Tragedy Reinvented?

(Tony Kushner, the playwrite, found in Google Image Search)

Tony Kushner’s Angel in America is probably my favorite read of the semester.  I love the complexity of the characters and the constant underling anger just bubbling under the surface. Kushner is disgusted by the fact that no one is paying attention to the AIDS issues and gay rights, and so writes a play with some many heart wrenching scenes which truly make you feel for the characters that your are dying to know what happens to them. Sadly, we are only provided with the first part of the play here. Over break I will have to find a copy of the second play to find out what happens.

One of the more interesting and dislikeable characters of play is Roy Cohn. Though Kushner makes him based off the real life figure who spent his life working to flush communism out of America and as many questionable morals, it is difficult not to feel bad for the guy in some ways. Cohn’s power broking done in both the play and real life is representative of why nothing can get done in politics, because there are like Cohn obsessively working to counter act it.

Though there is no possible other way to describe Cohn as a pretentious ass, he still in some ways is a tragic figure. Cohn is a closeted gay man, who is dying of AIDS. With the way he treats people it isn’t that far of stretch to believe that Cohn might be virtually alone when he dies.

It is because of his political beliefs and his work as a lawyer that keeps Cohn closeted. He’s working hard to follow in his family’s footsteps and being an open gay man. It is doubtful his practice would have been as successful if he was an open gay because of the homophobia that raged at this decade. It is also doubtful without that position he would have gotten the political connections he did.

It is both sad and frustrating that Cohn has to deny their truth for their work. Reading the play you get the sense that Cohn is not happy. He has everything in the world except his truth, and at the end of the day that should be the only thing that matters. Cohn’s much less loveable characteristics may come with his frustration of having to hide who he is.

Cohn represented a tragedy of the 20^th Century that is common in the drive for American politics. In order to get there you must deny any passions or truth to yourself. You’re a held to this ‘moral’ ideal that hardly anyone else in American follows. Yet, you can be an absolute jackass in everything else. The fact that Cohn chooses this life may be his own fault, but the tragedy is even if his death he can’t have his truth because the lingering reputation of AIDS on his memory would have undone everything he worked for.

Even if Cohn is not a tragic figure, it is difficult not to feel for him. I think Kushner in many ways is reinventing a tragic character with Angels. Kushner certainly felt something for him, because he placed him in his play, gave him a central role, and gives him such a complex characterization. For me, tragic or not tragic, Cohn’s life is still extremely sad existence.  He has everything, but nothing at all. 

To Move or Not To Move? That is the Question!

    (Caryl Churchill, playwrite. Found in Google Image Search)

A Number by Caryl Churchill is the second play we have read by a female playwright this semester. Like the other play we read by a female playwright, Trifles by Susan Glaspell, the major female character of the play is absent and we are only allowed to make our understanding over he based off the information that is provided by the characters.

Though in Churchill’s play understanding the female character is not critical to the point of the play, it’s a striking similarity. Churchill’s play deals with a contemporary issue like Glaspell who was commenting on female rights. Only Churchill takes on one of the most provoking issues of the modern world: human cloning.

Churchill’s piece is very striking in both is content but also in its scripts form. There is not a single stage direction other than minor character descriptions. This does a lot for the play in terms for the plays analysis and production.

When I first flipped through the pages of A Number trying to see if there were stage directions, I wasn’t sure I was going to like the fact that there were none. However, I really enjoyed it. The stage directions did not become distracting like they do in many plays, but instead you are allowed to focus on the dialogue and the characters themselves. This made it for a very enjoyable and complex play.

The lack of stage directions help you focus on the plays purpose, which is to comment and examine the reality of human cloning. The lack of stage directions also leaves this very open to director interpretation. You could do virtually anything you wanted with this play as far as setting, directions, character looks, ect. For me this was exciting!

In my mind as I was reading the play, I pictured both Bernard’s as very stationary and unmoving. I pictured them almost helpless and crippled by the news and discovery of the fact that they had clones. This to me was symbolic of the helplessness we all feel and experience at the reality of cloning. Though we may not agree with it, we are helpless to stop science, just as in many ways we are helpless of our own genetic nature that unfolds from us, much like the original Bernard, who killed himself. Perhaps, he had a predisposition to killing himself because of the depression he was in after the discovery. His mother had done the same after all….

