AFFIRMATION
Thanks for a couple of fun classes. I know entertaining the class is not a necessity, but both of your classes have been a pleasure to attend.
Day One: I thought it was fascinating how much one simple change (whether Adrien was on top or bottom) created this masssive shift in our perception of Adrien, Connor and their relationship - who is in charge, who is "culpable" in pushing the relationship forward, what Adrien's quest is, etc. A lot to play with there...
Great work on going for it and writing the two versions - testing the limits of the way moments can be presented, discovering the tone of your play.
Day Two: A compliment to you and the strength of your characters that we were all able to so easily jump into the "groove" of your play and fire off scenes with such confidence.
QUESTIONS
How long has Adrien been serving as a blowjobber™ for Connor? Was it only recently? Was it ever during the Jessica/Connor relationship?
Why did Connor "really" break up with Jessica?
Can "independence" tie into play more?
OPINIONS
I think the big challenge for you with this play is to walk the line between us enjoying the characters as they simply chat and you the playwright moving the plot forward. There are times I want the play to move on and others I'm happy to sit there.
The other challenge for you is finding a way to theatricalize the worlds of text messaging and phone calls. I am not the biggest fan of phone calls in plays/movies, but in directing class last year, you convinced me it could work. I'd encourage you to keep developing a theatrical way of doing this - I'm a little scared of the static nature of text messages simply being on a screen, but am willing to be convinced otherwise. Is there a way you could physicalize both differently?
I worry that I like Seth too much - I end up disappointed when Adrien and he don't end up together. And think less of Adrien for not choosing/noticing him. I might root for the Adrien/Connor relationship more if Seth wasn't present (as much as I like him and I do like him).
Nice work, guys!
Friday, March 30, 2007
Michael's Blog for The Fourth
AFFIRMATIONS
Great sessions--I thought y'all did an excellent job of zoning in on things that are very germane to the play.
I especially liked the Tuesday class. One, because I think it was very interesting to consider a scene two different ways. Two, because it fostered a very interesting discussion. Three, because sex is a fun topic. Four, because it's interesting to think about this little tiny HUGE detail and how it changes everything. And in some ways nothing. It was very thought provoking. (I hated that I couldn't make Sao Paulo this week to take place in the margarita-induces follow up!)
The Thursday session was especially interesting for a TXT virgin. Well actually the whole thing. I'm very old-fashioned about technology. I resist technological advances with a vengeance. They spin forward way too fast for me. It used to be that you could pay more for a solid, simple quality product. Not anymore. Now paying more means more bells and whistles and functions and gadgets and options and keys and strokes and codes and things to learn and pages to read and remember this and remember that. YIKES! I reluctantly bought a cell phone again this summer. After 3 blissful years of not having one. And I purposely had the texting blocked so people couldn't text me and I'd get charged for it.
So I find the use of phones and such in this play fascinating. A glimpse into the "other side." I don't like to be so connected, to check in with people so regularly, to be so easily accessible. Thus I find both the cell phone conversations a bit of a vicarious thrill and to some extent the txt messages. I thought the exercise on Thursday was a brilliant way to play with this--with all three. It was so interesting to see the differences: as we discussed in class, being emboldened by the phone; not replying is a much a reply as doing so in txt; etc.
Very Good Work!
QUESTIONS
Why doe Adrian pine for Connor so much?
(He wants what is off-limits? He thinks Connor is gay and he wants to help him get to that point? He's hot? He has been in love--infatuated--with him for years and years? He gets a thrill off servicing straight boys? Danger? To get him away from Jessica?)
What does Adrian expect when he connects with Connor?
Has his desire for Connor been changed by having consummated it "all the way"?
What is he afraid of? Being rejected by Connor?
Would he be ok with it going back to where it was?
OPINIONS
I loved the discussion about the differences in the trajectory of the play, whether Adrian tops/bottoms Connor. I agree that this is the case, but I think it is more so because of what it says about Connor than about Adrian.
I think Adrian would be "Walking on Sunshine" regardless of which way it played out. Unless the answer to my question above is something different (perhaps darker) than I had put in my mind. I think he'd be glowing. And bursting with a "I have to tell someone this." and of course, when he runs into Mia, he just bursts out with it. I think he'd do that either way--assuming Adrian and Mia are as close and are confidants, like I have them in my mind.
I agree that this seems to give more meaning to his Odysseus-like quest to get back "home". (Or to what he thinks/hopes/wants to be "home".) Or maybe a better word is the quest for an answer.
That being said, I think whether he tops/bottoms is likely huge for the outcome of the play. What does it say about Connor in either scenario? What would his next step be in either one? I think it likely affects whether Connor ever picks up Adrian's call that day, whether they hook up, etc. Not all of it will be resolved within the time of this play--nor should it be, but it does affect what happens in the play.
If Connor tops: Then I agree with George that he is possibly less into it (at this point), than if he bottoms. It might be a logical "next step." A likely progression in Connor's willingness to experiment. But it can still be an experiment. It's almost more ambiguous this way. Connor could be distant or even not speak to Adrian until the point he slowly gets over it and/or he realizes it felt good and he wants more.
If Connor bottoms: Then I'm thinking he's already way into it more than he's letting on. He' was willing to go to this place with Adrian. This isn't necessarily a "happier" outcome for Adrian. It might mean that Connor is more self-hating or homophobic than in the "hey it feels good. sex is sex. I'll try anything once." topping scenario. Or it might mean he's more likely to want to work it out. So it might be the more complex option.
Both provide very exciting possibilities for choices on where the arc of their relationship goes within this play. And I won't give an opinion on which I prefer.
Text Messages: I'm not sure I'm there yet with them in the play. From the exercise yesterday, I think I learned a lot about how they can be very brutal in their conciseness and their non-replies. Since there are gaps in these conversations (powerful gaps), it might be interesting to play with them not being contiguous--meaning: could they interupt dialogue? not be responded to and then interupt it again? From the exercise yesterday, I came to think there might be a lot of untapped potential in these in the play. As written I think they might tell us too much at times.
~~
Again...very interesting discussion/possibilities! Great sessions!
