If revisions weren't intimidating enough, Peter Shaffer certainly raises the bar. I really admire the way he doesn't get so attached to his early drafts that he is able to cut out entire chunks and re-write and re-write and re-write. Its not that I think my early drafts are perfect and don't need work, its the idea that I could put so much time and energy into a scene or an entire act (or an entire chapter in fiction writing, an entire stanza where I had agonized over every word but still disrupted a poem) that in the end will be cut and the work will have been nothing. But writing is a process and thinking through ideas is a processing and sometimes you just have to try out the idea and develop in order to come to the brilliant idea that ties the piece of writing all together.
In Shaffer's revisions, its not that he finds his endings ineffective. In fact he says "In some ways the above [1st] scene...was tremendously effective" (xxi). He talks about the themes it emphasizes (atonement) and how that theme has come and gone throughout his revisions. Its the whole "What does this approach cost me and what does it buy me" approach that we use so much in literary analysis and analysis in our on writing and in Laurie Frankel's classes! It took Peter years to realize the revisions excluding the theme of atonement had been an error (xxii). This is daunting...really shows you how a piece of writing is never ever ever ever years later even ever done. So much for a sense of accomplishment! In his third version Shaffer talks about how his revised climatic scene "On paper...looks to be pretty uncinematic-- just line after line of instrumental and vocal notation-- but when it is played on screen, it bursts into vibrant life" (xxvi) and Shaffer's ability to imagine this in his head before seeing it played out is something I am very envious of.
I was really struck by his like that "The work I did in Stratford was really not radical enough, but it did start me thinking very seriously about how I could humanize Salieri more" (xxvii). This line stood out to me so severly because it shows how, as Shaffer rearranges the ending time after time, his understanding of his characters changes. He is able to get in their minds more, he is able to see what is missing in their portrayals and how to put together a more convincing production. This is powerful because it affects more than just the ever-evolving ending of "Amadeus" but the character of Salieri throughout the entire play. The idea that Salieri needs to be more humanized is going to sit with Shaffer as he re-reads each scene and he is going to start reading the character of Salieri differently and see where, in other parts of the script, he can humanize Salieri even more.
As an aspiring playwrite, I am both intimidated and inspired by Shaffer. His commitment and his ability to form such a deep understanding of his characters is astounding and admirable. His refusal to settle for something that isn't all-around the best it can be is incredible. He keeps pushing himself.
"Indeed, sometimes I wonder at those writers who display no desire to alter anything when work is revived. And sometiems, too, I envy their seeming certitude-or even their indfference, which maybe a form of instinctive wisdom" (xxxiv) Shaffer writes.
No Shaffer, indifference is not wise. Being stuck and certain in one way, one story, one possibility, close-minded to unearthing full characters and understanding what REALLY FITS with them, is cheating the audience. Its telling a story with characters who are not as true as they could be and there is no wisdom in producing something untrue. To alter work reflects the author's growth and passion, to never be satisfied is a sign of requiring the best work out of one's self. And these are traits and habits to strive for.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Fences
I was really glad that we got to see a play on stage that we were reading for class. It really helped me to understand the translation of plays from the page to the stage. At this point, I have probably read more plays than I have seen, and I still haven't even read that many plays. Basically I just do not know much about plays and the script's translation from the page to the stage. Reading Fences and then getting to see it performed really helped with this process. As an aspiring playwrite, understanding the way my words will work on the stage is vital. I think my biggest weakness is just my lack of experience in the theater- seeing them and participating in the process of putting on a production.
The most striking aspect about this performance of Fences was the way the set, the accents/dialects, the costumes, all really transported me to a black neighborhood in the 1950's. I was thoroughly convinced I was sitting at the edge of someone's backyard 60 years ago. However, I did still have a hard time keeping my mind from wandering. Maybe it was because the dialects made me work harder to understand what was going on, maybe it was because I was sitting off to the side, but I had a really hard time focusing. I also had this problem when I saw this play a few years ago at the Court Theater, sitting in a smaller theater in the first few rows. I don't know if Troy is just a hard character for me, a white 20 year old female in 2010, or if I really just want more action on stage. Setting the whole play in one scene works well in emphasizing the passing of time. Setting it in the backyard makes it feel more intimate. But I nothing physical happens except for shouting matches, a few swings at a baseball hanging from a tree, and bit of a physical fight between Troy and his son. The staging with the baseball hanging from the tree was beautiful, I'm not trying to detract from its power. Maybe my attention span has been too shortened by pop up ads and billboards and tv commercials for me to engage in something that isn't visually stimulating for very long.
