If we were to look at this play strictly from the fictional DC, I feel like a lot of the tension would be lost. There would be plenty of dramatic irony, sure, but the tense moments of "sudden" interruption would be completely lost. There would be no skipping record or phone ringing or strange supervisor coming in being creepy about liking musicals. Those moments portray tension, and they personally make me want to get back to the story of the fictional DC, though I do find them amusing.
Another thing is that much of the background information of the play would be lost if this were to strictly be the fictional DC. The Man tells us background on all these various "actors" and how they relate to their characters, possibly why they were casted. It gives better understand of what's going on in the play, such as Chaperone's song "As We Stumble Along" being totally about dealing with alcoholism and how she gets this huge, insane music number in each of the shows she's involved in.
One thing I could do without, however, is the ridiculous Nightingale song that's "from another play." I heard that and my jaw dropped because I was so jarred out of the setting of the actual play. But I suppose if you're listening to a record in your living room and put the wrong one on, you'd be a bit jarred as well. Again, adding more and more to the tension/release factor.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
On The Verge Response
The entire time reading this play, I was trying to figure out what the poster for it would look like. Designs are something I really enjoy (though, I must admit, I'm not very good at).
The tag line for this play was the easiest part for me. Throughout the entire play, the women are figuring out things from the future and hearing of things that they will enjoy later in the play and want to stay around. For the tag line, I chose a line that Alex says in scene five. "Everyone is a native of somewhere." The reason I'm choosing this line is because, despite each of the women talking about the time that they came from, each one finds home in the future, whether it be the 1950s for Fanny and Alex, or later on for Mary. It also applies to each of the characters they meet along the way. Everyone comes from somewhere.
As for the posters, I'm looking at them in terms of each woman, then one all together. I imagine one with one of Fanny's letters and a quill in ink next to it on one side, and a tub of Cool Whip with a spoon in it on the other. The letter could say something along the lines of "Dear Grover, I'm getting married again. I met a charming man in 1955. I wonder if you'd enjoy that age. The date of our wedding is (Insert date for play showings here in large print), Love Fanny" or something of that nature.
Alex's would be the rickety bridge with mountains in the background, then at the end of the bridge is the George Troll sitting on his motorcycle holding a 1950s style microphone out to her.
Mary's would be her walking away into a red sunset down a paved road wearing pants with her skirt lying in the road behind her, with her travelers pack and explorer's hat on her head.
The one with all three of them would be the three of them sitting around a fire, still in their 1889 clothes, with an umbrella leaning against one log chair, and an eggbeater against another, with a tent behind them and packs leaning against it. Yes, it seems typical, but from the other posters I saw, much of them are only silhouettes of the three ladies with a map in the background, holding the umbrellas and eggbeaters. This is slightly different enough to not be typical.
The tag line for this play was the easiest part for me. Throughout the entire play, the women are figuring out things from the future and hearing of things that they will enjoy later in the play and want to stay around. For the tag line, I chose a line that Alex says in scene five. "Everyone is a native of somewhere." The reason I'm choosing this line is because, despite each of the women talking about the time that they came from, each one finds home in the future, whether it be the 1950s for Fanny and Alex, or later on for Mary. It also applies to each of the characters they meet along the way. Everyone comes from somewhere.
As for the posters, I'm looking at them in terms of each woman, then one all together. I imagine one with one of Fanny's letters and a quill in ink next to it on one side, and a tub of Cool Whip with a spoon in it on the other. The letter could say something along the lines of "Dear Grover, I'm getting married again. I met a charming man in 1955. I wonder if you'd enjoy that age. The date of our wedding is (Insert date for play showings here in large print), Love Fanny" or something of that nature.
Alex's would be the rickety bridge with mountains in the background, then at the end of the bridge is the George Troll sitting on his motorcycle holding a 1950s style microphone out to her.
Mary's would be her walking away into a red sunset down a paved road wearing pants with her skirt lying in the road behind her, with her travelers pack and explorer's hat on her head.
The one with all three of them would be the three of them sitting around a fire, still in their 1889 clothes, with an umbrella leaning against one log chair, and an eggbeater against another, with a tent behind them and packs leaning against it. Yes, it seems typical, but from the other posters I saw, much of them are only silhouettes of the three ladies with a map in the background, holding the umbrellas and eggbeaters. This is slightly different enough to not be typical.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Three Viewings Response
This play was definitely interesting to me. Trying to figure out how each of the three monologues related to each other without speaking the names of the people who were saying them was cool for me.