Great sessions--I thought y'all did an excellent job of zoning in on things that are very germane to the play.
I especially liked the Tuesday class. One, because I think it was very interesting to consider a scene two different ways. Two, because it fostered a very interesting discussion. Three, because sex is a fun topic. Four, because it's interesting to think about this little tiny HUGE detail and how it changes everything. And in some ways nothing. It was very thought provoking. (I hated that I couldn't make Sao Paulo this week to take place in the margarita-induces follow up!)
The Thursday session was especially interesting for a TXT virgin. Well actually the whole thing. I'm very old-fashioned about technology. I resist technological advances with a vengeance. They spin forward way too fast for me. It used to be that you could pay more for a solid, simple quality product. Not anymore. Now paying more means more bells and whistles and functions and gadgets and options and keys and strokes and codes and things to learn and pages to read and remember this and remember that. YIKES! I reluctantly bought a cell phone again this summer. After 3 blissful years of not having one. And I purposely had the texting blocked so people couldn't text me and I'd get charged for it.
So I find the use of phones and such in this play fascinating. A glimpse into the "other side." I don't like to be so connected, to check in with people so regularly, to be so easily accessible. Thus I find both the cell phone conversations a bit of a vicarious thrill and to some extent the txt messages. I thought the exercise on Thursday was a brilliant way to play with this--with all three. It was so interesting to see the differences: as we discussed in class, being emboldened by the phone; not replying is a much a reply as doing so in txt; etc.
Very Good Work!
QUESTIONS
Why doe Adrian pine for Connor so much?
(He wants what is off-limits? He thinks Connor is gay and he wants to help him get to that point? He's hot? He has been in love--infatuated--with him for years and years? He gets a thrill off servicing straight boys? Danger? To get him away from Jessica?)
What does Adrian expect when he connects with Connor?
Has his desire for Connor been changed by having consummated it "all the way"?
What is he afraid of? Being rejected by Connor?
Would he be ok with it going back to where it was?
OPINIONS
I loved the discussion about the differences in the trajectory of the play, whether Adrian tops/bottoms Connor. I agree that this is the case, but I think it is more so because of what it says about Connor than about Adrian.
I think Adrian would be "Walking on Sunshine" regardless of which way it played out. Unless the answer to my question above is something different (perhaps darker) than I had put in my mind. I think he'd be glowing. And bursting with a "I have to tell someone this." and of course, when he runs into Mia, he just bursts out with it. I think he'd do that either way--assuming Adrian and Mia are as close and are confidants, like I have them in my mind.
I agree that this seems to give more meaning to his Odysseus-like quest to get back "home". (Or to what he thinks/hopes/wants to be "home".) Or maybe a better word is the quest for an answer.
That being said, I think whether he tops/bottoms is likely huge for the outcome of the play. What does it say about Connor in either scenario? What would his next step be in either one? I think it likely affects whether Connor ever picks up Adrian's call that day, whether they hook up, etc. Not all of it will be resolved within the time of this play--nor should it be, but it does affect what happens in the play.
If Connor tops: Then I agree with George that he is possibly less into it (at this point), than if he bottoms. It might be a logical "next step." A likely progression in Connor's willingness to experiment. But it can still be an experiment. It's almost more ambiguous this way. Connor could be distant or even not speak to Adrian until the point he slowly gets over it and/or he realizes it felt good and he wants more.
If Connor bottoms: Then I'm thinking he's already way into it more than he's letting on. He' was willing to go to this place with Adrian. This isn't necessarily a "happier" outcome for Adrian. It might mean that Connor is more self-hating or homophobic than in the "hey it feels good. sex is sex. I'll try anything once." topping scenario. Or it might mean he's more likely to want to work it out. So it might be the more complex option.
Both provide very exciting possibilities for choices on where the arc of their relationship goes within this play. And I won't give an opinion on which I prefer.
Text Messages: I'm not sure I'm there yet with them in the play. From the exercise yesterday, I think I learned a lot about how they can be very brutal in their conciseness and their non-replies. Since there are gaps in these conversations (powerful gaps), it might be interesting to play with them not being contiguous--meaning: could they interupt dialogue? not be responded to and then interupt it again? From the exercise yesterday, I came to think there might be a lot of untapped potential in these in the play. As written I think they might tell us too much at times.
~~
Again...very interesting discussion/possibilities! Great sessions!
Thursday, March 29, 2007
FYI: You are my Candy-girl
Of note: It came up in my 1968 class that the song at #1 on the pop charts for a few months in 1969 was Sugar Sugar (sugar, oh honey honey, you are my candy-girl etc etc)
-ck
-ck
Monday, March 26, 2007
Carrie's Response to Candy
I've tried to post a couple of times but keep finding I need to think more--hopefully I have it all in order! I've had a bit of difficulty fully isolating affirmation from questions..so there are a few questions up here and more in the real question section.
First off really great session--I want to go through a couple of things that I thought were particularly *smart* about the various activities.
Gender worksheets:
-While I agree that I wish I had more time to respond to the questions of defining gender, there is something to be said for not having time and also to have to fill out something that looks quite a bit like an essay exam--I've never had to "declare" my gender before (Except for in a class I once took where we were assumed queer unless we chose to come out otherwise, although I was fine with being queer identified). That that declaration would have to happen under pressure created a lot of anxiety in me and a sense of loss with everything I wrote down--there was no way i was going to "get it right."