Because of this, the play worked very well for me on the page. Part of that is because I understand ideas better when I read them than when I hear them. But I think a big part of it was also that I could read it at my own pace, stop and start when I wanted and needed to, and because I had my imagination more at work. What was lost on the page, however, was the setting, the dialects, and the feeling that I had stepped back into time into someone's intimate space.
So how can I take these ideas and incorporate them into my own play? If I want to set a play all in one setting, I need to make sure the setting is continually interesting. Changes, disturbances, physical action, etc. If I want to write a play focused on relationships, I need to make sure I have a wide array of characters that audience members will be able to identify with (August Wilson did this quite nicely. Even though I couldn't always identify with Troy I could identify with his Cory struggling to please himself and his family. I found myself sympathetic to Rose when she takes Troy's illegitimate child under her wing. I could relate to her staying with Troy despite his mistreatment.). If I want to write a play focused on the transformations of relationships and lacking in much visual action, I need to figure out how to keep the audience engaged. That's a tough one and I'm not quite sure how to do it. In my character play, "Dial Tone," I tried not to just have the physical action turn into screaming and yelling and crying drama. I tried to include a variety of scenes in different places that included preparing and eating dinner, little kids scattered across the stage silently engaging in homework, games of cards, coloring, etc., and cleaning out of spaces (Margaret's apartment). I don't if on stage it would be enough or not. I don't know if the relationships are dynamic enough that visual action would be distracting.
I am still working on trying to understand how words on the page will exist acted out on stage as I'm writing them down. This prediction is a hard one to master.
The most striking aspect about this performance of Fences was the way the set, the accents/dialects, the costumes, all really transported me to a black neighborhood in the 1950's. I was thoroughly convinced I was sitting at the edge of someone's backyard 60 years ago. However, I did still have a hard time keeping my mind from wandering. Maybe it was because the dialects made me work harder to understand what was going on, maybe it was because I was sitting off to the side, but I had a really hard time focusing. I also had this problem when I saw this play a few years ago at the Court Theater, sitting in a smaller theater in the first few rows. I don't know if Troy is just a hard character for me, a white 20 year old female in 2010, or if I really just want more action on stage. Setting the whole play in one scene works well in emphasizing the passing of time. Setting it in the backyard makes it feel more intimate. But I nothing physical happens except for shouting matches, a few swings at a baseball hanging from a tree, and bit of a physical fight between Troy and his son. The staging with the baseball hanging from the tree was beautiful, I'm not trying to detract from its power. Maybe my attention span has been too shortened by pop up ads and billboards and tv commercials for me to engage in something that isn't visually stimulating for very long.
Because of this, the play worked very well for me on the page. Part of that is because I understand ideas better when I read them than when I hear them. But I think a big part of it was also that I could read it at my own pace, stop and start when I wanted and needed to, and because I had my imagination more at work. What was lost on the page, however, was the setting, the dialects, and the feeling that I had stepped back into time into someone's intimate space.
So how can I take these ideas and incorporate them into my own play? If I want to set a play all in one setting, I need to make sure the setting is continually interesting. Changes, disturbances, physical action, etc. If I want to write a play focused on relationships, I need to make sure I have a wide array of characters that audience members will be able to identify with (August Wilson did this quite nicely. Even though I couldn't always identify with Troy I could identify with his Cory struggling to please himself and his family. I found myself sympathetic to Rose when she takes Troy's illegitimate child under her wing. I could relate to her staying with Troy despite his mistreatment.). If I want to write a play focused on the transformations of relationships and lacking in much visual action, I need to figure out how to keep the audience engaged. That's a tough one and I'm not quite sure how to do it. In my character play, "Dial Tone," I tried not to just have the physical action turn into screaming and yelling and crying drama. I tried to include a variety of scenes in different places that included preparing and eating dinner, little kids scattered across the stage silently engaging in homework, games of cards, coloring, etc., and cleaning out of spaces (Margaret's apartment). I don't if on stage it would be enough or not. I don't know if the relationships are dynamic enough that visual action would be distracting.