One of the people that I noticed was involved in each of the monologues, though not in a major way, was Margaret-Mary Walsh. By the funerals she attended, I'm making the assumption that she is an older woman who's much involved with the community that all these funerals are held in. And yes, I do think they're all in the same community one hour outside of Pittsburgh as Mac says, since many of the same people are mentioned. The people mentioned don't seem to be the kind that would travel very far from home to go to a funeral or such.
Another thing that seems apparent in each of the monologues is that every character has lost their significant other. Though Emil was never married to Tessie, he still loved her. Mac lost her husband and children in an attempt to kill herself. Virginia lost her husband to heart disease. Only the funeral in Mac's monologue had nothing to do with losing her loved one, and Emil's only involved Tessie's funeral near the end.
Something else similar in the monologues is that each of the characters meet someone for a meal in a restaurant. However, it's never the same one. It's like receiving any sort of news is easier when you're chowing down on a burger. I feel like that's involved because it's familiar for every person. Everyone goes out to get a bite to eat occasionally, and it's a moment of comfort in a play that's centered around death and funerals.
One of the people that I noticed was involved in each of the monologues, though not in a major way, was Margaret-Mary Walsh. By the funerals she attended, I'm making the assumption that she is an older woman who's much involved with the community that all these funerals are held in. And yes, I do think they're all in the same community one hour outside of Pittsburgh as Mac says, since many of the same people are mentioned. The people mentioned don't seem to be the kind that would travel very far from home to go to a funeral or such.
Another thing that seems apparent in each of the monologues is that every character has lost their significant other. Though Emil was never married to Tessie, he still loved her. Mac lost her husband and children in an attempt to kill herself. Virginia lost her husband to heart disease. Only the funeral in Mac's monologue had nothing to do with losing her loved one, and Emil's only involved Tessie's funeral near the end.
Something else similar in the monologues is that each of the characters meet someone for a meal in a restaurant. However, it's never the same one. It's like receiving any sort of news is easier when you're chowing down on a burger. I feel like that's involved because it's familiar for every person. Everyone goes out to get a bite to eat occasionally, and it's a moment of comfort in a play that's centered around death and funerals.
Fires In The Mirror Response
Being a series of monologues that are seemingly unrelated, Fires In The Mirror is easy to get lost in and find the focal point of the play. However, without the beginning monologues, much of the impact of the play could be lost.
Before the "Lousy Language" monologue, we see pictures of racism and prejudice from both the black community and the Lubavich community. Angela Davis told of the way racism began in the race for colonization of European countries. Leonard Jeffries showed how racism was still very apparent in his life because of the way Roots was manipulated to be less of an impact for the black community than it really was. Letty Cottin Pogrebin told of the way that her mother's cousin, Isaac, survived the Holocaust because he didn't "look Jewish."
Each of these monologues shows the basis of racism or prejudice for the communities involved. Once we reach "Lousy Language," Robert Sherman applies the things we've already seen to the riots in Crown Heights. It's not directly applied yet; that comes later in the play. But both communities are mentioned in one monologue for the first time in the play. Without the previous monologues, this one wouldn't have as much of an impact. The descriptions of word use wouldn't have that basis of proof from the previous monologues to back it up.
These beginning monologues show snapshots into the lives of all the communities in Crown Heights so that a decision can be made without bias as to whether the driver of the car meant to kill the little boy or not.
Before the "Lousy Language" monologue, we see pictures of racism and prejudice from both the black community and the Lubavich community. Angela Davis told of the way racism began in the race for colonization of European countries. Leonard Jeffries showed how racism was still very apparent in his life because of the way Roots was manipulated to be less of an impact for the black community than it really was. Letty Cottin Pogrebin told of the way that her mother's cousin, Isaac, survived the Holocaust because he didn't "look Jewish."
Each of these monologues shows the basis of racism or prejudice for the communities involved. Once we reach "Lousy Language," Robert Sherman applies the things we've already seen to the riots in Crown Heights. It's not directly applied yet; that comes later in the play. But both communities are mentioned in one monologue for the first time in the play. Without the previous monologues, this one wouldn't have as much of an impact. The descriptions of word use wouldn't have that basis of proof from the previous monologues to back it up.
These beginning monologues show snapshots into the lives of all the communities in Crown Heights so that a decision can be made without bias as to whether the driver of the car meant to kill the little boy or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)