Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Saturday, December 7, 2013
'Tis Pity She's a Whore
When reading 'Tis Pity She's a Whore, John Ford's use of blood imagery really stood out to me. The plot itself is literally very bloody, containing lots of murder and physical violence. However, the characters also speak of blood fairly often. I know that containing hearts or daggers on the production poster would be a little go-to, but I think that blood imagery could server very well. The following quotes would also serve very well as catchphrases for the production:
#1: "Nearness in birth or blood doth but persuade a nearer nearness in affection." (Act I, Scene 2, Line 232)
Giovanni says this to Annabella after they reveal their love for one another. These characters are brother and sister, which creates a rather sizable conflict in the plot of 'Tis Pity She's a Whore. This quote represents blood as familial connection as well as a medium of passion. Family and passion are both major themes of this play.
#2: "I fear the event; that marriage seldom's good, where the bride-banquet so begins in blood." (Act IV, Scene 1, Line 108)
Friar says this to Giovanni at the banquet for Annabella and Richardetto's wedding after Hippolita is murdered. This quote foreshadows the violent end of their marriage and, ultimately, the play. It also compares blood with marriage, which is another huge theme in this play. The menare willing to fight and kill for the right to marry their chosen bride.
#3: "I have prevented now they reaching plots, and killed a love, for whose each drop of blood I would have pawned my heart." (Act V, Scene 5, Line 100)
Giovanni says this just after killing his sister/lover, Annabella. This quote actually quantifies and puts a value on blood. Giovanni is saying that he would offer his heart up for even a single drop of Annabella's blood. Choosing this as a tagline for the play would give it a sense of gravity and high stakes. It also depicts blood as something that is fought over, which is very true in the world of this play.
#1: "Nearness in birth or blood doth but persuade a nearer nearness in affection." (Act I, Scene 2, Line 232)
Giovanni says this to Annabella after they reveal their love for one another. These characters are brother and sister, which creates a rather sizable conflict in the plot of 'Tis Pity She's a Whore. This quote represents blood as familial connection as well as a medium of passion. Family and passion are both major themes of this play.
#2: "I fear the event; that marriage seldom's good, where the bride-banquet so begins in blood." (Act IV, Scene 1, Line 108)
Friar says this to Giovanni at the banquet for Annabella and Richardetto's wedding after Hippolita is murdered. This quote foreshadows the violent end of their marriage and, ultimately, the play. It also compares blood with marriage, which is another huge theme in this play. The menare willing to fight and kill for the right to marry their chosen bride.
#3: "I have prevented now they reaching plots, and killed a love, for whose each drop of blood I would have pawned my heart." (Act V, Scene 5, Line 100)
Giovanni says this just after killing his sister/lover, Annabella. This quote actually quantifies and puts a value on blood. Giovanni is saying that he would offer his heart up for even a single drop of Annabella's blood. Choosing this as a tagline for the play would give it a sense of gravity and high stakes. It also depicts blood as something that is fought over, which is very true in the world of this play.
Water by the Spoonful
In Water by the Spoonful, Hudes provides us with two distinct worlds: the "real world" and the "online world." Initially, these worlds exist almost independently from one another. However, as the play progresses, these two worlds intersect.
One scene in which I think this choice is particularly highlighted is Scene 7. It is the first time that we see Odessa and John in the "real world," and we learn that they also exist as Haikumom and Fountainhead in the "online world." I think that this was done in order to highlight the differences in these characters' "real world" personalities versus their "online" personalities. It also matches a physical form to a digital being. This can be a very shocking experience, as people are capable of only publishing information online that they want other people to know about them, whether or not it is necessarily even true.
In the online world, Haikumom presents herself as very loving, nurturing, and motherly. She constantly censors the other chat room attendees' profanities. She is also very encouraging towards the others in their steps towards drug rehabilitation. In the diner in Scene 7, however, she does not behave in the same manner. Odessa, as she is called in the real world, is very cynical towards rehabilitation, and she is also relatively foul-mouthed. When she's on the phone at the table, she says, "What? I told you, the diner on Spring Garden and Third. I'm busy, come in an hour. One hour. Now stop calling me and asking fucking directions." This really displayed how we are capable for putting up a total display in front of others while secretly being an entirely different person.