I saw the only moving characters as Salter and Michael, because they accepted the reality and embraced it. They will move forward with science, while the others are clearly incapable of this new reality. For me this post focused on Salter’s choice as much as anything else, and for me he was the central character. Without his choice, nothing would have happened the way it did. I think this play deals with reality and our ability to let go, which for Salter is difficult. He would rather live in an odd sort of reality with 20 sons rather than just one or even none.

Chruchill’s play provokes a wide range of thoughts and questions and I’m interested in discussing the play because like Beckett’s Waiting for Godot it seems to raise more questions than it answers.

November 17, 2011: Saginaw Valley State University’s Production of Michael Hollinger’s "Incorruptible"

I really enjoyed this performance! There were many things I liked about it. First off, the comedy was amazing. Seeing it performed made the physical comedy that Hollinger includes in the stage directions much more humorous.  

Many of the actors were spot on to my reading of the script and the character information given. The actor playing Olf: amazing. The Peasant Woman: Spot on! Charles: perfect. Marie: Great.

I also really liked the set; it was very well designed and decorated. I did not expect that for a play at a University, which though have professionals working on them, are not always high budget productions. This set was up with the quality of the stuff we saw in Stratford in October.

That being said, there were some major issues I had with the performance. Firstly, Martin spoke way to fast! I loved the pompous almost feminine flair he gave off, but he needed to slow his lines down. Had I not been familiar with the material, I wouldn’t have gotten many of his jokes. In fact, I was the only one in the theater who did many times. Yeah, we had a conversation about being the only person laughing earlier that day in class…

I did not like the fit they had Agatha throw towards the end of her stage time. What was that about? That was way over the top and unnecessary. It was funny, to a point, but then it just became over dramatic (can you really be over dramatic with a character in a play? I wonder what Pirendello would say about this....).

The final thing that stuck out to me that was different than my reading of the play was Jack. He was not the central character in the performance. In fact, Charles and Martian kind of take over the lime light a little bit. The director kind of made him come off as weak in the play. He gets pushed very easily around by Marie on stage several times. He kind of just seems to be caught up in the rush over everything, and not really the true master mind behind most of it. I think it does make some sense to make Charles the center of the play on one level, because Charles has a back story that is much longer and richer than Jack's. However, Jack’s miracle at the end and good deed felt a bit crowded over by than it should have been! This was slightly frustrating because they are the total purpose of the play itself.

All and all though, this was a really good performance. I enjoyed it, and laughed probably more than reading it for class last week. The physical comedy takes this play to the next level, and I think this play, might make some sort of entrance into cannon future. I was pleased with a lot, the quality of the actors and their performance especially. I also really liked the set and the line delivery was verbatim of the script. There were not really major scene switches or changes other than a few directors’ interpretations that bothered me. However, I don’t expect to agree with every version of a play I see and I certainly enjoyed this one. This performance was memorable in many ways, which is good because like all live performances, they are unrepeatable.

Breaking the Theatrical Illusion: Bertolt Breckt

  (Bertolt Breckt, playwrite of The Good Person of Szechwan, found on a Google Image Search)

The Good Person of Szechwan by Bertolt Breckt is one of the plays I have trouble understanding this semester. I was especially not a fan of his moments where he broke the illusion of the pseudo reality created by the play. Breckt is famous for this, and although I have not had a problem yet with the direct address to the audience, the occasional song, the experimental, or the odd almost insulting humor, this was a little too much for me.

Breckt breaks the theatrical illusion in two ways: direct addresses to the audience and with random songs and verse thrown in amongst the scenes of the play.

I didn’t mind is direct address to the audience so much in the beginning of the play, because they were ways to introduce the characters and in some ways heightened the sense of anxiety Wang felt trying to find a place for the Gods.

                   (add for the play found on Google Image Search)

It was more of the songs and verses that bothered me. I realize some of these songs and verses gave you a flavor of the culture Breckt was choosing to set his play in, but their breaking of the illusion was way too strong and far too frequent for my liking. It was confusing and broken the train of the play. So I found myself becoming quickly confused and I actually had to read the play completely through twice before I realized that Shen Teh and Shui Ta were the same person.