I am still working on trying to understand how words on the page will exist acted out on stage as I'm writing them down. This prediction is a hard one to master.
Echo
I was really interested in seeing "Echo" because I wanted to know how the projects I was working on in class could be turned into something that would end up the stage. It made the process I was engaging in in class more consequential, like something really could actually come of the ideas and drafts I was producing now. After seeing the play, I could pretty much guess which assignment it originated out of (the character driven play?). Unfortunately, I was a bit disappointed in the writing.
I walked into the theater expecting to learn more about post-traumatic stress for soldiers returning from war. I wanted more than just the vague idea that it ruins their life because no one knows what it was like overseas and now they can't function normally in everyday life back home. But I walked out feeling like I hadn't learned anything more about PTSD in soldiers returning to their family and to America. This really reminded me to write what I know.
Writing only what I know seems limiting and branching out into the unknown may be tempting. But writing what I know means that I can provide greater depth. I can go further, explore more angles, avoid cliche. I can make it more believable. I think some of the plays I outlined this semester did delve into situations I didn't really know. I think my character play was one of them. Writing about a divorced wife with three children...that isn't something I can relate to. Loss, rejection, feeling like a failure, distracting oneself from the more pressing traumas...that I can relate to and those feelings I did include in my play. I also tried to develop the three children which is something I know more about (what it's like to be a 15 year old girl, what it's like to reject my family) and I think this personal understanding also helped ground the play. These are risks we take...writing what we do and do not internally know in our gut, on many many levels of our consciousness.
I walked into the theater expecting to learn more about post-traumatic stress for soldiers returning from war. I wanted more than just the vague idea that it ruins their life because no one knows what it was like overseas and now they can't function normally in everyday life back home. But I walked out feeling like I hadn't learned anything more about PTSD in soldiers returning to their family and to America. This really reminded me to write what I know.
Writing only what I know seems limiting and branching out into the unknown may be tempting. But writing what I know means that I can provide greater depth. I can go further, explore more angles, avoid cliche. I can make it more believable. I think some of the plays I outlined this semester did delve into situations I didn't really know. I think my character play was one of them. Writing about a divorced wife with three children...that isn't something I can relate to. Loss, rejection, feeling like a failure, distracting oneself from the more pressing traumas...that I can relate to and those feelings I did include in my play. I also tried to develop the three children which is something I know more about (what it's like to be a 15 year old girl, what it's like to reject my family) and I think this personal understanding also helped ground the play. These are risks we take...writing what we do and do not internally know in our gut, on many many levels of our consciousness.
The Vagina Monolouges
"The Vagina Monolouges" was the first theatrical production I have participated in since my senior year of high school. The timing was quite nice since we were studying monolouge plays, their structure, their purpose, etc in class while I was in rehearsal for the production here on campus. Participating in this year's production had large influence on both my monolouge play and my first ten-minute play. By participating in the play, I thought a lot about different ways to stage a monologe. Only the speaker could be on stage. Or the entire cast could be on stage while each actor delivers. Or only part of the cast could be on stage for each monolouge delivery. Quiet, on-stage cast memebers could react to the monolouge or they could remain stone-faced as if they don't hear anything. These were all things I thought about when writing my play. Which arrangement of the cast would be most effective for each monolouge delivery? The other thing that "The Vagina Monolouges" helped me with for my monolouge play was to think about the flow and order of the monolouges. Did I like putting two starkly contrasting personalities and opinions right next to each other? Or did I want the opinions/personalities to flow into each other? Participating in this production helped me think about the flow of my own monolouges a great deal.
