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. 

Waiting For Godot

            There are many moments in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot that seem both dark and humorous. One part that I remember specifically if when Vladimir and Estragon suggest that they hang themselves from the tree and the only reason why they don’t follow through with the plans is because they cannot find rope. While this is technically a really sad moment, it is funny because the audience knows that they are not going to hang themselves, they cannot leave the bench how are they going to do an action as complicated as hanging themselves? It is also sad because these two men have been going through these motions for so long that they are ready to resort to suicide just to get away from the cycle. Another somewhat funny theme is the repetition in the dialogue between the two men. Throughout the entirely of the play, Estragon says, “Let’s go” and Vladimir always answers with “We cant” because they are “Waiting for Godot”. Even though this an get slightly annoying since they say it multiple times in the play, I found it funny because even though Estragon knows the answer to his question, he continues to ask it hoping for a more appealing answer than the last.

            I feel like Beckett’s style is much different than Pinter’s because of the extreme abstractions. While Pinter was definitely using abstract theater to get across his themes about family, Beckett takes this to a whole other level. Waiting for Godot is nothing but abstractions. Vladimir and Estragon continue to speak back and forth very fast, usually not saying anything of much importance. Any word that comes out of their mouth probably doesn’t have much to do with the line 3 lines before. In Pinter’s play, even though the conclusion is out of no where and the characters do speak short, quick lines, Beckett’s dialogue just seems much more simple and relaxed. It’s as if this absurdity is not out of the norm for these two characters. Vladimir and Estragon go through this same scene every day, waiting for Godot and seeing Pozzo, Lucky, and the little boy consistently. It really makes you wonder how long this wait has actually been going on for. Has Estragon been struggling with his shoes for years? How long exactly has Pozzo been blind? Or will he regain his sight in time for the next day?

            I differentiate Vladimir and Estragon by the roles they place themselves in. Vladimir is the obvious leader, always having to tell Estragon that they cannot leave yet because they have to wait for Godot. It almost seems like Vladimir takes Godot much more seriously that his counterpart, even though neither of them actually leave when they suggest it. Estragon seems a little helpless in certain points of the play. When he tries to help Pozzo, then falls down himself, then pulls Vladimir down with him, it almost seems like Estragon is possibly a sort of comic relief. On the other hand, Estragon has just as much insightful dialogue as Vladimir, especially at the end when they basically switch lines from the first Act. 

Six Characters In Search Of An Author

I believe that the characters in Pirandello’s play Six Characters in Search of an Author are more than a cheap trick, but a way to discuss the meta fictional connotations between the actors and the roles they take part in.  Not only are the characters more important than the actors, those characters are aware of this and understand that they are different than the people who end up representing them. The father and stepdaughter are the two characters that seem to want to explain their position and why they cannot simply act out their story. They must live their story because they are the real characters, not just actors reciting lines. They know nothing but their story; they live the emotions that they feel in this situation forever and always. The actors and the director seriously cannot comprehend this because they can’t see that actors are different than the character. There is a distinct difference. Actors can take on multiple roles, putting themselves in varies mindsets to suit the situation. These six characters can only play one role, can only think in one state of mind, and can only be in one situation for the rest of their existence. They have no concept of any other way of life. What is reality to them is nothing but words on a page to the director. The argument goes in a circle, almost seemingly never ending.

I think that the characters meta fictional discussions are much different than other breaks in character like asides, soliloquies, or plays within plays, because those are tricks that help the audience see ironies and characterization only. When the characters in Pirandello’s play speak they are not breaking character, they are stuck in their character. So it becomes the character speaking about himself, not someone stepping aside and discussing someone else. A play within a play is used to debate the themes of drama, where these meta characters are used to debate the themes of character. Asides are characters who are still in character, but are discussing their situation, not themselves. These six characters are also still in character, but speak on themselves in self-examination, understanding that what they experience is their destiny and forever lasting. While I do agree that plays within plays and asides are very useful when the audience needs help in the middle of the play, these tactics are definitely not as interesting or important as the questions that arise with meta fiction. The fiction is just as important to understand as the story the fiction presents.

Long Day's Journey Into Night

I would say that the character in Eugene O’Neill’s play Long Day’s Journey Into Night that contributes most to the dysfunction in the Tyrone family is Mary, the mother and wife who is addicted to morphine. Not only is she already dysfunctional by being addicted to something as dangerous as morphine, she is ridiculously addicted, becoming more and more crazy and stoned as the night progresses. She prods every person in the house consistently, trying to push her hatred for herself onto others. Her most obvious victim is her husband, James. She tells him again and again that she disapproves of his thriftiness and his drinking. She even gets to the point of telling him that her marrying him was a mistake on her part because she wanted to become a nun and a pianist. This is hurtful stuff that she is only saying because she is stoned, but then again maybe it is the truth and the only reason she is able to say it now is because she is stoned.

She creates confrontations with her sons just as much as her husband as well. Mary constantly argues with her sons about drinking, even though they go right ahead and drinks in front of her nevertheless. She feels as if Jamie has wasted his life away with booze and prostitutes. She treats Edmund, her younger son, even worse by not accepting his tuberculosis. She doesn’t listen to the doctor Edmund went to see because he is cheap. Edmund tells her many times in the play that he is seriously sick but she keeps insisting that her has a normal cold. This is not a normal reaction a mother has when their child tell them he is sick. This is how powerfully motivated her life is by the morphine. She doesn’t completely approve of how her family had turned out, so she escapes by taking larger and larger doses of the morphine. This drug has turned her into a monster, a mother who can’t even help her sick son try and get better. She is more focused on running back upstairs, away from her family, back to the drug that will make her feel good in the moment but will never help her life become more than shambles.

I think that a lot of her depression stems from the baby that she lost before she gave birth to Edmund. Losing the baby meant that she had failed that round of being a mother. When she finds out that Edmund is seriously ill, she thinks that she is getting what she deserves by failing her previous child. If only her mind wasn’t being diluted by the morphine she continues to pump through her system, the she would be able to realize that it wasn’t her fault that she lost the baby and she needs to move on. If she could move on from the grief than it would be possible to kick her drug habit. I wouldn’t say that Mary is the most dysfunctional member of the Tyrone family, but she definitely causes the most trouble between the array of characters.