First this is an almost impossible task--to articulate your gender is to essentially cut away from what you are not and in that I personally experienced a great deal of loss, or continued to try to fight against a sense of loss, cliche and stereo-type. In defining I relied on a sort of internal sense of who or what I am and who or what I identify with. In the instructions, it came down to a set of behaviors that were repeatable by others (not an uncommon butler-esque sense of gender) but for me it highlighted that gender as a performance is always in reaction to or in reference to. (if you play this role, I'll play this one. If I can't play this role, I don't want to play) There is also a great deal of nuance to the way it plays out differently in different kinds of relationships and in response to different kinds of stimuli. But above all, putting gender in terms of instructions really foregrounds it at something that is a) learned b) repeated c) not really natural for anyone--its an uncomfortable place to have to name, define and codify your gender
I almost wonder if some sort of gender questionaire or some sort one-ness for defining gender might be put on the audience as a preshow activity or even through the play (I think it really opens the play up to a productive place to approach it from that feeling of failure/loss/complication of defining gender)
-I really love the way gender is handled in this play already, particularly in the opening minute: a girl who was a boy, a boy who was a girl...a human being. But in order to be a human being, Candy becomes larger than life (not a human being and in a way, neither). Really really interesting. A lot of the theoretical writing coming out of the mid 60's early 70's (I'm nerding out again, but maybe this will be useful) relies on the idea of third termisms, a construction of neither, nor, but (so for instance neither capitalism nor communism, but some other way: democratic socialism?) In these writings it is a sort of utopic vision which never quite pans out and can never quite be articulated or ends up re-affirming the initial binary, but the impulse to get outside of the binary, even just to get to an imaginary space, doesn't go away.
-I think the most useful part of this excercise was having only the tools at hand. Seeing the "bag of tricks" got me very excited, but having to work with what I had was difficult--I can't wear frost colored lipstick, there was no eye-liner, there was only so far I was going to get with what i had. I do have to wonder where it was I thought I was going to get to...but again. There was an inital sense of excitement, and then an inevitable sense of not enough.
-One of the questions you posed in your goals sheet was about the relationship between history and truth, this excercise made me wonder about the relationship--as cliche as it may sound--between truth and beauty in this play. Matching up insides and outsides. Also the difference between change/transformation (into what?) and beauty--are they one and the same? I think the relationship/pull is actually between all three of these terms: truth, change, beauty.
Themes that popped for me coming out of both days: Identification (who or what you identify with), Transformation, Death/Rebirth/Art(yes all together like that), Production/Reproduction/Origins, Chance
Questions:
-Looking at the picture of my mother made me very aware of which of her values and behaviors I've internalized and which I've tried to go beyond or get away from. A lot of the anxiety I feel around becoming my mother or emulating my mother has to do with place (as I think it does for Candy as well, maybe) the suburbs vs the city--I became sort of vitriolic about her fleece and flax--I'm really interested in Candy's relationship with her mother and the room of fashion magazines as identificatory people/objects, or even just what the relationship between the suburbs and the city is (there seems to be some mutual dependance mediated over space, separation)--I guess this also got me thinking about where psycho-analysis was at this point in time (huge in the 50's, beginning to come under increasing scrutiny and criticism by the late 60's, exposed as relying on homo-phobic anxiety by the 70's). I want to know more about how Candy identifies or doesn't with her mother and her mother's lifestyle.
-Time: I love the idea of the play being structured around the 15 minutes--as it stands, the 15 minuntes of fame seem to be this play--is that enough for you? Is there any relation between the "minutes" you've chosen and the idea of 15 minutes of fame?
-What is Candy's relationship to the audience? (I noticed there were a lot of questions about the audience in your pre-workshop goals.) Is there anything that she wants from them?
-What is the difference between Candy's ritual of "making herself beautiful" at the end of her life in the hospital and before that? What has changed?
-I noticed a lot of judgement/morality/blane creeping into the room in the second day particularly around Andy Warhol--I wonder what Candy's life would have been like if she hadn't met Andy and want to know more about how she met Andy (there seems to be a lot of chance at play in the formation of Candy's life--her gender was a chance, meeting her first drag mentor was chance...etc)
-I want to know more about what Candy thinks about Andy--I also wonder (in that this play seems poised somewhere on the continuum of solo performance and not) what it would be like if Candy played Andy, or if we saw Andy in some sort of mediated way.
-I'm interested in the dynamics of Andy's group--in some ways this seems like a replacement for the family structure--how did it work? Were there jealousies? A cycling of who was in favor and who was not? Positive aspects?
-Who does come to see Candy on her deathbed (wow that was powerful as played in class)
-What would have happened if Candy's operation had been successful?
First off really great session--I want to go through a couple of things that I thought were particularly *smart* about the various activities.
Gender worksheets:
-While I agree that I wish I had more time to respond to the questions of defining gender, there is something to be said for not having time and also to have to fill out something that looks quite a bit like an essay exam--I've never had to "declare" my gender before (Except for in a class I once took where we were assumed queer unless we chose to come out otherwise, although I was fine with being queer identified). That that declaration would have to happen under pressure created a lot of anxiety in me and a sense of loss with everything I wrote down--there was no way i was going to "get it right."
First this is an almost impossible task--to articulate your gender is to essentially cut away from what you are not and in that I personally experienced a great deal of loss, or continued to try to fight against a sense of loss, cliche and stereo-type. In defining I relied on a sort of internal sense of who or what I am and who or what I identify with. In the instructions, it came down to a set of behaviors that were repeatable by others (not an uncommon butler-esque sense of gender) but for me it highlighted that gender as a performance is always in reaction to or in reference to. (if you play this role, I'll play this one. If I can't play this role, I don't want to play) There is also a great deal of nuance to the way it plays out differently in different kinds of relationships and in response to different kinds of stimuli. But above all, putting gender in terms of instructions really foregrounds it at something that is a) learned b) repeated c) not really natural for anyone--its an uncomfortable place to have to name, define and codify your gender
I almost wonder if some sort of gender questionaire or some sort one-ness for defining gender might be put on the audience as a preshow activity or even through the play (I think it really opens the play up to a productive place to approach it from that feeling of failure/loss/complication of defining gender)
-I really love the way gender is handled in this play already, particularly in the opening minute: a girl who was a boy, a boy who was a girl...a human being. But in order to be a human being, Candy becomes larger than life (not a human being and in a way, neither). Really really interesting. A lot of the theoretical writing coming out of the mid 60's early 70's (I'm nerding out again, but maybe this will be useful) relies on the idea of third termisms, a construction of neither, nor, but (so for instance neither capitalism nor communism, but some other way: democratic socialism?) In these writings it is a sort of utopic vision which never quite pans out and can never quite be articulated or ends up re-affirming the initial binary, but the impulse to get outside of the binary, even just to get to an imaginary space, doesn't go away.
