Angels In America

            Human Identity is definitely considered in the drama Angels in America by throwing these characters into serious and frightening situations without giving them warning or the ability to defend themselves against it. Louis doesn’t know if he should stay in the relationship with Prior because of the AIDS Prior has recently obtained. Joe doesn’t want to admit to the world that he is a homosexual, but if he doesn’t he marriage with Harper is going to fall into unfixable pieces. Both of these characters are trying to figure out who they are and what exactly they stand for, but the struggle is almost too surreal for either of them to handle. By the end of act 1, almost every character is in denial of the seriousness they need to discover if they want to survive their problems.

I feel like the split screens used in Angels in America are perfect for what the author is trying to get across. He is trying to show two couples that are pitted against homosexuality in different situations and by comparing how they react to these situations the reader can understand more than just a single viewpoint. On one hand you have Louis and Prior are struggling with the former getting AIDS, Joe and Harper are struggling with a failed marriage and the fact that Joe is secretly gay. Both of these relationships are about to come to and end because of homosexuality and that is just sad. Why, solely on sexual orientation, does relationships have to end? It is a sad world where people leave others just because of hurt or betrayed morals. Louis and Joe both feel like they have their live under control until it all starts to fall apart at once and the split screens are a good way of capturing how everything is falling apart and how they handle it. I like how the author switches from couple to couple mid sentence; he doesn’t wait for the conversation to be over or at a checkpoint.

            I do not see Roy Cohen as a tragic character because of his insanely rude and evil demeanor.  Throughout the entire first act of the play all he does he show how he is above everyone he speaks to, including Joe. Even though he is offering Joe a very wealthy position, he still seems to be doing it just to do it. Like it doesn’t really matter to him, he’s still going to be rich and in power either way. I see him getting sick as a sort of poetic justice, even though I feel like at this point of the story he really hasn’t comprehended how horrible this experience is going to be. Roy still seems to think that he is in charge of his life and he needs to realize that the disease is in control from now on. When he is speaking to the doctor it almost made me cringe, even though Roy made some good points. Roy just still seems so arrogant and I feel like as the play progress and so does his disease, he is going to become less arrogant and more accepting of himself and more importantly, others around him. 

It's A Wonderful Life: A 1940's Radio Play

            I went and seen It’s a Wonderful Life at SVSU on November 30, 2011. It was co-directed by David Rzeszutek and Ric Roberts. I knew the story before I went in to see the play, so I kind of had an idea of what I was getting myself into. The only problem is that I wasn’t completely aware that this play was actually going to be performed as a radio play! So instead of the actors memorizing their lines, they stood up to mics, hardly moved, and read directly off of their scripts. While I do understand what they were trying to accomplish, an old fashioned feel with a 40’s type of innocent cheerfulness, but it just didn’t work when being watched. When I go to watch a play, I’m doing so with the understanding that I’m going to sit and enjoy a story that will be played out in front of my eyes. So when I sat down and started to watch It’s A Wonderful Life, I was seriously disappointed. I did not pay money to watch actors refuse to act! I feel bad saying this because the play was well performed for what it was, these actors would be perfect voice actors, but I just couldn’t get into a play that was just being read to me!

            I guess I should speak about other aspect as well, like the actual actors. I found it strange that professors and not students played the two main characters, George Bailey and Clarence the angel. This was interesting to me because I usually expect students to be acting for credit or to further their skills. The professors have already proven themselves so it seems a little unprogressive to have them be the two main characters. Nevertheless, both of these adults were great performers, their voices seemed right in character, since all I can judge are their voices because they didn’t act anything out!!! After going to a couple of plays at SVSU I am starting to recognize actors who are consistently in these plays It is fun be aware of these main actors, because it is fun to watch them grow as actors. One of the actors I remember specifically from Incorruptible when it was performed a couple weeks ago. He was very funny in the previous play and just as entertaining in this one. Overall though, I have to say that it would have been much easier for me to write about this performance if there was actually a performance. This radio play knock off was definitely not what I was looking for and I possibly should have picked a different play to go and see. 

The Good Person Of Szechwan

            Breaking the fourth wall in any type of entertainment, movies, television, even music, is becoming more and more common in our society, and Brecht’s The Good Person of Szechwan proves that this phenomena as been written into works much earlier than one might think. There are various moments in this play where a character speaks to the audience and there are many points where songs are sang for various lengths of time. I am okay with the characters of the play talking directly to the audience, I feel like it is a convincing way of letting that character get some thoughts and feelings out that he/she wouldn’t have been able to do with another character on stage. The thing that I do have trouble with are the songs. I am not exactly a fan of musicals, and while this could in no way be called a musical, the songs just seem completely out of place. While some of the songs do have meaning, like the song of the eighth elephant. This was an important song that showed how Sun is tame compared to the other workers, and how he feels separate from the working group. Then there are songs about Green Cheese and I have to admit these type of songs made me want to quit reading the drama all together. Brecht’s play is too serious to be adding in silly effects like song and dance numbers, it just doesn’t help the play do what it wants to do. With all of the issues about being a decent person, pleasing the gods, succeeding with what one has, the songs just don’t fit into that spectrum.

