows the perspective of
various towns people and the circus members. The characters never speak to one
another, but through their lines and monologues the entire story unfolds. This
show is directed at the audience, is extremely effective and powerful and is
performed in the Brechtian style of theatre.
The Critical Take: I know that according to what
we’ve learned in script analysis we aren’t supposed to focus on the characters
and “who they are”. But I think that who the characters are plays a huge role
in the progression and creation of the show. When writing the script, George
Brant didn’t really have a list of characters in mind. We actually got to talk
with him after we performed the show and he said it took him a long time to
decide what characters to include. This definitely falls under Choice. The
characters range from a steam shovel operator to the Ring Master; Someone who
didn’t really have an effect on the situation and lived in the town, to someone
who had direct control over the fate of Mary and was in charge of the circus. I
think that Brant really wanted to capture a variety of possible perspectives. I
also think he did an outstanding job. Another dramaturgical choice, was the
decision to play it out towards the audience. None of the characters ever speak
to one another. They each are simply telling their story. This makes the
experience more personal in that the characters are giving a personal account.
It seems as if they are people you know, just telling it like it is. It’s an
extremely interesting narrative. Usually it is difficult to make a narrative
active, especially when the playwright insists that if the dialogue describes
it, it shouldn’t be acted out. But, Elephant’s Graveyard is very interesting,
engaging, provocative, and touching.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
The Drowsy Chaperone
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)