-I think the most useful part of this excercise was having only the tools at hand. Seeing the "bag of tricks" got me very excited, but having to work with what I had was difficult--I can't wear frost colored lipstick, there was no eye-liner, there was only so far I was going to get with what i had. I do have to wonder where it was I thought I was going to get to...but again. There was an inital sense of excitement, and then an inevitable sense of not enough.
-One of the questions you posed in your goals sheet was about the relationship between history and truth, this excercise made me wonder about the relationship--as cliche as it may sound--between truth and beauty in this play. Matching up insides and outsides. Also the difference between change/transformation (into what?) and beauty--are they one and the same? I think the relationship/pull is actually between all three of these terms: truth, change, beauty.
Themes that popped for me coming out of both days: Identification (who or what you identify with), Transformation, Death/Rebirth/Art(yes all together like that), Production/Reproduction/Origins, Chance
Questions:
-Looking at the picture of my mother made me very aware of which of her values and behaviors I've internalized and which I've tried to go beyond or get away from. A lot of the anxiety I feel around becoming my mother or emulating my mother has to do with place (as I think it does for Candy as well, maybe) the suburbs vs the city--I became sort of vitriolic about her fleece and flax--I'm really interested in Candy's relationship with her mother and the room of fashion magazines as identificatory people/objects, or even just what the relationship between the suburbs and the city is (there seems to be some mutual dependance mediated over space, separation)--I guess this also got me thinking about where psycho-analysis was at this point in time (huge in the 50's, beginning to come under increasing scrutiny and criticism by the late 60's, exposed as relying on homo-phobic anxiety by the 70's). I want to know more about how Candy identifies or doesn't with her mother and her mother's lifestyle.
-Time: I love the idea of the play being structured around the 15 minutes--as it stands, the 15 minuntes of fame seem to be this play--is that enough for you? Is there any relation between the "minutes" you've chosen and the idea of 15 minutes of fame?
-What is Candy's relationship to the audience? (I noticed there were a lot of questions about the audience in your pre-workshop goals.) Is there anything that she wants from them?
-What is the difference between Candy's ritual of "making herself beautiful" at the end of her life in the hospital and before that? What has changed?
-I noticed a lot of judgement/morality/blane creeping into the room in the second day particularly around Andy Warhol--I wonder what Candy's life would have been like if she hadn't met Andy and want to know more about how she met Andy (there seems to be a lot of chance at play in the formation of Candy's life--her gender was a chance, meeting her first drag mentor was chance...etc)
-I want to know more about what Candy thinks about Andy--I also wonder (in that this play seems poised somewhere on the continuum of solo performance and not) what it would be like if Candy played Andy, or if we saw Andy in some sort of mediated way.
-I'm interested in the dynamics of Andy's group--in some ways this seems like a replacement for the family structure--how did it work? Were there jealousies? A cycling of who was in favor and who was not? Positive aspects?
-Who does come to see Candy on her deathbed (wow that was powerful as played in class)
-What would have happened if Candy's operation had been successful?
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Priscilla's first response to "Love Candy"
Observations:
It seems to me that you are really developing and rethinking your approach to this work and that what we first read in class is undergoing major changes. Because of that, and because I am not sure what direction you are taking, I don't think I can make useful comments on "Love Candy" at this time, and will confine my comments to the class workshops.
I was struck at the variety of responses to the make-up session. It brought up so many thoughts on definition of self, creation or recreation of self, putting on of self -- or masking of self. I am excited at that thought of watching the character applying her makeup/creating herself on stage as part of the work -- very evocative.
The timeline workshop was also a great idea and I was surprised how long I kept thinking about it afterwards -- thinking of other things we might have added that were importatnt historically. It made me wonder how much the particular time she lived in defined Candy's life and how it might have been different had she been born twenty years later.
Questions:
Following up on the timeline and how Candy's life was impacted by the time in which she lived, I'm wondering if you are going to include historical markers/memory joggers in the script.
Something in the work we were doing made me want to see pictures of the real Candy. I think there are huge opportunities for visuals in this work. Are you thinking of including them are part of your script?
Opinions:
I do not know anything about the historical Candy and her relationship to Warhol other than what I have learned in class. To that end, if her life story was hugely impacted by Warhol, and it is something I should know as an audience, I would like more information. Also, I would like to know if she had a personal relationship, friendship, or purely working (but socially public) relationship with Warhol. And were there others that influenced her as strongly?
It seems to me that you are really developing and rethinking your approach to this work and that what we first read in class is undergoing major changes. Because of that, and because I am not sure what direction you are taking, I don't think I can make useful comments on "Love Candy" at this time, and will confine my comments to the class workshops.
I was struck at the variety of responses to the make-up session. It brought up so many thoughts on definition of self, creation or recreation of self, putting on of self -- or masking of self. I am excited at that thought of watching the character applying her makeup/creating herself on stage as part of the work -- very evocative.
The timeline workshop was also a great idea and I was surprised how long I kept thinking about it afterwards -- thinking of other things we might have added that were importatnt historically. It made me wonder how much the particular time she lived in defined Candy's life and how it might have been different had she been born twenty years later.
Questions:
Following up on the timeline and how Candy's life was impacted by the time in which she lived, I'm wondering if you are going to include historical markers/memory joggers in the script.
Something in the work we were doing made me want to see pictures of the real Candy. I think there are huge opportunities for visuals in this work. Are you thinking of including them are part of your script?
Opinions:
I do not know anything about the historical Candy and her relationship to Warhol other than what I have learned in class. To that end, if her life story was hugely impacted by Warhol, and it is something I should know as an audience, I would like more information. Also, I would like to know if she had a personal relationship, friendship, or purely working (but socially public) relationship with Warhol. And were there others that influenced her as strongly?
Priscilla's response Elephant's Graveyard
Observations:
I have been repeated surprised at the viseral response I have to reading and/or to participating in the reading of this piece. Both weeks when we read the pages in class and participated as chanting townspeople, I found it profoundly disturbing. Not that I think this is a bad thing -- I think it speaks to the strength of the work that it can continue to elicit such a strong response despite the fact that I have become very familiar with it. It does make me uncomfortable, but then theater is to provoke thought, so it is doing exactly what it should.