One scene in which I think this choice is particularly highlighted is Scene 7. It is the first time that we see Odessa and John in the "real world," and we learn that they also exist as Haikumom and Fountainhead in the "online world." I think that this was done in order to highlight the differences in these characters' "real world" personalities versus their "online" personalities. It also matches a physical form to a digital being. This can be a very shocking experience, as people are capable of only publishing information online that they want other people to know about them, whether or not it is necessarily even true.
In the online world, Haikumom presents herself as very loving, nurturing, and motherly. She constantly censors the other chat room attendees' profanities. She is also very encouraging towards the others in their steps towards drug rehabilitation. In the diner in Scene 7, however, she does not behave in the same manner. Odessa, as she is called in the real world, is very cynical towards rehabilitation, and she is also relatively foul-mouthed. When she's on the phone at the table, she says, "What? I told you, the diner on Spring Garden and Third. I'm busy, come in an hour. One hour. Now stop calling me and asking fucking directions." This really displayed how we are capable for putting up a total display in front of others while secretly being an entirely different person.
Topdog/Underdog
After doing a little bit of research and discussing 3-card Monte in class, I think I've come up with a possible connection of these theatrical mirrors in the play.
In 3-card Monte, when it's done "right", the player, or "mark", never wins the game. It's typically set up with people who are pretending to play the game called shills. The dealer convinces the mark that he can make some easy money, and tricks him into following the wrong card using sleight-of-hand. If the target does pick the correct card by chance, one of the shills will out-bet him/her. This way, the dealer never accepts a winning bet from the mark. When orchestrated correctly, it is impossible for anyone to win this game.
This is exactly what I think is mirrored in the lives of Lincoln and Booth. Lincoln works as an Abraham Lincoln impersonator reenacting his assassination, and he is treated very poorly at his work. His boss actually fires him and replaces him with a wax figure. While Lincoln was very successful in making money from 3-card Monte, his "honest Abe" attempt at life is not working out as well. The cards are stacked against him, and he cannot win the game.
While Lincoln excels at the card game, Booth does not. Although he tries very hard and practices frequently, he's not quite as skilled as his brother. Although Lincoln is tricks Booth into thinking that he's winning, he also lets him know that no one actually wins at 3-card Monte unless the dealer lets them. At the end of the play, Booth "assassinates" his brother, Lincoln. This symbolizes how neither of these characters are ever able of really "winning the game."
In 3-card Monte, when it's done "right", the player, or "mark", never wins the game. It's typically set up with people who are pretending to play the game called shills. The dealer convinces the mark that he can make some easy money, and tricks him into following the wrong card using sleight-of-hand. If the target does pick the correct card by chance, one of the shills will out-bet him/her. This way, the dealer never accepts a winning bet from the mark. When orchestrated correctly, it is impossible for anyone to win this game.
This is exactly what I think is mirrored in the lives of Lincoln and Booth. Lincoln works as an Abraham Lincoln impersonator reenacting his assassination, and he is treated very poorly at his work. His boss actually fires him and replaces him with a wax figure. While Lincoln was very successful in making money from 3-card Monte, his "honest Abe" attempt at life is not working out as well. The cards are stacked against him, and he cannot win the game.
While Lincoln excels at the card game, Booth does not. Although he tries very hard and practices frequently, he's not quite as skilled as his brother. Although Lincoln is tricks Booth into thinking that he's winning, he also lets him know that no one actually wins at 3-card Monte unless the dealer lets them. At the end of the play, Booth "assassinates" his brother, Lincoln. This symbolizes how neither of these characters are ever able of really "winning the game."
Next to Normal
It was definitely hard to separate my reaction to the music and how much I enjoyed this play in order to analyze it. However, I did the best that I could to listen to the music from a script analysis standpoint. The two Horby elements I'd like to discuss in reference to this play are Irony/Ambiguity/Complexity and Sequence.