This play was very confusing, and the breaking of the illusions did not help, I kept thinking the songs were symbolic of something, or representative of the next scene in the play, but it seems they are just kind of randomly thrown in there. This creates an unnecessary distraction as far as I’m concerned. I’ve never been a huge fan of musicals but I can respect and admire the genre, and at least in musicals the songs included make sense to the story line….

The ending also bothered me. It was way to quickly wrapped up (if you can even call it a wrap up). Breckt throws the solution on to the audience. Which I realize why he’s doing, but how do you solve the problem of people being too good and innocent at heart to say no to helping people? Make it so people don’t need help? That’s pretty well impossible. If Breckt is trying to do a call to action here, he needs to be clear about WHAT action he wants the audience to solve.

                     (Image of the Tabacco Shop, found in Google Image Search)

The Good Person of Szechwan is confusing and the illusion breaking is startling. I like theater, books, movies, and art to pull me. I like to get lost in something. Not necessarily always for the idea of escapism, but I like something to be so realistic or well written or a character to interesting that I get pulled in and lost in their lives for a brief little bit. I get to experience a variety of perspectives and interests this way. With Breckt’s I never quite felt his characters were developed nor was his plot. It was just random instances connected with songs.

The only think I could identify with on some level, is the small feminist reading I could do of Shen Teh. I understand her frustration of trying to be a woman in business and having everyone walk all over you because you are so ‘warm and cuddly’ that you will be able to help every single charity or charity case, because you can’t say no like a man can. So I understand and sympathize with her when she chooses to invent a male identity and pass as a male.

So, I did get something out of it, but it was only have long and careful reflection and frustration that I go there. It wasn’t even gratifying to me to have found it. I don’t always want my message easily laid out for me, but I want my plays to have a sturdy plot and be connected by more than just a musical number here and there. I’m not impressed with Breckt’s contribution to Modern Drama thus far, maybe after we discuss it in class I’ll have softened my opinion or be convinced of something else, but I just didn’t think it was that well written of a play.

                 (Shen Teh and Shui Ta, found ing Google Image Search)

Is making fun of Catholicism still funny?

      (Michael Hollinger, the playwrite, found in Google Image Search)

Incorruptible is just as the cover says: A Dark Comedy about the Dark Ages. It is defiantly not pro-catholic. A lot of its humor is marked by poking fun at the Catholic Religion’s past obsession with paying for your forgiveness and miracles. I was raised Luthern which started with 95 statements bashing the Catholic Church, so a lot of the stuff presented in this play I was aware of. Also with the sex scandals that became prevalent in the 80s and 90s…...

I guess my major question is: is this really any humor or reason to keep bashing the Catholic Church? Will it ever get old and worn out?

While I do admit to laughing several very hard several times while reading this play. I did think the humor of bashing the Church got kind of old after awhile. Personally, this play was not just about religion. This play was more about greed and power corruption. It makes sense to have it set in a Church because many people place a great deal of trust and authority into religions and religious figures.

I think Michael Hollinger was trying to point out, that the Church is run by human beings who are corruptible, but because they are working with an supposedly incorruptible intangible system, religion itself gets a bad rap. This is just speculation. This is my first experiences with Hollinger, so he could be an atheist for all I know.

Religion is suppose to be incorruptible, and I think because the Catholic Church in Europe has been the main leader in religion throughout history, and some of the unfortunate things that happened in past, they get to be the brunt of the religious jokes into the 21^st century. Is it still funny or not? Yes and No. It does have its lines and limits. If it stays funny, only time will tell.

Even taking out the fact that this is supposed to be the Catholic religion, the whole premise of the play is quite humorous. The idea of digging up people to sell them as parts of Saints is funny. Especially when you are selling four heads of John the Baptist.

I’m not sure what to make of the miracle at the end of the play. I think that is what makes the idea that it’s the people who get corrupted not the religion itself that gets corrupted. The people whose intentions are genuinely pure like Jack’s were, are the ones who faith and religion benefit. They haven’t been corrupted by power or greed. I think the danger Hollinger likes to point out is believing that even with faith you are incorruptible, because that is when you can justify doing bad things like selling bodies as saints for profit.