I love the way you have strengthened the use of color in the play, both on the part of the town and the circus. I can't wait to see how the design team interprets your script. I think it effectively reinforces the delineation of town and circus. (Does the railroad have any color associations?)
Your work on the characters continues to clarify them -- without seeming like charicatures, I feel like I know who each of them is. I also responded to the elephant metaphors -- the heirarchy of the elephant world, the eroticized trunk, the safety Ballet Girl feels there, the sensitivity of the tusks, etc. Also, the information about the painful and unnatural state an elephant is in when doing standing and balancing tricks nicely sets up our sympathy for Mary (if we had any trouble being sympathetic to being with.)
Lastly, I really responded to the placement of the lynching dialogue in the last version -- seems exactly right.
Questions:
I have trouble not totally disliking the Ringmaster, as he never seems to really have a single sympathetic moment. Is he really that hard-hearted?
I'm wondering what the actors will be doing on stage while they give their monologues -- and what the rest of the actors will be doing during their non-speaking times.
Do you think it would be possible to incorporate circus smells (hay and dung)? Could be very evocative for sense of place.
Opinions:
I love, love, love the last bit about the peanut. Brilliant.
I worry about the clowns -- the visual aspect, the sheer numbers of them -- hijacking the play (clowns are so wonderful/horrible/grotesque).
I have been repeated surprised at the viseral response I have to reading and/or to participating in the reading of this piece. Both weeks when we read the pages in class and participated as chanting townspeople, I found it profoundly disturbing. Not that I think this is a bad thing -- I think it speaks to the strength of the work that it can continue to elicit such a strong response despite the fact that I have become very familiar with it. It does make me uncomfortable, but then theater is to provoke thought, so it is doing exactly what it should.
I love the way you have strengthened the use of color in the play, both on the part of the town and the circus. I can't wait to see how the design team interprets your script. I think it effectively reinforces the delineation of town and circus. (Does the railroad have any color associations?)
Your work on the characters continues to clarify them -- without seeming like charicatures, I feel like I know who each of them is. I also responded to the elephant metaphors -- the heirarchy of the elephant world, the eroticized trunk, the safety Ballet Girl feels there, the sensitivity of the tusks, etc. Also, the information about the painful and unnatural state an elephant is in when doing standing and balancing tricks nicely sets up our sympathy for Mary (if we had any trouble being sympathetic to being with.)
Lastly, I really responded to the placement of the lynching dialogue in the last version -- seems exactly right.
Questions:
I have trouble not totally disliking the Ringmaster, as he never seems to really have a single sympathetic moment. Is he really that hard-hearted?
I'm wondering what the actors will be doing on stage while they give their monologues -- and what the rest of the actors will be doing during their non-speaking times.
Do you think it would be possible to incorporate circus smells (hay and dung)? Could be very evocative for sense of place.
Opinions:
I love, love, love the last bit about the peanut. Brilliant.
I worry about the clowns -- the visual aspect, the sheer numbers of them -- hijacking the play (clowns are so wonderful/horrible/grotesque).
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Michael's Pathetic Attempt at Blogging on Love, Candy
Pathetic in the sense that my computer hard drive corrupted Thurs night and until Computer Geeks got here today, I've not had computer access. Who knows what they'll be able to recover? In the interim, I have a friend's old laptop, connected to the internet, but I don't have email. And I am not good at these little keys and it's driving me crazy to try to work the little keyboard and is distracting from my concentration.
Ok...I'll stop bitchin' and write!
(I'll try to clean up all the messiness.)
AFFIRMATIONS
Cool! Grooovy! Far Out! Hip Man!
A very good mix of dramaturgical exercises. A roller coaster of emotions and so much emotional territory covered.
Although the make-up made me feel artificial and "icky," I think it was a perfect exercise. It made me feel a little uncomfortable in my skin--or rather the skin I created that day. It made me feel perhaps like Candy did as a man--unnatural, icky, out of place, forced, etc. It captured that feeling of not fitting in. WHY was all that? Was it because I'm not used to make-up? Was it pulling up bigger "walls" for me? (Read, shades of internalized "homophobia"... is there a resistance to go there on my part because while I'm gay, I'm not a drag queen and is it some sort of resistance to being labeled such? A feeling that I've already pushed the sexual envelope enough in life, that I'm not "that" deviant from the sexual hegemony? ) Is that over-reacting? Does that make sense? I guess I've strayed from a mere affirmation, but I learned so much in that unease. It would have been interesting to have a free-write associated with it at some point...but hey, that's sort of what I'm doing here.
I thought the exercises prior to the make-up were very thought-provoking as well. I felt I could've used more time for those. Some of my responses about transformation, etc. were probably a little aborted and I will be glad to fill in, talk more about it, if ever that becomes helpful. I started down the paths and barely hit upon them, but didn't get into deep reflection of them.
The instruction sheet for genders was brilliant! Wow. To think of rules. Rules. I was stuck--like others. I just started without thinking about it. Some probably sound a little sexist, but weren't intended to be--anymore than I think some of that is true, but not always. As you are so aware. We all are! I'm rambling. But for some reason I found myself thinking of men and women in work situations and amongst groups of friends and such and trying to assign stereotypical rules to genders. I was amazed that I didn't think of things like: shave your face (m), shave your legs/pits (w)...etc. They weren't beauty things. What does that mean? You are my psychologist, no?
The improv sessions were handled well and informative. I think it's a bit harder to improv "real people" because we already "know" this person to some extent and you feel a little bit of WWAD or WWCD or WWJ*D (*What would June do?)...but still it was way interesting to watch and interesting to participate in. It was eery to think that my first impulse as Andy in her hospital room was to take her picture.
Brava! Brava! EXcellent first week. I hope it was beneficial to y'all too.
QUESTIONS
Is Candy really a public or a private person at heart?
What does she feel toward Andy, deep down? Is he her hero? Is he her heroin?
At what point does Candy's downfall start? The day she leaves home? The day she meets Andy? The day she....?