I think "The Vagina Monolouges" helped me mostly with my first ten-minute play, "In Memory Of." In the production here on campus, the monolouge I was in, "Say It," was split into five parts. The five of us operated as a supportive group for each other, shared lines, and still presented a cohesive monolouge. I think splitting the piece into five parts gave it more strength. Passion and tension and anger built between us as we spat out names of diseases or names for the comfort women. We played off each other very nicely and the communal aspect to the monolouge strengthened it. I used this in my slam piece, two women building off of each other, engaging in internal debate, and building tension, anger, and other emotions throughout the piece. Performing a group piece that was orginally meant for just one person helped me think about the strength of a single narrative split into multiple parts and delivered by more than one person.
I think "The Vagina Monolouges" helped me mostly with my first ten-minute play, "In Memory Of." In the production here on campus, the monolouge I was in, "Say It," was split into five parts. The five of us operated as a supportive group for each other, shared lines, and still presented a cohesive monolouge. I think splitting the piece into five parts gave it more strength. Passion and tension and anger built between us as we spat out names of diseases or names for the comfort women. We played off each other very nicely and the communal aspect to the monolouge strengthened it. I used this in my slam piece, two women building off of each other, engaging in internal debate, and building tension, anger, and other emotions throughout the piece. Performing a group piece that was orginally meant for just one person helped me think about the strength of a single narrative split into multiple parts and delivered by more than one person.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Ten Minute Plays: Drama
"The Man Who Couldn't Dance"
I didn't really like this play that much and I think it is because from the very beginning the characters annoyed me and soon after we are introduced to the characters WHAM BAM we get their history full on with emotion and long rants. It was too much too soon in a really whiney voice. But I guess the playwright didn't have much room to spread it out. I needed something to get me attatched to the characters before jumping into the history of Gail and Eric, though. Although their situation is a universal fear of many people my age, meeting Mr. Right and giving him up for the more practical but less passionate Mr. Wrong, I still wasn't very sympathetic to either character. Neither of them were likeable. One thing that I think Katims did succeed in doing in ten minutes was Eric's development as a character. You can see where and why he changes and decides to open up (the kid, using dancing to convey bigger issue, trying to be enough for her even on the wedding day) and I think the resolution of them dancing together in the end works nicely enough.
"The Road That Lead Here"
I like the way this play kept you guessing at the begining as to what was going on. I liked how Marcus and Xander kind of felt like one unit and Jason another- this helped keep the play more simple since it doesn't have much time to explain everything. I also really like the dynamic between Marcus and Xander and how the feed off each other. I also thought the exposition was smoother than in "The Man Who Couldn't Dance" and I appreciated that. Maybe I just liked the plot better, too. It was really creative and I liked the alternative lifestyle it proposed and how it dealt with ideas of loneliness and experience. Because Marcus and Xander didn't know what was going on, they were the ignorant characters that helped the audience understand the greater family dynamics Jason needed to explain. The one part I took issue with was the ending. I really didn't like the sign...it felt too obvious and expected.
"That Midnight Rodeo"
The relationship dynamics in this play developed smoothly and consistently. I think the beats help to give a sense of tension, it seems that the pacing in this placy is important in order to provide the level of tension desired by the director. The relationship dynamics were easier to understand more quickly than the plot was. From rodeo competitions to money problems to dentists to unwanted children...I guess on stage, depending on how pregnant the director wants to make Cindy appear, it might be more obvious. It just seems that in a play this short, having three conversations at once is a little confusing even if the characters are consistent. I don't mind some confusion in the begining but I think this play is too short to spend so long on having a convuluted plot line in the looong beginning. I think having a more focused conversation from the start would help with the confusion.
"A Bowl of Soup"
This play reminded me of "The Laramie Project" in that is mostly monolouge but a monolouge directed at a specific listener, not just the general audience. When these long passages are directed at a specific listener, another character in the play, we learn about the quiet character based on what the speaker is choosing to say, tailoring the language/content for the quiet character. For example, in this play we can hear the concern and worry dripping from every one of Rob's words. Their physical interactions also become very telling of the characters- like the way Eddie drops Rob's money. I like the way Eddie reveals why Rob is so upset...the exposition fits his style of talking from before. And I think Rob's last line, although a little cliche, works really well. It shows his compassion and his empathy and connection to his brother. Even though he doesn't really know how to relate, he's trying to hard to help his brother. I'm just curious, as in any monolouge play, how to make sure the audience stays interested until the end when Eddie's silence/depression is explained. The physical interactions that Eddie is silent for are going to be so important in engaging and mantaining the audience's interest.
