Amadeus

I’ve never read the entirety of the play Amadeus, but have seen the movie a few times and really enjoyed it. I would love to one day see the play performed, I’m sure it is amazing. This last scene was exceptional to me, almost perfectly detailed and edited.

I like the use of the Venticelli in the beginning of scene 15, serving as a chorus. I especially like the effect of having two of them speak at once to add emphasis.

At first I was not sure how I felt about Salieri speaking directly to the audience in the past tense, as if he was telling the story, but as it went on I ultimately thought it added a lot we would have missed otherwise and worked well. The monologuing gives it almost a short story quality, which I like. Visually the action paired with the narration I think would be very interesting to watch. There is one moment in particular that stuck out to me- when both Mozart and Salieri stand facing the audience and Mozart mimes speaking his words as Salieri sounds them aloud. This is a very cool effect. It also parallels Salieri’s manipulation and control of Mozart.

Obviously, the characterization of Mozart is incredible. His craziness comes across very well when he’s talking in rhyme. A childlike nature is so unexpected when one envisions what a genius like Mozart would be like. He is so trusting in this scene. He says, “you told me and I believe you” and refers to Salieri as “my one Protector.”

The poetic language also makes this scene and probably the entire play particularly beautiful and well written. Salieri says, “I held a terrible contradiction that only Art can show. Something immortal- yet stinking of death. Indestructible- and yet rotting.” Salieri’s view on God also struck a philosophical chord with me, when he says that God only uses and does not care.

Towards the end of the scene, Salieri says- “The profoundest voice in the world reduced to a nursery tune.” These are poignant words. To think that someone as incredible as Mozart could be so weak and childlike and strange is inherently fascinating. In the end, Salieri still is not heard.

This scene is a testament to how important meticulous revision is. He wasn’t satisfied, even with good reviews, so he worked until it felt right. It is admirable to see such hard work and dedication. It is true that a piece of artwork is never completely perfect or finished to the creator. There is always room for change and revision.

Comedic Timing (10- minute plays: Comedy!)

To be honest, I think I preferred the dramatic short plays. Even though they dealt with heavier subjects, they also had funny moments that carried more weight.

Of all of these, however, I particularly enjoyed The Philadelphia. I thought it was a very original and clever idea. The concept both explains in a hilarious way those tough days we all feel like we have sometimes where nothing we want works out, while poking fun at the city of Philadelphia, and creating funny characters all at the same time.
A tactic that many of the comedic writers used was dramatic, unrealistic, and almost unfitting statements in response to a silly situation. For example in The Philadelphia Marks asks, “Well what can I do? Should I just kill myself now and get it over with?” Al responds, “You try to kill yourself in a Philadelphia, you’re only gonna get hurt, babe.” Even though they’re dealing with such a normally serious topic, the drama becomes ridiculous and funny because of the bizarre and unrealistic situation.

One thing I noticed while reading all of these plays is that although the characters are interesting, it is usually because of the situation and not because of the actual depth of the characters. Although comedy definitely allows for flatter characters, I think Anything For You had more interesting character development than the usual comedic scene or short play.

In Anything For You, we know the play is comedic right off the bat with the random blathering Gail does in the beginning. Her talk about the rapper turns out to be completely unrelated with the rest of the point of the play so it is a hilarious touch to throw such a random rant in. Although someone in real life probably would not be so blunt about such a thing, the character Lynette’s bluntness works for her and is the reason the plot moves so quickly and smoothly. A difference I found with this play, as opposed to the other short comedic plays we read, is that it begins with comedy and ends a bit more seriously, with the confession of real feelings, etc.

Most of these comedic plays found their comedy through unique ideas or exploring something not often thought about in such a way (for example the inner monologues of a dog encountering a bear and their interaction in suburbia).
The Duet For Bear and Dog was hilarious mainly due to the fact that we were allowed to hear a conversation played out between the two of them. However, the addition of the teasing about certain things, etc. added a lot. For example, Bear teases Dog about having a name and this embarrasses Dog. I also enjoyed that Bear was slightly poetic when shot with the tranquilizer gun. Hilarious.

I didn’t, however, particularly like the play Aimée. Although the situation was strange, I didn’t find it particularly funny. It was a clever play on words but the turn around in both Madge and Larry at the end was just too sudden for my liking.