From the get-go, Next to Normal is filled with Irony, Ambiguity, and Complexity. We as an audience do not initially know that Gabriel is dead. It's not until the family sits down for dinner and Diana announces Gabe's birthday that we learn he actually died before Natalie was even born. Although Diana is being treated for her psychological problems, we as an audience do not know if the Gabe that we are seeing on stage exists solely as a part of Diana's mind, as a ghost, or as something else. It's particularly confusing because Gabe died when he was eight months old, but the character that we see has aged to seventeen. One particular moment that stood out as ambiguous to me was the very end of the play when Dan and Gabe sing "I Am the One (reprise)." The music for this song changes drastically to a more sinister tone than the preceding "So Anyway." If the seventeen-year old personification of Gabe only exists in Diana's mind, then why are Dan and Gabe singing this song together? Gabe also addresses Dan at the end of the song after Dan says, "Gabe. Gabriel."
I'd like to talk about the Sequence of the music in Next to Normal. Specifically, I'd like to talk about how the characters frequently sing simultaneously. For example, the entire family sings "Just Another Day" and "Make Up Your Mind / Catch Me I'm Falling" together. I found this to signify that they are all in a struggle together as a family, but things never seem to get any better for any of them. One part in particular in which this really stood out to me was when Dan and Gabe sing "I Am the One" towards the end of the first act. The music and layering of lyrics in this song gave the feel that Dan and Gabe were battling each other for Diana's love and for their own existences. They both feel as though they need her in order to be alive, and she can only choose one of them. The shift to a rock score for this song also made it seem more like a battle to me. On a broad scope, I noticed that Act I was mostly filled with more upbeat music, and Act II mostly contained their reprises. It was a natural progression for the music to take.
From the get-go, Next to Normal is filled with Irony, Ambiguity, and Complexity. We as an audience do not initially know that Gabriel is dead. It's not until the family sits down for dinner and Diana announces Gabe's birthday that we learn he actually died before Natalie was even born. Although Diana is being treated for her psychological problems, we as an audience do not know if the Gabe that we are seeing on stage exists solely as a part of Diana's mind, as a ghost, or as something else. It's particularly confusing because Gabe died when he was eight months old, but the character that we see has aged to seventeen. One particular moment that stood out as ambiguous to me was the very end of the play when Dan and Gabe sing "I Am the One (reprise)." The music for this song changes drastically to a more sinister tone than the preceding "So Anyway." If the seventeen-year old personification of Gabe only exists in Diana's mind, then why are Dan and Gabe singing this song together? Gabe also addresses Dan at the end of the song after Dan says, "Gabe. Gabriel."
I'd like to talk about the Sequence of the music in Next to Normal. Specifically, I'd like to talk about how the characters frequently sing simultaneously. For example, the entire family sings "Just Another Day" and "Make Up Your Mind / Catch Me I'm Falling" together. I found this to signify that they are all in a struggle together as a family, but things never seem to get any better for any of them. One part in particular in which this really stood out to me was when Dan and Gabe sing "I Am the One" towards the end of the first act. The music and layering of lyrics in this song gave the feel that Dan and Gabe were battling each other for Diana's love and for their own existences. They both feel as though they need her in order to be alive, and she can only choose one of them. The shift to a rock score for this song also made it seem more like a battle to me. On a broad scope, I noticed that Act I was mostly filled with more upbeat music, and Act II mostly contained their reprises. It was a natural progression for the music to take.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Show and Tell Post #2 Botticelli by Terrence McNally
For my show and tell post, I chose the play Botticelli. It was written by Terrence McNally in 1968, and was first produced by Channel 13 in New York City in 1968. I found this play in "Terrance McNally: 15 Short Plays".