After we did the time line, I now wonder, where Candy's story overlays it. When did she die? I guess I can google and find out. But it might be interesting to know that as I'm hearing it/seeing it. Especially if you feel there are connections to the times and her situations. Another might be a time line of sex-change operations. She wasn't the first (I know she never got that far), but it would've still been very early on. She was pre-Renee Richards when the operation suddenly exploded into the American psyche when RR fought a battle to play in women's tennis during the 70s.
OPINIONS
This is fairly prescriptive, but I start to wonder if the show's camp level might be cool to be amped up. perhaps a chorus of post-op transexuals, sex-change pioneers, etc Not trying to belittle it at all...but as we discussed in class she is a woman of her time. A very strange and wonderful time. A time when new, sassy, bold, harsh, plastic, artificial, radical, revolutionary all suddenly exploded causing many people much consternation...middle American and otherwise. So maybe it isn't just "camp" I'm arguing for more of, but of the artificialness of that era.
Based upon previous readings of the text, I'm wanting to both feel for Candy more AND be disgusted by her. Isn't that sad. I guess I don't really mean "disgusted" as much as "shocked" etc. I think the play does that, but I would love more of both--more wanting to hug and nurture her, more surprise and shock and even disapproval of her choices. Or her fate. I love the paradoxes this allows. Me to think of her as courageous, but sad. Or is it her fate sad? One of those things that lingers for days or weeks after seeing the show. I think you're there, but I want more of both.
I don't know how I feel about more Andy. On one hand, you almost can't avoid him...he's the elephant in the graveyard, so to speak. On the other, it's her show and you don't want him to hijack it. It might be a cool statement to have him in it but since she's dead, she's in control for once--not him. Or is she dead? I don't remember... I may be wrong here--or that might be earlier versions running together. I think she is...but even if she's not, it's her show, she could have the power here--or not.
~~
Thanks for a very thought-provoking week. Great work. Sorry about all the scare quotes--for some reason it's not allowing me to do itallics. I hope this made some sense after all. (Michael aka Monique aka Kika aka La M aka Kika Monique and when I'm alone and the curtains are drawn, I sometimes call myself, Lois.)
Which brings up another point: hmmmm....why do we as gay men of a certain age all have "drag" names if we never do drag? Why do we call our friends such? Learned camp cultural things amongst our subset of society?
Ok...I'll stop bitchin' and write!
(I'll try to clean up all the messiness.)
AFFIRMATIONS
Cool! Grooovy! Far Out! Hip Man!
A very good mix of dramaturgical exercises. A roller coaster of emotions and so much emotional territory covered.
Although the make-up made me feel artificial and "icky," I think it was a perfect exercise. It made me feel a little uncomfortable in my skin--or rather the skin I created that day. It made me feel perhaps like Candy did as a man--unnatural, icky, out of place, forced, etc. It captured that feeling of not fitting in. WHY was all that? Was it because I'm not used to make-up? Was it pulling up bigger "walls" for me? (Read, shades of internalized "homophobia"... is there a resistance to go there on my part because while I'm gay, I'm not a drag queen and is it some sort of resistance to being labeled such? A feeling that I've already pushed the sexual envelope enough in life, that I'm not "that" deviant from the sexual hegemony? ) Is that over-reacting? Does that make sense? I guess I've strayed from a mere affirmation, but I learned so much in that unease. It would have been interesting to have a free-write associated with it at some point...but hey, that's sort of what I'm doing here.
I thought the exercises prior to the make-up were very thought-provoking as well. I felt I could've used more time for those. Some of my responses about transformation, etc. were probably a little aborted and I will be glad to fill in, talk more about it, if ever that becomes helpful. I started down the paths and barely hit upon them, but didn't get into deep reflection of them.
The instruction sheet for genders was brilliant! Wow. To think of rules. Rules. I was stuck--like others. I just started without thinking about it. Some probably sound a little sexist, but weren't intended to be--anymore than I think some of that is true, but not always. As you are so aware. We all are! I'm rambling. But for some reason I found myself thinking of men and women in work situations and amongst groups of friends and such and trying to assign stereotypical rules to genders. I was amazed that I didn't think of things like: shave your face (m), shave your legs/pits (w)...etc. They weren't beauty things. What does that mean? You are my psychologist, no?
The improv sessions were handled well and informative. I think it's a bit harder to improv "real people" because we already "know" this person to some extent and you feel a little bit of WWAD or WWCD or WWJ*D (*What would June do?)...but still it was way interesting to watch and interesting to participate in. It was eery to think that my first impulse as Andy in her hospital room was to take her picture.
Brava! Brava! EXcellent first week. I hope it was beneficial to y'all too.
QUESTIONS
Is Candy really a public or a private person at heart?
What does she feel toward Andy, deep down? Is he her hero? Is he her heroin?
At what point does Candy's downfall start? The day she leaves home? The day she meets Andy? The day she....?
After we did the time line, I now wonder, where Candy's story overlays it. When did she die? I guess I can google and find out. But it might be interesting to know that as I'm hearing it/seeing it. Especially if you feel there are connections to the times and her situations. Another might be a time line of sex-change operations. She wasn't the first (I know she never got that far), but it would've still been very early on. She was pre-Renee Richards when the operation suddenly exploded into the American psyche when RR fought a battle to play in women's tennis during the 70s.
OPINIONS
This is fairly prescriptive, but I start to wonder if the show's camp level might be cool to be amped up. perhaps a chorus of post-op transexuals, sex-change pioneers, etc Not trying to belittle it at all...but as we discussed in class she is a woman of her time. A very strange and wonderful time. A time when new, sassy, bold, harsh, plastic, artificial, radical, revolutionary all suddenly exploded causing many people much consternation...middle American and otherwise. So maybe it isn't just "camp" I'm arguing for more of, but of the artificialness of that era.
Based upon previous readings of the text, I'm wanting to both feel for Candy more AND be disgusted by her. Isn't that sad. I guess I don't really mean "disgusted" as much as "shocked" etc. I think the play does that, but I would love more of both--more wanting to hug and nurture her, more surprise and shock and even disapproval of her choices. Or her fate. I love the paradoxes this allows. Me to think of her as courageous, but sad. Or is it her fate sad? One of those things that lingers for days or weeks after seeing the show. I think you're there, but I want more of both.