10- minute plays: Dramaaaa

I really enjoyed reading all of these short plays. They were each very different from one another regarding characters, setting, situation, etc., but the one thing that remained constant and effective throughout most of them was the revealing of pivotal information, or the main source of tension throughout the play, towards the end of the play. All four of these 10- minute plays started in the middle of things, revealing details as they went along, and almost all four of them used the element of surprise or revelation to sort of wrap up and give the play meaning and an adequate explanation at the end.

A Bowl of Soup and Midnight Rodeo used this tactic most clearly. We began each in the middle of things and learned the shocking information towards the end, explaining much of the rest of the dialogue and short play. Although I do think this tactic is effective in giving plays drama, meaning, and a satisfying ending, I don’t think it always works. For example, I felt a little blind sided in A Bowl of Soup by the ending. I don’t think it would have detracted from the story to let us in on it earlier. Also, although I thought it was a very interesting tactic to have only one character speak for the majority of the play, I’m not sure it added as much as it detracted. However, despite my reservations about this, I would love to see this play performed. Watching actual actors would probably resolve a lot of my issues with the play. All of the plays had strong characters though. I particularly loved the adorable, bumbling voice of Eddie. His affection for his brother and simple nature really came through. Great characterization with him.

The Roads that Lead Here also uses the element of surprise at the end but in a much different way, by having their father, or the Eminent as they call him, blow up each of their cars. This play has an absurdist quality to it; I probably actually would have classified it as a comedy. The characters, for their age especially, seemed so strange and out of touch with reality with their bubbly lack of cynicism and excited nature. It was quite enjoyable to read actually. It is nice to see that even in short plays stylized characters and situations can work.

The Man Who Couldn’t Dance was the only one where I felt the audience or readers had a general sense of what was going on right from the beginning. Although the plot was a little contrived and clichéd I would have been upset if it ended any other way. This is because the characters were interesting and well- developed and I wanted to see it played out. However, I wanted even a bit more. This play almost felt like a scene rather than a finished play. I wanted to know what happened later, either when they went downstairs or years down the road. It didn’t necessarily seem finished, but it was one of my favorites. I don’t quite know what to make of that.

As hard as I know it will be, I’m looking forward to writing our complete plays. We can finally have that gratification and closure we’ve been seeking. Whenever I plan out a long play it’s always hard to decide which scene to write because I’m so excited about a lot of them. I know it’s difficult to develop well- rounded, full, and believable characters in such a small amount of space, but it obviously can be done!

Fences!

When I initially started reading Fences, I was not so enthused. In fact, I thought the characters and situations were incredibly clichéd. BUT, as I read on it grew on me, particularly with the introduction of Gabriel.

The characters were generally very stereotypical, (not to say that they weren’t interesting or were underdeveloped, I definitely cared and wanted to see where the play went) but Troy and Cory’s relationship (the simple father who can’t and won’t understand his son’s dreams) rubbed me the wrong way. Rose however, despite being walked all over in many respects, was a strong character. She gambled, for one, which was an interesting addition and definitely not stereotypical. As the play went on the characters got less and less stereotypical and much more complex.
Wilson does an exceptional job of revealing back- story. He doesn’t have Troy just tell it like it is. His biases towards Cory’s baseball playing and his history with Bono are revealed slowly and subtly through conversations that lead naturally to such reveals. Wilson also does this with the plot. For example, we find out that Troy went to Cory’s baseball coach and told him he couldn’t play anymore as Rose finds out, letting the audience feel the same shock and dismay that Rose would feel at that time.

Wilson also did a good job of introducing the tensions between the characters right off the bat. Immediately, despite Troy’s constant profession of love to his wife, the audience can see that he doesn’t really listen to her. He sometimes even completely ignores her. Wilson has Bono introduce the “other woman” early on, but we get easily distracted by his over the top expressions of devotion to Rose that it moves to the back of our minds until it is reintroduced later. This is a subtle and effective tactic.
Bono idolizes Troy initially so much because of what a good person he was, particularly related to his relationship with his Rose. As Troy becomes more and more the man he didn’t want to be, he loses all that he has kept dear (Bono, Rose).