            One other thing that I wanted to discuss slightly, even thought it wasn’t one of the prompts, is the lack of a central main character. While on my first read I pictured Shen Teh as the main character, I started to see Wang as more or a main role, as well as the cousin Shui Tah, and the Three Gods who appear at most of the interludes. All of these characters are just as important as the next. I feel like the more I read this, the more Wang becomes the main character in my eyes. He is one of the only ones, if not the only one, in the play to have consistent contact with the three gods. This is really important, because the entire play is sort of about these gods trying to find a good enough person in the world. Wang may seem pitiful and manipulative, but he is trying to do the best he can with his morals and water selling business. I feel like Wang is a much more interesting character than Shen Teh as well, he is slightly more conflicted, while she is just too worried about making everyone else happy. 

A Number

           The way that Churchill devises his play A Number without almost any stage directions is masterful. The reason I am putting this type of narration in such high praise is because somehow the author has found a way to keep an audience invested and suspended in tension without spoon-feeding any of the plot or characterization. Even thought I was sort of confused throughout most of the play, I was glad that it wasn’t dumbed down just for the people like me who couldn’t keep up the first time.  The dialogue was so interesting that there was essentially no need to stage directions. The plot focused around these people conversing and there really are not any stage directions that would have furthered the story or characterization of these characters. You understand everything you need to about Salter, B1, B2, or Michael Black, mostly because the author wants you to be mostly in the dark about them. If the reader was to know everything about these characters, the story would be much more boring and predictable. You could learn a lot about the different ambitions from, say, how Salter talks with B1 or B2. He tells each son different stories and lies to both of them, obviously showing that he cares more about his relationship with his sons than being honest with people.

            I don’t think that the cloning idea is as controversial as the public makes it out to be. I have never been that up to date on the cloning situations, but it seems like a no brainer to me. While there are certain aspects that would seem beneficial (being able to pick gender of baby, being able to select attributes) there are too many things that could go wrong for it to be worth it. The clones being aware that they are clones is just a recipe for disaster. They would obviously become jealous of their own identity and not be able to accept that they are not completely unique, as is what I believed happened in A Number. When B1 figured out that he was not Salter’s only son, even though the other was cloned from B1, he acts out of jealousy and kills B2. This would not have happened if B1 was not aware that he was a clone.

            I also think that it is interesting to note how the play is structured beyond saying that there are no stage directions. Almost every conversation seems to start in the middle and it gives you little inclinations about what they said previous to the reader stepping in. This makes you feel like you’ve just stepped into the conversation as a third party, not as an all-knowing god like narrator. This makes the play seem much more believable than if it were an omniscient narrator. 

Incorruptible (Performed Version)

I went and saw Incorruptible at Saginaw Valley and I have to say it was very good and made me laugh throughout the entire play. This was a play that many people in our class probably knows I did not completely enjoy. I thought the story was forgettable and the importance just seemed a little shy of real. But when the play is performed, it turns into a much different medium: straight phsycial and witty humor. There were a couple things that I want to point out to be the reasons why this performance of the play was so exquisite.

            First, the actors were spot on. The actors playing Martin and Charles played perfectly off each other, timing their back and forth jokes perfectly. There were a couple times when I caught one of them messing up a line, but their improvisation was so good that the rest of the audience probably didn’t even notice. The Peasant Woman, who I quite honestly forgot about when reading the play, played a much bigger role in the stage version. She accounted for a lot of laughs, even making some jokes I was surprised to be told in a fairly tame play. The old woman made a couple sexual innudenos and while it seemed a little much for the lightness of the play, it made the crowd laugh harder than a lot of other tamer jokes. I went with a friend and she said that Olf was her favorite because he was the dumb, but lovable character. That just shows that this play has a different character for everyone, and it was impressive that almost all of the actors were fun to watch.