I don't know how I feel about more Andy. On one hand, you almost can't avoid him...he's the elephant in the graveyard, so to speak. On the other, it's her show and you don't want him to hijack it. It might be a cool statement to have him in it but since she's dead, she's in control for once--not him. Or is she dead? I don't remember... I may be wrong here--or that might be earlier versions running together. I think she is...but even if she's not, it's her show, she could have the power here--or not.
~~
Thanks for a very thought-provoking week. Great work. Sorry about all the scare quotes--for some reason it's not allowing me to do itallics. I hope this made some sense after all. (Michael aka Monique aka Kika aka La M aka Kika Monique and when I'm alone and the curtains are drawn, I sometimes call myself, Lois.)
Which brings up another point: hmmmm....why do we as gay men of a certain age all have "drag" names if we never do drag? Why do we call our friends such? Learned camp cultural things amongst our subset of society?
Friday, March 23, 2007
George's Blog about "Love Candy"
AFFIRMATIONS
Nice work! Jenny, I felt that you used some of the pedagogy lessons we learned last semester to great effect: keeping us moving from one activity to the next, changing the geometry of the class, playing with space (moving those curtains in was genius). Kept us off-balance in a good way.
The make-up exercise was a great idea - really plunged us into the world of the play in a tangible, personal way.
The time-line was fun and really underlined the tumultuousness of the time - the spectacular (Michael's and my birth) and the horror (the various assassinations).
I really feel connected with the play after playing Candy. That and the makeup and I'm ready to go anywhere with the play.
And, of course, your color-coordination was also appreciated.
QUESTIONS
Is there a way to incorporate the sense of the decade timeline into the play?
Perhaps Candy "makes-up" audience members as they come into the theatre?
OPINIONS
I understand your hesitancy to not let Mr. Warhol take over your show. I do think there might be mileage out of it, though, especially after playing the Candy/Andy scenes. It might be the "in" to the show for those who don't know Candy. On the other hand, he could easily take over. Hmm. Maybe if he was less of a literal presence - a talking soup can or something? I can't decide if that is genius or the stupidest idea I've ever had.
If you did use Andy in a bigger role, the similarity of their names struck me yesterday - (C)andy Darling might look good on a poster...
Playing Candy was intense. I remained quite angry for a few hours after class. So emotional to be at the end of ones life, not satisfied with where it ended up and being able to talk the man who you blame for that. And feeling so violated after his picture of me (which I took to be flattering) turned into a perverse chronicle of my death. Yuk.
Putting on makeup is always a bit sad for me - I never look as pretty as I'd like to.
Nice work! Jenny, I felt that you used some of the pedagogy lessons we learned last semester to great effect: keeping us moving from one activity to the next, changing the geometry of the class, playing with space (moving those curtains in was genius). Kept us off-balance in a good way.
The make-up exercise was a great idea - really plunged us into the world of the play in a tangible, personal way.
The time-line was fun and really underlined the tumultuousness of the time - the spectacular (Michael's and my birth) and the horror (the various assassinations).
I really feel connected with the play after playing Candy. That and the makeup and I'm ready to go anywhere with the play.
And, of course, your color-coordination was also appreciated.
QUESTIONS
Is there a way to incorporate the sense of the decade timeline into the play?
Perhaps Candy "makes-up" audience members as they come into the theatre?
OPINIONS
I understand your hesitancy to not let Mr. Warhol take over your show. I do think there might be mileage out of it, though, especially after playing the Candy/Andy scenes. It might be the "in" to the show for those who don't know Candy. On the other hand, he could easily take over. Hmm. Maybe if he was less of a literal presence - a talking soup can or something? I can't decide if that is genius or the stupidest idea I've ever had.
If you did use Andy in a bigger role, the similarity of their names struck me yesterday - (C)andy Darling might look good on a poster...
Playing Candy was intense. I remained quite angry for a few hours after class. So emotional to be at the end of ones life, not satisfied with where it ended up and being able to talk the man who you blame for that. And feeling so violated after his picture of me (which I took to be flattering) turned into a perverse chronicle of my death. Yuk.
Putting on makeup is always a bit sad for me - I never look as pretty as I'd like to.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
A Thought on Mob Mentality (addendum to Elephant's Graveyard)
Just a quick thought on Mob Mentality:
Earlier this week, I saw the clip on CNN.com about the 81 and 101 year old women in NYC getting mugged. The video of this man beating the 101 year old woman in the face was unbelievable. I thought it was attrocious, but didn't really get too worked up. I thought something like "I hope he's caught and locked up." Click. On to next story or whatever.
Tonight I clicked on CNN.com and they had the face of the man, taken in a grainy photo from the surveilance tape, as their top headline. The look of a madman captured on film with the headline "NYC wants muggers head." And my adrenaline soared WAY up. I immediately got up from my chair (because I couldn't sit any more. I HAD to get up.) and said that man needs to go to the chair (and I don't support the death penalty anymore).
I went to the bathroom and got ready for bed and thought about what had just happened. I was fired up about getting this man and seeing him locked away and never come out. A man who could do that twice to old women is not salvagable, I thought.
Then I realized I was caught up in a sort of cyber mob mentality. And on one hand I thought, mob mentality is a good thing. The other night I was relatively complacent about the whole thing and tonight I care. I thought that it shows we (NYC) still care(s), we have humanity within us--not to sit back and let someone else take care of it, let it just happen. We're not that jaded. We band together to survive and stop evil--as this man surely is very close to evil. Then it made me sad that it took that mob mentality for me to feel that. (and note...I'm not in NYC, I'm at home in Austin.)
Then it made me wonder if there is deeply ingrained racism staring at the face of that black man and wanting "justice". Or just angry that anyone could beat such defenseless women--some of the weakest members of the NYC "foodchain."
I do hope they find him. I do hope he's found guilty. I do believe someone who does something that vile is probably beyond saving. I hope he's in jail for a long, long time. I hope they don't kill him.