I particularly liked the inclusion of song into the play and thought it was an interesting aspect. Rose’s song about fences is obviously very applicable to the play and foreboding with the lyrics “Jesus, be a fence around me every day. Jesus, I want you to protect me as I travel on my way.” Also telling that it takes Troy so long to actually build the fence and by the time he has he has already hurt her so its symbolic protection is worthless.
Troy’s song about Blue is forlorn and melancholy, also mirroring the story. Blue was “mighty true” and a “good old dog,” but Blue dies. It is as if the good man Troy had initially set out to be, in opposition to his father, died as his troubles caught up with him.
Rose ends up being the most reasonable and mature character in the family. I could definitely sense of lot of Wilson’s poetic roots, particularly in Rose’s last explanatory feminist speech in which she tells Cory that disrespecting his father isn’t going to make him a man.

I’m a little bit confused by the ending, but I like it? I like the auditory element that just moments before Cory and Raynell were singing Troy’s favorite song, then contrasted with Gabriel’s subsequent lack of music. Wilson writes it in that Gabriel in fact “howls,” like a dog, or in a wail of despair. It is eerie and ambiguous and that is always good :)

All in all, I suppose the things that worked for me were the incorporation of music and the revealing of tensions between characters right off the bat. I also appreciated the subtle inclusion of back- story. I'm looking forward to seeing it live!

"Eurydice"

I really enjoyed reading “Eurydice.” I even found myself laughing out loud at some points and was quite moved by the end. It is a very magical myth and I appreciate Sarah Ruhl’s ability to playfully manipulate the characters and situation to create a successful play. I can learn a lot from her writing style and mindset (from her interview). First of all, I need to learn to take advantage of the innate theatrics of playwriting and stray away from storylines that are too believable and realistic. Ruhl says, “I don’t tend to write in a realist mode. I’m interested in things that automatically dig you out of that impulse” (31). Perhaps I should take the advice she gave her own students and write a play with a chorus, naturally making it theatrical and forcing it away from the realism I tend towards. I think it would add a lot of life and energy to my plays.

While reading “Eurydice” I enjoyed the fact that I could really visualize the staging of the play the entire time through. Perhaps this stems from her revising so much after watching staged readings and performances of it live. I also appreciate her acknowledgment that the play can be done successfully on a bare stage. Her use of water throughout the play is important to portray well so stage designers have really got their work cut out for them.

Ruhl definitely strayed away from creating a heavy, Greek, classical play. She did this through innocent characters and by manipulating the dialogue so that it is almost always fast- paced and funny. Even the costume choices for the show draw upon a more stereotypically “pure” age, in which traditional gender roles are still honored, etc. Ruhl even writes in distinctive mannerisms for Eurydice, such as always turning her head to one side. While this works to some extent, writers must give actors some liberty. Ruhl’s stylistic choice of overlapping dialogue when the play takes a darker turn is effective. The overlapping and therefore confusing dialogue highlights how both characters are on completely different pages and are not listening to each other.

I was struck by how stylistically or technically smart Ruhl was throughout her writing. For example, her opening scene mirrors the later pivotal moment in the myth with Eurydice playfully saying to Orpheus, “Don’t look at me” (283). This would be an interesting tactic to try in my own writing; it both foreshadows coming events and ties up the story nicely. The over-the-top childlike nature of the couple at the beginning of the play also serves as a nice contrast with their later devastation.

Also, the modes of communication and travel between the earth and the underworld were very clever and comical. The strange details Ruhl added stand out and help make the story even more unrealistic and magical, for example, the fact that the devil is a child riding a red tricycle accompanied by heavy metal music. The straight- forward, childlike language throughout, with all characters except for the father, make the play much more like a dark fairytale. I also found it an interesting tactic to make the norms of one world completely inappropriate in another world, for example, the impulse to stand on a book to know what it says, etc. I also find it interesting that Eurydice becomes happy and accustomed to death and does not want to, or is afraid, to leave the underworld. Exploration of the human psyche under various influences and in various situations is always an interesting one.

The presence of the grandmother is a force that works well throughout to form a cohesive thematic story. Her unnoticed movements in the background add to the confusion and sense of loss in the underworld. I’d like to explore in my own writing the use of a character simply as a reoccurring symbol and not as an instigator of dialogue.

Goals for later- stray away from comfortable realism, play with stylized characters.

Two People or More

I have to be honest, I much prefer reading and writing dialogue. Although I do think there is a time and a place for monologue form and I’m sure throughout the rest of this semester I’ll be desperately wishing we could write monologues again, dialogue is much more realistic and portrays it’s messages in much subtler ways, which I prefer.

