Post 13 Three Viewings

            A common thing I found between the three monologues is the number 13. This may be a little farfetched but at the same time I think that it does have some sort of latent meaning. In the first story, Emil states that he is up to saying “I love you” 12 times. At the end of his monologue he begins saying “I love you” and starts counting again. We can guess that because he ended on twelve times, this one would be thirteen. In the second monologue, Mac’s grandmother is 103 years old. 103 contains the numbers 1 and 3 which together make 13. Again, this maybe a bit farfetched but still it is true. And of course, in the final monologue, the list contains 13 things. The number 13 is often associated with bad luck. These people are indeed haunted by bad luck and bad decisions. I wonder if that is on purpose.

These funerals all seem to take place in the winter. Winter is a literary symbol for death so this isn’t too shocking. However, it is interesting that this was taken into account. It also raises the possibility that these characters probably encountered one another physically. The funerals are taking place in a small town at the same time where everyone seems to know each other. They all probably have met before or have seen each other and are possibly reunited by these occurrences. Also, these characters seem to not know the respectively deceased as well as they think. Emil thinks he has a chance with Tessie when in fact she is in love with someone else. Mac does not know her grandmother because she is holding a grudge from her childhood. Even Virginia is surprised by her husband’s final actions and the secrets he kept. I think this may be a purposeful thing that happens in the play in order to show that we can never truly know anyone. Even when a loved one is dead, there are secrets, big or small, that will be taken to the grave. 

Comments for Blog Checkpoint III

 http://samversiontwo.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-verge-response.html?showComment=1367698534524#c6019925227446078207

http://mylittletrailofcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/04/duermeyer-on-verge.html?showComment=1367698903476

http://thefancypenguin2130.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-verge.html?showComment=1367699307175#c198856884016257739

http://georgianoelle.blogspot.com/2013/05/drowsy-chaperone.html?showComment=1367699608078#c8103093027679095348

http://georgianoelle.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-verge.html?showComment=1367700042850#c6065201288019963696

Show and Tell Post #3

This time around I chose to pick an older text for my show and tell post. The play I read is The Frogs by Aristophanes. The Frogs was first produced in 405 B.C. It was produced at the Lenaia and won first prize when it was presented in the archonship of Kallias. This play can be found in a book called Four Plays by Aristophanes. This book also contains the plays The Clouds, The Birds, and Lysistrata. The Frogs is a satirical comedy in which Aristophanes determines who the best of the deceased tragic playwrights are, namely between Aeschylus and Euripides. The play opens with the god Dionysos  in search of better playwrights, for the ones now living are not near as good as those who are dead. Dionysos decides that with the help of his slave, Xanthias he will travel to the underworld to bring back Euripides, the greatest of the tragic playwrights. In order to travel in secret, Dionysos dresses like Herakles, who has given him nothing but trouble since their most recent meeting. Dionysos and Xanthias cross the river Styx and enter the underworld where Dionysos is discovered as the god of theatre. At that point a quarrel between Euripides and Aeschylus reaches its peak. The quarrel is to determine who the best playwright and who should be the King of Tragedy in the underworld. Dionysos, as the god of theatre, decides he is to determine the fate of these playwrights, and weighs their lines to see whose writing is heaver. Aeschylus’s lines are heavier, and therefore he is crowned the king of tragedy. However, remembering his mission, Dionysos changes his mind about taking Euripides back from the underworld and takes Aeschylus instead. This play pokes fun at the gods and demigods that were admired, the government of the time, and the playwrights of the past. Aristophanes holds nothing back as he changes beliefs and inspires change in a wartime ancient civilization.

One dramaturgical choice that I found interesting was the choice Aristophanes made to have Dionysos dress as Herakles. This was clearly intended to create laughs and for me, it did just that. However, there are hidden meanings to why this occurred as it did. For one, this choice pokes fun at Dionysos. Dionysos is depicted as a fat, lazy old man with rosy cheeks and glass of wine in hand. Herakles, however, is depicted as strong and honorable. Aristophanes uses this choice to accent the fact that Dionysos is not the kind of person to make a grand and dangerous journey to the underworld. He in fact has no business being there at all. The amount of contrast between Dionysos and Herakles shows us just how ridiculous this journey is. However, it does indeed make things interesting, especially when Dionysos keeps changing costumes with his slave in hopes that he will not be blamed for Herakles mistakes, and later, in hopes that he will be admired by women as Herakles. This of course does not happen. The second dramaturgical choice that I really admired was the amount of irony in the play. Because this play is a satire, Aristophanes uses a lot of irony when dealing with the conditions of the citizens and the politicians of the time. However, he also uses a lot of irony within the text of the play. One example of irony in the play occurs when Dionysos does not return to the world of the living with Euripides. Dionysos begins his entire journey just to bring Euripides back from the underworld. He wants to find the best playwright and bring him back. However, when he weighs the lines of both Euripides and Aeschylus, he realizes that Euripides is not the best playwright, and takes Aeschylus instead. This ironic notion not only supplies fodder for comedy, but also tells us what Aristophanes really thinks about the late Euripides. More irony ensues when Aeschylus, the crowned king of tragedy in the underworld, does not get his place on the thrown because he is taken by Dionysos instead. This also tells us what Aristophanes thinks about the way the world views playwrights and that nothing is truly in the place where it belongs. This idea is persistent throughout the play, for Dionysos is wondering around the underworld when really he should be up in Olympus drinking his wine and enjoying his grapes.  

