Blog Post 14: The Drowsy Chaperone

Yes, I know I'm out of order but here's my twelfth post but prompt 14.

One motif (progression), other than the monkey that the “man” points out,  I noticed was the fact that these characters used a false identity to gain something else for their benefit.  First off, Kitty and Janet were actors. They get paid to be someone else. Next, Drowsy easily tricked Aldolpho into having sex with her when she knew that he was specifically looking for Janet.  However, I guess this works out in the end because she prevented a potentially very dangerous situation.  And finally, Janet pretended to be Mimi whenever she wanted information out of her fiancé.  All of these situations were fairly harmless and playful but added the element of deceit and trickery.  I am curious to see more about how Aldolpho reacts whenever he finds out that “Janet” isn’t Janet.  It also baffled me a bit that Robert didn’t recognize his own soon to be wife. Yeah she was using an accent, but it shouldn’t have been that hard, but that is beside the point.

Secondly, duration played a huge part when it comes to Trix the aviatrix.  We see her briefly at the beginning of the show, however, she doesn’t come up again until the very end. Her role isn’t the most important during the bulk and action of the plot, but she ties everything together in the end.  In fact, I completely forgot about her until she popped back up, and I think that was the point. She’s clearly important because she helps marry four different couples and sends them on their honeymoon after a crazy tumultuous day, so in the end, she’s actually really, really important. 

Post 11: Fires in the Mirror

Yes, seemingly, the first 16 or so monologues don’t have anything to do with the riot itself. We sit here wondering how on earth a radio being turned on during a Sunday evening matters to a riot that tore a part a neighborhood even more than it already was.  However, these monologues give us so much insight. The whole purpose of this play, in my opinion, is understanding. There are so many sides and perspectives to the riot that it’s hard to know who is in the right and who is in the wrong, if anyone even is right or wrong. The black people learn why the Jewish community does what they do. They’re actions have meaning. The Jewish community can appreciate and learn from how the black community operates and what they believe.  In order to resolve any issues that Crown Heights has, it is imperative that the two groups have a basic understanding of how the other culture lives.

            It also allows the audience to see where these cultures are coming from.  I don’t know exactly how to relate to an orthodox Jewish person and I don’t understand rap music that well. But reading this, I understand why THEY are passionate about these things. I gain an understanding and have every bit of information I need to form an opinion. I hear all sides, and although there might be some bias, there will always be some bias. One of the monologues talks about how the Eskimos have 100 words for snow and how we have 100 ways of bias, and that is really hard to get away from, no matter what.

Comments

Comment One - Glass of Water

Comment Two - Buried Child

Comment Three - Noises Off

Comment Four - Noises Off

Comment Five - Water by the Spoonful

Comment Six - Detroit

Comment Seven: Show and Tell

Blog Post 10: Detroit

For one thing, while I was reading this play it occurred to me that I don’t think this play is meant to be staged. Although it can be (as evidenced by the production photos and production information in the play), it seems like there is too many stage directions that indicate to the readers something that might not play off to the audience.  The stage directions and casting instructions are also very ambiguous (not in Horby’s terms).  D’Amour often says, “you can do this, or this, or is she?” type of instructions that questions the character’s actions.

An example of ambiguity, in Horby’s terms, is that we don’t see the inside of the houses.  We can’t really get a feel of how these people live if we can’t see their furniture, or lack there of. For instance, Kenny and Sharon don’t have any furniture, but we do not see that.

An example of dramatic irony is that Kenny drinks, a lot, without Sharon knowing. If they both have such an addiction problem, including alcohol, then he shouldn’t be drinking. And he definitely should not be drinking behind his now-sober wife.

A wake up call moment that I noticed on earlier in the play happens in scene two.  Sharon calls out Mary on having a drinking problem. Now, she may or may not, but it does seem as though she drinks a lot throughout the play. Another, more obvious example, is when Mary and Ben are watching their house basically completely burn to the ground. This moment tells them that they cannot trust everyone that they meet. Neighbors aren’t always what they’re made out to be in movies.

I think ambiguity is the most central aspect to this play, because, after all, we don’t know anything about this couple (Sharon and Kenny).  We don’t know about their past, their names, their lives, their family, their jobs, and their financial situation. We know some details but they turned out to be lying a lot, so it’s quite possible that they lied about every single thing. Their lives are the definition of ambiguous.

Show And Tell Post 2: Asssassins

            My second show and tell post is about a show that I worked on during the first few weeks of classes last semester.  It is a show called Assassins written by Stephen Sondheim and John Weidman.  I reread it a few weeks ago because, in my opinion, it is one of the wittiest, smartest, and most well written shows I have ever read/seen. I caught some of this when I worked on it for two weekends, but when I read it again, it all made so much more sense and I fell in love with the show all over again.