Angels in America is a favorite of mine, hands down, particularly the scene chosen by Georgina. Freshman year in Proehl’s freshman seminar class I actually performed as Harper in this exact scene, so it has a special place in my heart. It was a very moving play, overall, and an incredibly moving experience for me. Until now, however, I have never really addressed the question why it was so effective and moving. It was for the obvious reasons of powerful subject matter, etc., but there had to be something more. In real life, humans do not give all of their thoughts and emotions away at once while speaking. The pacing throughout the scene builds the suspense and the use of repetition accentuates how little the characters listen to each other, fueling their frustrations. The character Harper is enthralling because she is so unpredictable. The audience never knows what she is about to say or do. The use of short, snappy, sentences is also very effective in revealing the tension between Harper and Joe right at the beginning of the scene.

I am not a huge fan of Arcadia, unfortunately. I actually find it quite boring. I do enjoy the witty dialogue between the characters, it keeps the audience and readers on their toes, I just prefer more action and to be honest, characters who wear their emotions on their sleeves a bit more. The language is very stilted. Tom Stoppard’s plays tend to be very pretentious and over the average person’s head, but at the same time I do respect him for refusing to “dumb it down.” Despite the unnatural language, I think the play can be brought to life and become convincing with strong actors, accomplishing the difficult task of keeping a diverse audience interested.

I very much enjoyed the excerpt from Closer. I have never read that play, but now would like to. This supports my realization that I prefer emotional, dramatic plays about humans and the entanglements of their difficult relationships. However, it is such a delicate balance to strike between realistically dramatic and melodramatic. I thought the dialogue between both couples, particularly between Anna and Larry was well done. Their language was very subtle and passive aggressive and I felt as if all the characters maintained their individuality throughout, reacting to the news differently and in their own ways. I enjoyed the overlapping of the dialogue. I thought it was a very effective mechanism to keep the audience interested and highlight the differences in the characters’ reactions to similar and overlapping issues.

As embarrassing as this is to admit, I have never actually read Death of a Salesman. I enjoyed the excerpt and thought it was well written, but probably would have gotten a lot more out of it if I’d had a little background context.

Things that worked for me:

-Maintaining consistent characters throughout so that their reactions to things and events are, even if surprising, always believable; Unique characters; Subtlety; Repetition, if used sparingly and thoughtfully; Pacing, not revealing too much right off the bat; Short, snappy sentences; Tactfully messing with time and space (overlapping dialogue)

Monologues

I really enjoyed reading the excerpts from the Vagina Monologues. They all began with such bold statements, such as “You cannot love a vagina unless you love hair.” I was drawn in immediately. The short, snappy sentences are appropriate and make the monologues incredibly human and relatable. In all of the monologues, I got such an immediate sense of the speaker’s personality, right off the bat. With such short monologues you need to jump right in.

The personal, opinionated, and unique statements in these monologues worked well to show the characters’ personalities and grab readers’ attention. Dramatic statements such as “In order to survive, I began to pretend there was something else between my legs,” are effective and memorable, but writers must make sure to maintain the important balance between drama and realism.

In Because He Liked to look at it, the speaker builds up quite a long list of Bob’s boring negatives, only to make the statement “Turned out that Bob loved vaginas. He was a connoisseur” all the more dramatic. Contrast is also quite an effective mechanism.

A technique I found very useful is when the speaker of a monologue refuses to talk about or admit something personal and possibly embarrassing. In The Flood the old woman says, “I mean… well, never mind. No. Never mind. I can’t talk to you about this.” Refusing to talk about something obviously and tactfully piques reader and audience interest immediately.

The final sentences in all of the Vagina Monologues tied everything together nicely, usually in an ironic, poignant way. The ending of the Flood, however, was a bit too sappy for my taste, but touching nonetheless.

The other group of monologues also had unique, bold interpretations of frequently touched upon themes and topics, such as death. As well as the Vagina Monologues, these monologues were real, gritty, and some were almost animalistic, making them all the more appealing and fascinating to read.

Many of the monologues escalated in intensity as they went on, an effective mechanism. I didn’t, however, particularly like Anne O’Sullivan. It felt preachy, as if she was telling me what to do and how to think about things. It was funny at parts, but it could have used a lot more subtly.

Through reading all of these monologues I learned how crucially important it is to keep themes and allusions throughout a monologue consistent (such as in the one where sex is associated with things such as fire, insanity, and even the devil). Consistency reflects thoughtfulness and focus, making a successful conclusion that much easier to attain.