The entire plot revolves around two soldiers: Wayne and Stu. They are soldiers holding up in the jungle. Throughout the entire play, they are playing the guessing game "Botticelli." The premise of the game is that you think of a famous person and reveal the first letter of his/her name. The other plays then attempt to guess the person's identity through asking a series of yes/no questions. As a reference point, the individual should be at least as famous as Sandro Botticelli, Italian Renaissance painter. Wayne and Stu are casually playing a game of Botticelli while staking out a man hiding in a tunnel. Eventually, the man exits the tunnel and is shot to death by Wayne and Stu. However, before and after killing this man, Wayne and Stu barely bat an eye at anything unrelated to their game. Even as they leave the man dead in the middle of jungle at the end of the play, they exit in a debate over Wayne's victory.
Two dramaturgical choices in this play that I've found worthy of discussion are its duration and ambiguity.
While design elements would most likely make it very clear very early on that these men are soldiers in the jungle, the tension is not very high. Initially, there is nothing happening for a considerably large amount of time. The part in which the man comes out of the tunnel and is shot to death nearly happens in a flash, taking up almost no stage time. This shows how desensitized we've become to the sheer brutality of war.
There are several instances throughout the play in which you aren't exactly sure whether or not the characters are asking each other questions pertaining to the game or pertaining to real life. I think this was left intentionally ambiguous. It shows how these men are trivializing the gravity of war, murder, loss.
The entire plot revolves around two soldiers: Wayne and Stu. They are soldiers holding up in the jungle. Throughout the entire play, they are playing the guessing game "Botticelli." The premise of the game is that you think of a famous person and reveal the first letter of his/her name. The other plays then attempt to guess the person's identity through asking a series of yes/no questions. As a reference point, the individual should be at least as famous as Sandro Botticelli, Italian Renaissance painter. Wayne and Stu are casually playing a game of Botticelli while staking out a man hiding in a tunnel. Eventually, the man exits the tunnel and is shot to death by Wayne and Stu. However, before and after killing this man, Wayne and Stu barely bat an eye at anything unrelated to their game. Even as they leave the man dead in the middle of jungle at the end of the play, they exit in a debate over Wayne's victory.
Two dramaturgical choices in this play that I've found worthy of discussion are its duration and ambiguity.
While design elements would most likely make it very clear very early on that these men are soldiers in the jungle, the tension is not very high. Initially, there is nothing happening for a considerably large amount of time. The part in which the man comes out of the tunnel and is shot to death nearly happens in a flash, taking up almost no stage time. This shows how desensitized we've become to the sheer brutality of war.
There are several instances throughout the play in which you aren't exactly sure whether or not the characters are asking each other questions pertaining to the game or pertaining to real life. I think this was left intentionally ambiguous. It shows how these men are trivializing the gravity of war, murder, loss.
My Comments (Checkpoint 2)
http://haileysonnier.blogspot.com/2013/10/love-valour-compassion.html#comment-form
http://jstaff6.blogspot.com/2013/11/eurydice.html?showComment=1383764789694#c274604835089498241
http://morgansthtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-childrens-hour-response.html?showComment=1383765449794#c2157012188317828801
http://scriptanalysisbymadalyn.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-childrens-hour.html?showComment=1383766580038#c586424286592529927
http://icesk8prosue2130.blogspot.com/2013/11/eurydice.html?showComment=1383766938230#c8718017864640010704
http://jstaff6.blogspot.com/2013/11/eurydice.html?showComment=1383764789694#c274604835089498241
http://morgansthtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-childrens-hour-response.html?showComment=1383765449794#c2157012188317828801
http://scriptanalysisbymadalyn.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-childrens-hour.html?showComment=1383766580038#c586424286592529927
http://icesk8prosue2130.blogspot.com/2013/11/eurydice.html?showComment=1383766938230#c8718017864640010704
Eurydice
"Dead people can't sing!"
This quote has the ability to encapsulate the play into one sentence. The stones actually yell it at Eurydice and her Father when they are singing "I Got Rhythm" together. I chose this quote because it deals with loss. It deals with holding on to what brings you love and joy in your life. I think that a production based on this quote would be about just that: clinging to whatever it is that brings you happiness in your life before it's all gone.
"How does a person remember to forget."