Blog Prompt 14 Drowsy Chaperone

The Drowsy Chaperone would be a different show if it was just the play within a play. Instead, the show uses the man and his retelling of the story as part of the play. It is easy to think that the man is not a part of the play, and that the things he says are not actually his opinion. In fact, his lines are as much a part of the play as everyone else’s. If we were only analyzing the play-within-the-play, Hornby’s elements would apply differently. For one, sequence would be different. The play would go from scene to scene and move in a much more linear manner. Instead, we have scenes that break away from the central plot of the play and revolve around the man and his part of the story. The sequences in this play utilize the role of the man to help bridge gaps between scenes within the main part of the play. He is as much an integral part of the play as everyone else.

Another element that would be different is the tempo. The tension levels in the play would be much different if the man were not part of the play. The man provides a relief of tension for what is happening in the play. Martin/McKellar/Lambert/Morrison use the man in order to change the pace of the show. The play has a pretty strict tension level which is somewhat broken by the songs. However, it is the man who is the real reliever of the tension. Also, the man provides a new level of tension, thus changing the tempo when appropriate. He is able to keep the story alive and bring the audience back to the world of the play-within-the-play, thus bringing up the tension level.  

                                                                                                                                  

Prompt 12 on On the Verge, or The Geography of Yearning

I believe that a good poster for On the Verge would be a poster of the different characters that the man plays. I think that a poster of just the man’s characters gives a good overview of the show. It shows the different time periods that are traveled by the different costumes that are being worn. It also says a little something about the three women, because at least one of the characters played by the man has a relationship between each of the three girls. Having just the man’s characters is ambiguous enough to capture the attention of a passerby, especially if you can tell that it is the same man dressed as different people in the poster. To me the man is the symbol of the changing times, which I think is the most important element plot wise in the story. The man represents a change in state and is a constant element in the play. This is why he is a good showman for the poster.

            The tagline I would use to go with this poster would be “Shall we saddle up?” Using this as a tagline gives whoever sees it the idea that On the Verge is an adventure tale, which it most definitely is. It is an adventure on a grand level. This tagline sums up the entire basis for the play. These three women are desperate for adventure and for travel. They come across a journey of the strangest kind, and they do not hesitate or look back. They simply “saddle up” and keep going. I think this tagline describes the play pretty perfectly. Every time something happens the team simply picks up their stuff and continues on their way, not necessarily knowing where they’re going, but enjoying the journey itself. This is much like the way a viewer of the play should not be worried about how the play ends up, but should be invested in the story as it is being told. 

Links for comments on Blog Checkpoint II

1.       http://samversiontwo.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-glass-of-water-response.html?showComment=1365878907836#c7001410813555463458

2.      http://samversiontwo.blogspot.com/2013/03/noises-off-response.html?showComment=1365879265228#c5505842358147382009

3.      http://mylittletrailofcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/04/water-by-spoonful.html

4.      http://mylittletrailofcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/04/damour-detroit.html?showComment=1365879991613

5.      http://georgianoelle.blogspot.com/2013/04/glass-of-water.html

6.      http://georgianoelle.blogspot.com/2013/04/noises-off.html?showComment=1365880992887#c2062639145456471388

Show and Tell Post #2

The play I chose to read is called Seminar by Theresa Rebeck. It is a comedy that premiered on November 20, 2011 at the John Golden theatre in New York City. It closed at that theatre on May 6, 2012. Seminar was well received and well liked, and received nominations as Best Play by both the Outer Critics Circle and the Drama League. Seminar is about four college students who decide to take a writing seminar with a highly praised man named Leonard. However, upon meeting Leonard, the group comes to realize that he is washed up, cruel, apathetic and insensitive to their needs. He is in fact a terrible teacher. In the meantime, Martin, the most reserved and most talented of the group, sees Leonard for who he really is, and refuses to show him his work. Throughout the play the students deal with rejection, love, hate, and many nights of complaining about Leonard. The play tells a story of dealing with emotions and pushing for success.
One dramaturgical choice that I liked was the choice to have the play almost entirely within one setting. The majority of the play takes place in Kate’s apartment, and Izzy and Martin stay there too. Even when Leonard teaches the classes, he teaches them in the apartment. I like this choice because it is a in which a person is supposed to feel comfortable. However, because there are all these other people there as well, there is no place in the apartment to be comfortable. Everyone is extremely vulnerable and unable to find the privacy they need. Even in their home. When Leonard teaches his class in the apartment, he feeling of hopelessness surrounds the setting even more. We see these characters in a place in which they should enjoy being. However, it is obvious that when Leonard is there, any feelings of safety are gone. Leonard has that ability to walk into any room and suck the life out of it. He can make a warm home into a cold ice box. I think it was important to see how the characters changed within the walls of that apartment. The place of safety became a place of regret and punishment. It changed the lives of five people. I think that is pretty powerful.
Another dramaturgical choice I liked was the choice to have Martin not present any of his work to Leonard. The other three young writers submit their work and are humiliated by Leonard. Martin, however, does not trust in Leonard, and therefore does not present anything. When I recognized this pattern, I wanted to know whether Martin was a good writer or not. We had no way of knowing because he had not turned in anything. However, at the end he finally turns in his work. Leonard praises it, which is a shock to everyone. This event changes the way Martin sees Leonard. Martin first is angry with Leonard liking it, and then he grows to understand why Leonard is such a messed up guy. The character we least expect to understand Leonard does. And it is because he likes his writing. They are bound together by their writing and that is when they understand. Rebeck’s decision to not show Martin’s writing is fuel for an even which changes how we feel about Leonard. Because Martin does not show his work right away, we side with him. We decide that Leonard does not deserve to see Martin’s work. Then, when he does show it, we see that even though he is a jerk, Leonard knows what he’s doing. Also, this shows a lot in character growth. Martin is weak because he cannot take rejection. That is why he won’t show his work. However, he is affected by this seminar group and by the teacher and so he finally shows what he’s got. It is a shift in character that fuels the rest of the play.