So in short plays, it seems like character relationships carry the play. The dramatic moments do a lot to reveal exposition quickly but that's a double edged sword because if it's too dramatic and exposition based there isn't time to invest in the character's before all the drama starts. All these plays had only two or three characters in the entire thing. Also, the ending lines/action seem really important in tying up the play. The use of symbols in both "A Bowl of Soup" and "The Man Who Couldn't Dance" helped tie up the endings really nicely, providing a sense of resolution.
I didn't really like this play that much and I think it is because from the very beginning the characters annoyed me and soon after we are introduced to the characters WHAM BAM we get their history full on with emotion and long rants. It was too much too soon in a really whiney voice. But I guess the playwright didn't have much room to spread it out. I needed something to get me attatched to the characters before jumping into the history of Gail and Eric, though. Although their situation is a universal fear of many people my age, meeting Mr. Right and giving him up for the more practical but less passionate Mr. Wrong, I still wasn't very sympathetic to either character. Neither of them were likeable. One thing that I think Katims did succeed in doing in ten minutes was Eric's development as a character. You can see where and why he changes and decides to open up (the kid, using dancing to convey bigger issue, trying to be enough for her even on the wedding day) and I think the resolution of them dancing together in the end works nicely enough.
"The Road That Lead Here"
I like the way this play kept you guessing at the begining as to what was going on. I liked how Marcus and Xander kind of felt like one unit and Jason another- this helped keep the play more simple since it doesn't have much time to explain everything. I also really like the dynamic between Marcus and Xander and how the feed off each other. I also thought the exposition was smoother than in "The Man Who Couldn't Dance" and I appreciated that. Maybe I just liked the plot better, too. It was really creative and I liked the alternative lifestyle it proposed and how it dealt with ideas of loneliness and experience. Because Marcus and Xander didn't know what was going on, they were the ignorant characters that helped the audience understand the greater family dynamics Jason needed to explain. The one part I took issue with was the ending. I really didn't like the sign...it felt too obvious and expected.
"That Midnight Rodeo"
The relationship dynamics in this play developed smoothly and consistently. I think the beats help to give a sense of tension, it seems that the pacing in this placy is important in order to provide the level of tension desired by the director. The relationship dynamics were easier to understand more quickly than the plot was. From rodeo competitions to money problems to dentists to unwanted children...I guess on stage, depending on how pregnant the director wants to make Cindy appear, it might be more obvious. It just seems that in a play this short, having three conversations at once is a little confusing even if the characters are consistent. I don't mind some confusion in the begining but I think this play is too short to spend so long on having a convuluted plot line in the looong beginning. I think having a more focused conversation from the start would help with the confusion.
"A Bowl of Soup"
This play reminded me of "The Laramie Project" in that is mostly monolouge but a monolouge directed at a specific listener, not just the general audience. When these long passages are directed at a specific listener, another character in the play, we learn about the quiet character based on what the speaker is choosing to say, tailoring the language/content for the quiet character. For example, in this play we can hear the concern and worry dripping from every one of Rob's words. Their physical interactions also become very telling of the characters- like the way Eddie drops Rob's money. I like the way Eddie reveals why Rob is so upset...the exposition fits his style of talking from before. And I think Rob's last line, although a little cliche, works really well. It shows his compassion and his empathy and connection to his brother. Even though he doesn't really know how to relate, he's trying to hard to help his brother. I'm just curious, as in any monolouge play, how to make sure the audience stays interested until the end when Eddie's silence/depression is explained. The physical interactions that Eddie is silent for are going to be so important in engaging and mantaining the audience's interest.
So in short plays, it seems like character relationships carry the play. The dramatic moments do a lot to reveal exposition quickly but that's a double edged sword because if it's too dramatic and exposition based there isn't time to invest in the character's before all the drama starts. All these plays had only two or three characters in the entire thing. Also, the ending lines/action seem really important in tying up the play. The use of symbols in both "A Bowl of Soup" and "The Man Who Couldn't Dance" helped tie up the endings really nicely, providing a sense of resolution.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Fences
I actually got to see this play in high school because it was playing in Chicago and I remember really, really enjoying it. I also remember spacing out a good bit- probably due to the fact that most of the play is Troy talking and talking and talking and not really doing anything. I am interested to see how inherent structure will be dealt with in the upcoming production in Seattle.