This quote is from Father after Eurydice leaves with Orpheus. He wants to forget her so as to not spend eternity missing her. I chose this quote because it's about letting go. A production based off of this quote would be about learning when you need to let go of the things that you love the most. It's interesting to me that this play is about both holding on and letting go at the same time.
This quote has the ability to encapsulate the play into one sentence. The stones actually yell it at Eurydice and her Father when they are singing "I Got Rhythm" together. I chose this quote because it deals with loss. It deals with holding on to what brings you love and joy in your life. I think that a production based on this quote would be about just that: clinging to whatever it is that brings you happiness in your life before it's all gone.
"How does a person remember to forget."
This quote is from Father after Eurydice leaves with Orpheus. He wants to forget her so as to not spend eternity missing her. I chose this quote because it's about letting go. A production based off of this quote would be about learning when you need to let go of the things that you love the most. It's interesting to me that this play is about both holding on and letting go at the same time.
Love! Valour! Compassion!
After reading Love! Valour! Compassion!, a historian would certainly draw some inferences on the worldview of the play's culture that would contrast with those surrounding The Glass of Water and The Children's Hour.
Firstly, this play is nowhere near as tightly structured as the Well Made Plays. It dos not have a linear plot, there is no cause-effect sequence, and there is no logical resolution. I believe that our historian would infer that this world's culture has grown speculative of the capital-T Truth and humanity's ability to discover it. It puts a much larger emphasis on the journey towards discovery as opposed to the discovery itself. This play is also very theatrical as opposed to the very illusionistic Well Made Plays. Love! Valour! Compassion! blurs the lines between reality and fantasy, suggesting that we cannot simply take everything we see exactly for what it is.
Firstly, this play is nowhere near as tightly structured as the Well Made Plays. It dos not have a linear plot, there is no cause-effect sequence, and there is no logical resolution. I believe that our historian would infer that this world's culture has grown speculative of the capital-T Truth and humanity's ability to discover it. It puts a much larger emphasis on the journey towards discovery as opposed to the discovery itself. This play is also very theatrical as opposed to the very illusionistic Well Made Plays. Love! Valour! Compassion! blurs the lines between reality and fantasy, suggesting that we cannot simply take everything we see exactly for what it is.
The Children's Hour
While Lillian Hellman's The Children's Hour shares several attributes of the Well Made Play, it has a few key differences. It does have three acts, the plot depends on a secret, there is a long opening exposition, and the plot fits nicely into a Freytag graph. These are all attributes of Well Made Plays.
While the plot does depends on a secret, it's a secret that is kept from the audience until near the end of the play. Mrs. Mortar accuses Martha towards the beginning of the play of having "unnatural" feelings towards Karen. The entire plot surrounds this secret, but we the audience don't actually know that it's actually true until the last scene of the play. Additionally, the story does not have a "happy, logical resolution." I'd hardly say that Martha committing suicide as opposed to living life as a lesbian women ties everything up in a neat little bow.
While the plot does depends on a secret, it's a secret that is kept from the audience until near the end of the play. Mrs. Mortar accuses Martha towards the beginning of the play of having "unnatural" feelings towards Karen. The entire plot surrounds this secret, but we the audience don't actually know that it's actually true until the last scene of the play. Additionally, the story does not have a "happy, logical resolution." I'd hardly say that Martha committing suicide as opposed to living life as a lesbian women ties everything up in a neat little bow.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
'Night, Mother
Yes, "Will Jesse kill herself?" is definitely a major dramatic question that would work for 'Night, Mother. However, I believe that there are stronger options. I would suggest that a better alternative major dramatic question would be, "Will Jesse find reason to live?" If Jesse's only goal in this play were to kill herself, none of the action that occurs throughout the play would be necessary. However, the argument could be made that Jesse doesn't just simply kill herself right away because there is something that just needs from Mama. This is what drives the central action of the play. In this way, this story becomes more about the struggle to survive than about giving up on life.