Minimalism done right: Waiting for Godot Post II

                                (Image found in Google Image Search of the Play)

One of the most striking things about reading and watching Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot is its very bleak setting. The set has basically a scrawny tree with a few leaves, a rock, and a few props that range from hats, a stool, to boots. This is direct contrast to many of the plays I have read so far this semester.

Especially, plays like Shaw’s or O’Neill’s whose sets are so detailed it become almost impossible to replicate them on stage. They get down to the level of detail that your know what kind of books on the book shelf.  Beckett’s lack of scenery is almost startling in comparison.

I do think Beckett was trying to do something new with this type of scenery and play. I think he was trying to comment on modernism in a new way. His scenery defiantly helps you focus in on the player’s actions and words. It helps you focus on the existentialism and the choices each of the characters are facing. We have Pozzo who is trying to decide what to do with Lucky. Lucky who is choosing to stay and work for Pozzo till the bitter end. Then we have Estragon and Vladimir who choose to continuously wait for Godot (who ever or whatever he is).

In Shaw’s play we see how helpless we are in our social classes, and that even with the proper training, we never stop being who we really are. In O’Neill’s play we see how helpless we are in fate, and that sometimes our choices are out of our own hands.

Yet, in Beckett’s play, everything is driven by choice. I think the fact that scenery is so space is symbolic of that fact. There is nothing around that that could affect or influence their fate in anyway…except for possibly the tree. Yet, ultimately, they make the choices and the play is driven entirely by their choices and actions.

The minimalist stage could also be a symbolic of the religious aspect. Which shows how bleak their life is while waiting for God. That is probably a stretch, since I don’t necessarily think you have to examine this play by its religious references alone.

Beckett’s minimalistic stage, is defiantly different from his predecessors, and aides Waiting for Godot very well. I think this might be my favorite piece we have read this semester.

A Play Inside of a Play, About Creating a Play: Luigi Pirandello’s "Six Characters in Search of an Author"

                

                       (Luigi Pirandello, the playwrite, found in Google Image Search)

Luigi Pirandello’s Six Characters in Search of an Author is perhaps the most confusing play I have read this semester in terms of action, stage directions, actor relationship, and characterization.

I am not quite sure what to make of this play. It starts off with a drama company preparing for their first rehearsal of a new play (ironically by Pirandello), and randomly this family shows up, demanding they perform a play they are going to act out and create before them. The relations between all of the family members are unclear, expect they all think they are better than this professional acting company.

The family flatter’s the director into letting them act out this confusing play, which makes even less sense. The company actors are insulted and irritated, but end up going along with this, up until it looks like one of the family’s children dies upon the stage. Then everyone departs and the step daughter runs around laughing.

This play is extremely confusing and might make more sense if I could see it preformed. This would allow me to see the actor placement and frequent action and scene changes they are working with since the characters are essentially creating a play. Though I generally don’t mind the creation of a play inside of a play, (the play inside of Hamlet is the first one that comes to mind), this just seemed ridiculous! The way Pirandello lays this out, it seems more like a cheap trick to me than good drama.

However, Pirandello raises some interesting points in his play about the differences between reality, fiction, and performance. At the start of the semester we had a discussion about performance in everyday life. We talked about doing something as simple as following the social conventions sometimes of responding in a conversation about something you have not interest it as being a performance. You are putting on an act that you care what this other person is saying. This is what I kept thinking about when I was reading the play. Perhaps Pirandello was seeing the beginning of the blurring lines between reality and performance in everyday life and wanted to comment on it.

It was fairly easy for this family to walk in off the street and present themselves as ‘actors’ even though they claimed much of their story to be ‘reality’.

However, though Pirandello’s use of ‘breaking the frame’ by mixing in characters walk onto stage and join in effective. I found it very disorientating in this play. It almost creates more confusion than necessary, even if it helps strengthen the point he is trying to make.

Though, Pirandello’s play within a play is not as flawlessly and seamlessly transitioned into as it is in Hamlet, I also do not think it is not suppose to be. This is supposed to jar the audience into the same level of confusion as the characters with the original play.

I almost wonder, with the new level of mediation the world is going through at this moment, what Pirandello would have to say about it blurring the lines further between reality and fiction, especially with things like ‘reality TV’. Hmmm…..