I think its interesting that pretty much this entire play is set in the same location: the yard. The yard is almost like the audience that way, the constant observer. Thus a relationship forms between the audience and the setting. What does this buy, having the audience relate to the setting?
When I was reading this play I tried to pay special attention to the devices Wilson used to write a successful play. Because this play is focused on one character's interactions with multiple other characters, the different characters provide the audience various dimensions of Troy i.e. brother, father, wife. Common ideas that pop up in all of Troy's relationships point to more essential and unable to suppress issues that Troy has i.e. money, baseball. These interactions also show the audience the most, provide the most information. Not only do Troy's lengthy rants, his fights with his wife or his son, show us Troy's concerns about life, they allow us to understand why he possesses the sets of values and priorities he currently does. It provides us with a history of Troy's family and a history of his development into where he is today because he often talks about his own father or his own experiences with baseball or the white man. Thus the plot is this man's development.
But this can work both ways, the action in this play is then the way Troy's manifestations of his issues affect the other characters and drive them to their actions. However this play seems to be more a discussion of actions than actual action on stage.
I think part of what makes this a successful play are the symbols and extended metaphors. It gives the audience something to follow throughout the play, not to mention the very title of the play "Fences" alerts the audience from the beginning that symbols are integral to understanding the various levels of the play. The way baseball connects ideas and Troy's various regrets/issues (money, racism, family etc) also gives the audience something to hold on to or grasp throughout the play. I think these techniques are very useful.
I think its interesting that pretty much this entire play is set in the same location: the yard. The yard is almost like the audience that way, the constant observer. Thus a relationship forms between the audience and the setting. What does this buy, having the audience relate to the setting?
When I was reading this play I tried to pay special attention to the devices Wilson used to write a successful play. Because this play is focused on one character's interactions with multiple other characters, the different characters provide the audience various dimensions of Troy i.e. brother, father, wife. Common ideas that pop up in all of Troy's relationships point to more essential and unable to suppress issues that Troy has i.e. money, baseball. These interactions also show the audience the most, provide the most information. Not only do Troy's lengthy rants, his fights with his wife or his son, show us Troy's concerns about life, they allow us to understand why he possesses the sets of values and priorities he currently does. It provides us with a history of Troy's family and a history of his development into where he is today because he often talks about his own father or his own experiences with baseball or the white man. Thus the plot is this man's development.
But this can work both ways, the action in this play is then the way Troy's manifestations of his issues affect the other characters and drive them to their actions. However this play seems to be more a discussion of actions than actual action on stage.
I think part of what makes this a successful play are the symbols and extended metaphors. It gives the audience something to follow throughout the play, not to mention the very title of the play "Fences" alerts the audience from the beginning that symbols are integral to understanding the various levels of the play. The way baseball connects ideas and Troy's various regrets/issues (money, racism, family etc) also gives the audience something to hold on to or grasp throughout the play. I think these techniques are very useful.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Eurydice
I was not familiar with Sarah Ruhl's play "Eurydice" before this class but I really, really enjoyed reading it. I really like the way Ruhl transposed this classic story into a more modern day, yet still fantastical, setting. I'm not one for classic Greek or Roman history, mythology, etc. so perhaps the setting Ruhl used (commentary on costumes, scenary, etc.) was a big part of the reason I liked this play despite its roots in classic Greek mythology.
I really liked the way Ruhl opened the play in the first movement. By showing the audience/reader how Orpheus and Eurydice interact, the audience/reader becomes acquainted with this couples dynamics, ways of relating to each other, etc. This makes their relationship less abstract and thus makes their loss of one another, and Eurydice's fear and inability to recognize Orpheus later, even sadder.