There's a reason that Norman chose to have Jesse spending the night with Mama before killing herself. This is not to say that I believe that Jesse is desperately fighting for her life, because I don't think that. However, Mama is trying desperately throughout the entire play to stop Jesse from committing suicide. She is relentless, and employs many different tactics in an attempt to take control of the situation. To me, this leaves the audience questioning whether or not she will be able to save Jesse's life. Will Mama be able to "take control?" Will Jesse realize that suicide is not best alternative? These are the questions that drive the action of this play, and I believe that "Will Jesse find reason to live?" is a strong MDQ for it.
There's a reason that Norman chose to have Jesse spending the night with Mama before killing herself. This is not to say that I believe that Jesse is desperately fighting for her life, because I don't think that. However, Mama is trying desperately throughout the entire play to stop Jesse from committing suicide. She is relentless, and employs many different tactics in an attempt to take control of the situation. To me, this leaves the audience questioning whether or not she will be able to save Jesse's life. Will Mama be able to "take control?" Will Jesse realize that suicide is not best alternative? These are the questions that drive the action of this play, and I believe that "Will Jesse find reason to live?" is a strong MDQ for it.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Trifles
I do not believe that an ultra "stripped-down" production of Trifles would be particularly effective. It is Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale's attention to seemingly minute detail that unfolds the plot of this play. The specificity of the text is also something that I believe would only work in a setting containing high attention to detail. The script distinctly points out the dead bird, the bird cage, the unfinished quilt with a log cabin on it, etc. The detail contained within this world would not be complimented by a bare, minimalistic set. The text contained within the play just does not support it.
However, I could understand the argument for a minimalistic set being made for a few reasons worth considering. One such example would be in order to give the play a sense of timelessness. By creating a space that is essentially a void allows you to take the action of the play outside of any particular time period, at least to some degree. It gives you the opportunity to bring the plot into a possibly modern-day setting. It also can relay the message that the problems in this play are not specific to a particular time frame.
However, I could understand the argument for a minimalistic set being made for a few reasons worth considering. One such example would be in order to give the play a sense of timelessness. By creating a space that is essentially a void allows you to take the action of the play outside of any particular time period, at least to some degree. It gives you the opportunity to bring the plot into a possibly modern-day setting. It also can relay the message that the problems in this play are not specific to a particular time frame.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Overtones
In Overtones, Alice Gerstenberg makes it pointedly clear that Hettie and Maggie do indeed address each other. Many times throughout the script, the stage direction informs us that Hetty and Maggie are speaking to one another. So, I think that it's safe to assume that they are at the very least speaking to one another.
However, I don't necessarily believe that they are "communicating" with each other. From my interpretation of the play, Hetty and Maggie cannot be heard by anyone other than Harriett and Margaret, respectively. How could they be? If these characters represent the "inner-selves" of Harriett and Margaret, then how could anyone else possibly hear what they are saying?
I believe, rather, that these characters are representative of the "overtones" that are existent in the dialogue exchange between Harriett and Margaret. It's almost as though everything that they say exists somewhere deep within everything that Harriett and Margaret say.
That being, said I suppose this isn't the only way that this script could be analyzed. I don't think it would be ridiculous for someone to make the production choice of having Hetty and Maggie very clearly communicating and interacting with each other, so long as the reasoning behind it was solid. There's nothing in the script, at least to me, that would absolutely prohibit someone from staging this play one way or the other.
However, I don't necessarily believe that they are "communicating" with each other. From my interpretation of the play, Hetty and Maggie cannot be heard by anyone other than Harriett and Margaret, respectively. How could they be? If these characters represent the "inner-selves" of Harriett and Margaret, then how could anyone else possibly hear what they are saying?
I believe, rather, that these characters are representative of the "overtones" that are existent in the dialogue exchange between Harriett and Margaret. It's almost as though everything that they say exists somewhere deep within everything that Harriett and Margaret say.
That being, said I suppose this isn't the only way that this script could be analyzed. I don't think it would be ridiculous for someone to make the production choice of having Hetty and Maggie very clearly communicating and interacting with each other, so long as the reasoning behind it was solid. There's nothing in the script, at least to me, that would absolutely prohibit someone from staging this play one way or the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)