            It was first performed in 1990 on Off-Broadway. It was on West End two years later.  The revival was performed on Broadway in 2004 starring big names like Michael Ceveris and Neil Patrick Harris.  A fun fact is, without ever being nominated for a Tony Award, it was nominated for and won best revival in 2004 without the show ever actually being on Broadway.  Theatre Baton Rouge did five performances of it the weekend of Isaac, and University of Southern Mississippi will be doing the show sometime this semester.

            Assassins follows the story of infamous assassins throughout American history starting with John Wilkes Booth and ending with Lee Harvey Oswald. This one act story actually gives purpose to the assassins and sort of makes you feel bad for them. For instance, Leon Czolgosz, assassin of President William McKinley, was made out to be a protagonist.  He has a monologue where he goes into detail about how hard it is to work at his bottling factory where he only makes $0.06 per hour. One of the final songs discusses why each assassin attempted our succeeded to kill their target. Some of their reasons include “the poor man’s pay,” for love (as shown by Squeeky Fromme loving Charlie Manson and John Hinckley trying to prove his love to Jodie Foster), for the South, and because Giuseppe Zangara’s “belly was on fire.” Some of the characters interact with each other and JWB seems to lead the way. Finally, at the very end, all of the assassins get together to try and convince Lee Harvey Oswald, the most famous assassin of all, to shoot JFK because if he does, then they will all be remembered.  Oswald gives their deaths purpose.

            One dramaturgical choice that Sondheim and Weidman made was to add a chorus. These chorus members played certain real life people, such as Emma Goldman, an anarchist, and President Gerald Ford.  This chorus also played a big part in showing how these assassinations affected the people of the United States. In the revival, they added a song called “Something Just Broke” which was the chorus members remembering exactly what they were doing the moment JFK was shot.  They were also talking to news reporters after Zangara’s attempt at shooting Roosevelt in the song entitled “How I Saved Roosevelt.”

            My favorite dramaturgical choice and character is The Balladeer. This character sings the story of the three main assassinations and tries to steer you away from them convincing you that what they did was right.  He sings the three songs called “The Ballad of Booth,” “The Ballad of Czolgosz” and “The Ballad of Guiteau.”  In “Another National Anthem” when the assassins are giving their reasons like mentioned earlier, he looks them each in the eye and says “You forgot about the country so it’s now forgotten you.”  He tries so hard to get through to these people and say that what they did wasn’t worth it because it didn’t change anything. 

            In the revival, they made a production choice that sent chills down my spine when I watched clips on youtube.  They turned The Balladeer into Lee Harvey Oswald right after “Another National Anthem.” They lit the scene up on Neil Patrick Harris in the Texas Book Depository as the tables turned and the assassins now tried to convince him. It was awesome.

Water by the Spoonful (Post 9)

Worlds collide in Water by the Spoonful, however, they do not literally interact with each other.  One moment that stood out to me, in particular, was found at the end of scene twelve on page 74 (on the kindle edition).  The stage directions state that a policeman points a flashlight on Orangutan and that bright beam ends up being seen in Yaz’s world.  We often symbolize the bright white light with going to meet our maker.  It is, essentially, an acceptance of death.  Yaz sees this white light and realizes that it is absolutely okay that Odessa has over-dosed because she will be okay.  She accepts and tells her to go and that she loves her, just to get those final words in.  The policeman is doing his literal job by waking up Orangutan who is sleeping on the train station platform.  Her acceptance is that she cannot be disappointed again and she realizes that she needs to move on from her past and accept that she does not need that family to be happy.

            The realities colliding indicate that no matter where these people are in the world they have a connection.  That connection will be there and it is mainly because of Odessa that these people are okay.  She might not have always been there for these people around her but she’s tried and she’s tried to make it better.  The light is the connection between the two places – Japan and Philedelphia.  These characters need a connection to keep their hope and spirits alive and their addictions dead.

Blog Post 7 (or in my case 8) on Noises Off

            A strange and obvious, but semi-overlooked motif would be whiskey. Alcohol can make you confused and all over the place and in this case that’s how these characters are acting all the time, whether or not they’re actually under the influence of the alcohol.  For instance, it is a driving force as to why Selsdon acts the way he does.  Also, it is a constant back and forth action backstage during the real second act of the show.  They were trying to keep away the alcohol thus trying to control the confusion.  But the whiskey was hidden everywhere. There’s no missing it because it will find a way to show up and screw these people over.  I know I missed quite a bit because reading stage directions is kind of hard, and, honestly, after the first few pages I sort of sped through it. 

The tag line I am choosing for this show is “You just do it.”  Like it was stated in this prompt, this is a show that cannot be too rehearsed or too refined because it will make it boring.  On page 74, Lloyd says, “Listen, I think this show is beyond the help of a director. You just do it.” There is only so much polishing you can do to this show because, like I said, the confusion and chaos is what drives the play and keeps the show going on and in their case, as cliché as it sounds, the show must go on. And that is how it has to be done