I really like the parallels drawn between Man and Child characters...their creepy, relentless come-ons and attempts to persuade Eurydice that staying with them is best. Is the Child supposed to be the Man growing younger? I don't know I just felt like the parallels in the underworld and the world of the alive (this mystical, fantastical Earth???) added a lot to the play and the character of Eurydice. Another thing I noticed about the interactions between the Man and Eurydice in the first movement is that, because they just met each other, they are both (to some extent) ignorant. Thus the explaining they do for each other is also done for the audience/reader.
The stones were another way to communicate information to the audience. Not well educated in Greek theater, I'm only assuming that the stones were fulfilling the role of the Greek Chorus (which, when telling the story of a Greek myth, is of course neccessary). Thus their exposition does not feel awkward or out of place since their existance (besides the plot involving the underworld and other fantastical aspects) heightens/reminds/highlights the imaginary, unrealistic atmosphere and setting of this play. Thus it is not jsut plot the stones reveal, but they also add to the general atmosphere of the play. Besides, they are hilarious. Perhaps some dark comedic relief to this heavy, sad story line? I think the role of the greek chorus could be a very strong and interesting tool to use when writing our own plays.
I thought it was interesting to read in the interview with Ruhl, that she had some background/interest in poetry. She said that she does not write poetry much anymore but I found some traces of it in this script. Scene one in the second movement, where Eurydice talks about Orpheaus, is one example of this. I particularly liked the syncopated interactions between Orpheaus and Eurydice when Orpheaus is trying to take her back from the underworld. I thought this style adds a lot, especially since music and remembering letters/language and writing letters and books plays a large role in this play...under the broader idea of means of communication (and their failure and successes).
I'm not sure how I felt about the grandmother character. When I first read the stage directions for her I wondered about how to communicate her identity to the audience. Yes, the father does explain to Eurydice (and thus the audience) later who she is but I still just saw her as a wandering, isolated character. Maybe thats the point, but even after reading Ruhl's explanation of the nearly silent grandmother, I was still unconvinced that her role added that much to the play.
I really liked the way Ruhl opened the play in the first movement. By showing the audience/reader how Orpheus and Eurydice interact, the audience/reader becomes acquainted with this couples dynamics, ways of relating to each other, etc. This makes their relationship less abstract and thus makes their loss of one another, and Eurydice's fear and inability to recognize Orpheus later, even sadder.
I really like the parallels drawn between Man and Child characters...their creepy, relentless come-ons and attempts to persuade Eurydice that staying with them is best. Is the Child supposed to be the Man growing younger? I don't know I just felt like the parallels in the underworld and the world of the alive (this mystical, fantastical Earth???) added a lot to the play and the character of Eurydice. Another thing I noticed about the interactions between the Man and Eurydice in the first movement is that, because they just met each other, they are both (to some extent) ignorant. Thus the explaining they do for each other is also done for the audience/reader.
The stones were another way to communicate information to the audience. Not well educated in Greek theater, I'm only assuming that the stones were fulfilling the role of the Greek Chorus (which, when telling the story of a Greek myth, is of course neccessary). Thus their exposition does not feel awkward or out of place since their existance (besides the plot involving the underworld and other fantastical aspects) heightens/reminds/highlights the imaginary, unrealistic atmosphere and setting of this play. Thus it is not jsut plot the stones reveal, but they also add to the general atmosphere of the play. Besides, they are hilarious. Perhaps some dark comedic relief to this heavy, sad story line? I think the role of the greek chorus could be a very strong and interesting tool to use when writing our own plays.
I thought it was interesting to read in the interview with Ruhl, that she had some background/interest in poetry. She said that she does not write poetry much anymore but I found some traces of it in this script. Scene one in the second movement, where Eurydice talks about Orpheaus, is one example of this. I particularly liked the syncopated interactions between Orpheaus and Eurydice when Orpheaus is trying to take her back from the underworld. I thought this style adds a lot, especially since music and remembering letters/language and writing letters and books plays a large role in this play...under the broader idea of means of communication (and their failure and successes).
I'm not sure how I felt about the grandmother character. When I first read the stage directions for her I wondered about how to communicate her identity to the audience. Yes, the father does explain to Eurydice (and thus the audience) later who she is but I still just saw her as a wandering, isolated character. Maybe thats the point, but even after reading Ruhl's explanation of the nearly silent grandmother, I was still unconvinced that her role added that much to the play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)