comments

http://garrettstheater.blogspot.com/2013/05/fires-in-mirror.html?showComment=1367703509625#c8474831319401016949

http://shelly2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/fires-in-mirror.html?showComment=1367703899262#c3552439580965868198

Fires in the Mirror

It has been brought to my attention that you wish to produce a version of Fires in the Mirror by Anna Deavere Smith with several scenes removed, as they may not directly pertain to the Crown Heights incident. As there can be an argument made for the implication of this version, I feel that there is a stronger argument against it. Though the scenes that you wish to remove may seem like they serve little purpose, these scenes prove, both independently and in congruency with the rest of the script, that they have value of their own. Taking these scenes individually, they provide the audience with important back ground information, such as in Static. This scene has no direct link to the incident at hand, but it tells the story of the interaction between a Jewish woman and a black boy within this community. This and the other scenes provide us with important context and background to how these groups interacted with each other. It gives us a chance to look at each side’s view of the other and not see blatant hatred, but rather misunderstanding and fear. These scenes are also important in relation to the rest of the script. Smith gradually moves back and forth between varying degrees of heaviness in her scenes. She goes from a scene where Al Sharpton is speaking angrily to one where a woman is talking casually about wigs. Smith uses these scenes to start a pattern of tension and release that then continues into the rest of the play. Removing these scenes would also remove many instances in which Smith’s motif of mirrors is introduced. Though the later scenes do hold most of the meat, those first few provide a lens with us to view the incident and establish principles that are later confirmed. 

My comments

http://gracietheatre2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/show-and-tell-post-2.html?showComment=1365875979937#c1729437498493111171

http://garrettstheater.blogspot.com/2013/04/detroit.html?showComment=1365877451892#c6438308499136716473

http://gracietheatre2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/water-by-spoonful.html?showComment=1365876534301#c6860887030356968036

http://emilielegethtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/04/buried-child.html#comment-form

http://gracietheatre2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/wow-noises-off-isso-crazy.html#comment-form

http://dontstopmemeow2130.blogspot.com/2013/03/glass-of-water.html#comment-form

Buried Child

The world of Shepard’s Buried Child at first glance seems to fit into the same reality as we live in ourselves. When you begin to read the script you are greeted by a page long paragraph about the set dressing and costumes. This we expect to see at the beginning of every conventional illusionistic play, but Buried Child isn't a conventional illusionistic play. Though the characters don’t burst out into song randomly, it is clear after you finish the script is that the story line and the extreme illusionism of the stage don’t quite fit. It almost seems as if the play is an illusion of illusionism. The script tries to present a reality in which “the American dream” is turned on its head. If I would pin point a specific element that distinguishes planet Buried Child’s sense of reality from our own it would have to be ambiguity, complexity, and irony. First off, there is a huge lack of the use of irony of any kind in this play. In most plays that we have read, we the readers were given information that the other characters weren't privy to.  This script provides us with little to know information extra from what we see with our own eyes, and in doing so creates a strong element of ambiguity. This ambiguity around things like who the baby’s father is makes us uncomfortable because if we were to have lived their lives we would know for sure. This sense of not knowing thing that you should is what provides that determent from reality as we know it. The characters in this play seem to not provide us with answers to these questions as if they are afraid of them themselves. This to me seems to be commenting on “the American dream” by showing us the power of ignoring ugly truths. 

Noises Off

In past analyses we were required to identify Hornby’s element of progression in our respective scripts of choice. In his terms progression refers to motifs found throughout the text. In Michael Frayn’s Noises Off I found that I found was progression itself. Many of the characters in the play seem to progress the story and themselves through the act of repetition. The entirety of the play is scattered with the repetition and rewording of lines. This happens not only with the second degree characters, like we might have expected, but it also occurs with their first degree characters. The characters would often say something that they were unsure about, go back, restart, and try it again and again until they got it right. For instance, in the first scene we would expect the Actress to second guess her words and actions, but the director also stumbles. “I mean, OK, so he’s the, you know. Fine. But, Dotty, love, you've been playing this part for well, Jesus, Dotty, you know what I mean.( 7)” This repetition and retrying is something we see in their relationships a well. With all this in mind, the tag line that I would us if I were to perform this show would be “once more with feeling.” I think this speaks to the playfulness of the show but also ties back into the idea of progression. The constant reediting and retrying of situation are the characters way of growing. The characters not giving up when at first they don’t succeed is seen throughout the dialogue and story line itself. If I were to name a unifying principle for this show it would definitely have something to do with progression because it is a theme seen in many of the elements of the script, not just the motifs. 

Glass of Water

                I don’t believe that any of the characters can really serve as solid protagonist by the definitions that we use today. In term of a central character, none of the characters really demands a significant amount more of the script time than all of the others. The five main character; The Queen, Bolingbroke, The Duchess, Masham, and Abigail all seem to not only hold an equal amount of stage time, but there individual story lines seemed to get equal attention as well. The characters with the most stage time didn't seem to have the highest risk stake situations. Another quality that all the characters share somewhat equally is their pathos. As a reader I seemed to identify with all their plights equally, whether their goals were politically or romantically driven. The other aspect of the parameters of a protagonist is the idea of an antagonist. Throughout the play the goals of; the Queen and the Duchess, and the Whigs and the Tories are at odds. Identifying one character might then turn another character into and antagonist even if they to have the potential to be a protagonist. The fact that a protagonist seems to be almost impossible to pin point is more helpful to the telling of this story than if you try to find one. It seems that writing this after having written my analysis, what became clear to me was that this play was more about people in general than distinct persons. My unifying principle was “to invest in the trivial,” and my paper issued the authors message of the equal influence of fate in everyone’s lives no matter their station. I believe that Scribe purposefully left an ambiguity about a protagonist in order to emphasize his message in the script.

Vogel

I feel that many people may have the same interpretation as I do as to the reason for the Greek Chorus. In my mind I feel like having all other characters in the show as non-descript entities, creates the illusion that they are the only two that see each other for who they are. Limiting the point of view to that of the two main characters allows us to remove a bit from what society has ingrained into us. The Greek chorus also prevents us from being able to make a connection with any other character, and allows us to focus on the growth and motives of Li’l Bit and Uncle Peck. Though she limited the point of view she didn't force it. The author could have omitted the parts where other characters were involved instead she included them to provide contrast to the ideas of the main characters. I also think that she chose the chorus in order to remind us of social order at times.

The most interesting convention that I took from the play was the casting of the main character as a singular forty something year old woman. The author could have cast the role as many different girls in various stages of their life in order to play the one role, but she didn't. For me I took that all the things that happened to her in her life made her the woman that she is today. In the end when she talks about where she is in her life, we can really see what kind of damage that Peck and the rest of her family did when they betrayed her trust. I think it also allows for a distancing effect. Not staging a real live ten year old going through the motions of being molested by an old man allows us to look at the situation instead of turning away in agony.