            Secondly, being in the audience instead of reading it alone in my room made a whole lot of difference. I don’t have the opportunity to go to many plays and I was very impressed with the way the play flowed. The intermission was no more than 15 minutes long, the set changes were quick and the play started right on time. The jokes were just plain funnier when the crowd was involved as well. There was a scene were Jack’s girl is being dragged away by Olf, and shes trying to get his attention as she’s sliding away. The crowd was roaring at this point and in turn, so was I. It also was interesting to be able to see the entire scene the whole time. There is a scene were Jack and his girl are speaking and Felix comes around the side of the stage and hides to listen to them. That worked well, because at first I almost didn’t see him out of the corner of my eye. It is the act of picking up on the little things they plan out that makes a performed play a much more richer experience than watching a movie or just reading the script by yourself.

            Thirdly, it was nice that I had read the play before hand. It was much easier to just sit back and enjoy the play since I had already discussed it full length in class. I didn’t have to worry about keeping plot lines straight or wondering which character was which, I could just sit back and laugh consistently. It’s nice when you can just enjoy watching something and not have to worry about finding a larger meaning. 

Incorruptible

            One topic that I thought was interesting in Michael Hollinger’s Incorruptible was the money issue that plagued the monks, no pun intended. Right from the beginning the main problem that Charles and Martin face is whether they are going to have enough money to keep their ministry open. This was an interesting take on a religious story, even if it is supposed to be a comedy. Even though dialogue is obviously comedic, the problems that this ministry is having is not funny, it’s quite real and serious especially for our protagonists. Both Martin and Charles go to great lengths, most of the time sinning against their religion, to obtain money and recognition from the pope. Neither of these men wants to go against their religion by asking for money out of the Peasant Woman, even though they want to give her free prayers. They also don’t want to fake a miracle, an incorruptible, but they go along with the plan even though it is highly sinful. They have realized that their survival was more important than their traditions and that says a lot about their characters.

            Another thing that I want to point out is the setting compared to what audiences would normally think of in terms of a comedy. The first choice probably wouldn’t be a place filled with monks, priests and peasants. One would expect some sort of goofy set of characters, but the audience gets these realistic people who have realistic goals: getting enough money to save their home even if it means doing what they never thought they would have to do. Religion, even though it is at the heart of almost all of the characters, does not play that big of a role in the meaning of the play. This is not really a very religious play; it’s more about faith, in religion or in humanity. Miracles might happen, but they probably wont. The only reason this play has one is because then it wouldn’t be a very entertaining play now would it?

            I thought that the end was expected very well. The whole play, there is dialogue going back and forth and the end just takes it to the nth degree. You have Charles and Martin constantly talking, and Marie, Felix, and Jack are all in the room as well trying to fix all of their problems. It seems like if one were to read this and not see it, it would be hard for the reader to keep all of the characters straight with each other. I am actually going to see this for one of my two plays, so it is going to be interesting to see how much different the play seems when I get to see the actors play it out. I think that I’m going to be able to keep every character straight once I can picture where on stage they are, because it is sort of difficult to do that when you are just reading it from the text. 

Waiting For Godot - Day 2

            I believe that the biblical references in Waiting for Godot were intentional, if not to shine line on some of the themes presented throughout the play, then just to keep the dialogue going while still keeping the audience on their toes. Maybe Samuel Beckett knew that critics would try to decipher the religious meaning, and that is why he included references of names like “Adam” and “Cain/Abel”. Godot is commonly compared to God and I feel like that is a legitimate argument. He always says that he is coming and these two guys wait every day and he never comes, even though they have undeniable faith in this stranger. This is so close to Christ and his followers it would be a disgrace to not at least mention it while discussing this play.

            This play could also be seen in a slight existentialist light because of the way all of the characters act toward each other. Even though dialogue is more plentiful than anything, they don’t seem to care too much about why they are waiting for hours on end or why a man with another man on a lease stop by. Both Vladimir and Estragon live their lives quite peacefully, never having to eat too much, never having to constantly use the bathroom, they just sit and wait and talk. Nothing seems to matter to them so in turn nothing does matter. They have created their own existential bubble, living without a care while still holding on to reality, even if it is as slight a hold as can be.

            I thought that the film adaptation was done very well, with talented actors and scenery that could only be used for this type of drama/film. The first thing I noticed about the film was that Vladimir and Estragon looked exactly how I pictured them to look, one tall, lanky and one small and stubby, respectively. I personally think that the actor who played Estragon was better than his counterpart. Estragon’s lines just read more passionate and less script-y… if that makes any sense. I liked the bleak scenery, how the sky is always a weird blue, not really ever turning into night. I feel like Becket’s point during this play was to use as little as he could and still say all of the grand things he wanted to say. This is impressive because while he is still speaking on humanity and its faith in mystery, he is also just letting two men speak their minds in a nonsensical and humorous manner.