All that in a matter of 10 or 15 minutes. Whew! We can say what we want about 1916, but when provoked, it still gets something deep inside of us. (or at least me.) I mean for a few minutes, I was ready to hunt him. It is real. It is both very scary and a sign that we're alive.
Earlier this week, I saw the clip on CNN.com about the 81 and 101 year old women in NYC getting mugged. The video of this man beating the 101 year old woman in the face was unbelievable. I thought it was attrocious, but didn't really get too worked up. I thought something like "I hope he's caught and locked up." Click. On to next story or whatever.
Tonight I clicked on CNN.com and they had the face of the man, taken in a grainy photo from the surveilance tape, as their top headline. The look of a madman captured on film with the headline "NYC wants muggers head." And my adrenaline soared WAY up. I immediately got up from my chair (because I couldn't sit any more. I HAD to get up.) and said that man needs to go to the chair (and I don't support the death penalty anymore).
I went to the bathroom and got ready for bed and thought about what had just happened. I was fired up about getting this man and seeing him locked away and never come out. A man who could do that twice to old women is not salvagable, I thought.
Then I realized I was caught up in a sort of cyber mob mentality. And on one hand I thought, mob mentality is a good thing. The other night I was relatively complacent about the whole thing and tonight I care. I thought that it shows we (NYC) still care(s), we have humanity within us--not to sit back and let someone else take care of it, let it just happen. We're not that jaded. We band together to survive and stop evil--as this man surely is very close to evil. Then it made me sad that it took that mob mentality for me to feel that. (and note...I'm not in NYC, I'm at home in Austin.)
Then it made me wonder if there is deeply ingrained racism staring at the face of that black man and wanting "justice". Or just angry that anyone could beat such defenseless women--some of the weakest members of the NYC "foodchain."
I do hope they find him. I do hope he's found guilty. I do believe someone who does something that vile is probably beyond saving. I hope he's in jail for a long, long time. I hope they don't kill him.
All that in a matter of 10 or 15 minutes. Whew! We can say what we want about 1916, but when provoked, it still gets something deep inside of us. (or at least me.) I mean for a few minutes, I was ready to hunt him. It is real. It is both very scary and a sign that we're alive.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
GOALS FOR "LOVE,CANDY"
Our Goals For The "Love, Candy" Workshops Are To Address The Following Questions.
QUESTION ONE:How can the ideas of Beauty and Transformation best be used as tools in this piece?
(1) How does the “before” of transformation inform both the “after” and the transformation itself? (Note that the idea of a “before” and “after” should not be taken to mean two static states, but rather a series of continuing transformations and evolutions that incorporate various befores and afters)
(2) How can Erica create a detailed relationship between her audience and Candy’s “before moments?”/ What are the small moments that allow the audience/reader to be familiar with Candy’s transformations?
(3) What is the range of visceral, sensory details that Erica can employ in staging Candy’s transformation?
Of those details, which have maximum impact, and which are most useful toward building the relationship between Candy and the audience, toward the journey of Candy and the audience.
QUESTION TWO: What is the role of Andy Warhol (and all that he represents) in this play?
(1) What existing images and ideas about Warhol do audience members bring with them into the piece? How can Erica capitalize on/ play with these ideas?
(2) How do you see history/truth working in this play? Is there a difference between history fact and truth?
(3) How might other figures/conceptions/misconceptions of Warhol’s N.Y., or the 60s, or Pop Art be played with and incorporated?
QUESTION THREE: What is the Form of this play?
(1) What patterns emerge for the audience when watching the play in its current form?
(2) What are the images, details, and events on which the audience’s experience of the play hinges?
(3) What other images, details and events would, if included, most serve to shape the experience Erica would like her audience to have? (or the experience you find yourself having or not having)…
QUESTION ONE:How can the ideas of Beauty and Transformation best be used as tools in this piece?
(1) How does the “before” of transformation inform both the “after” and the transformation itself? (Note that the idea of a “before” and “after” should not be taken to mean two static states, but rather a series of continuing transformations and evolutions that incorporate various befores and afters)
(2) How can Erica create a detailed relationship between her audience and Candy’s “before moments?”/ What are the small moments that allow the audience/reader to be familiar with Candy’s transformations?
(3) What is the range of visceral, sensory details that Erica can employ in staging Candy’s transformation?
Of those details, which have maximum impact, and which are most useful toward building the relationship between Candy and the audience, toward the journey of Candy and the audience.
QUESTION TWO: What is the role of Andy Warhol (and all that he represents) in this play?
(1) What existing images and ideas about Warhol do audience members bring with them into the piece? How can Erica capitalize on/ play with these ideas?
(2) How do you see history/truth working in this play? Is there a difference between history fact and truth?
(3) How might other figures/conceptions/misconceptions of Warhol’s N.Y., or the 60s, or Pop Art be played with and incorporated?
QUESTION THREE: What is the Form of this play?
(1) What patterns emerge for the audience when watching the play in its current form?
(2) What are the images, details, and events on which the audience’s experience of the play hinges?
(3) What other images, details and events would, if included, most serve to shape the experience Erica would like her audience to have? (or the experience you find yourself having or not having)…
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Erica's Response to Elephant's Graveyard
Affirmations
- It was really exciting to hear the play with actors! There was much added energy and theatricality... The scale of this play suggests some really exciting/intense staging possibilities... excited to see what you do with it!
- The merging of characters makes the play tighter and it is easier to invest in the individual characters and stories.
-On the same note the characters have really developed and each character feels like a whole person with a whole life and a whole story and an individual take on the events of the play.
- I enjoyed the moments that riffed on the idea of monologue... having two characters delivering monologues that seemed to be readable as either overlapping monologues to the unseen listener (or audience) or monologues in conversation with eachother (not to be confused with dialogue...) That is a very convoluted way of saying that I really appreciate the layers within these moments.
- And of course, fantastic language and story telling. Per usual.
Questions
- What is the hierarchy of the circus people? (past the clowns being at the bottom)
- Are there individual families/romances/loyalties within the larger circus family?
- What is Red running away from?
- Do any of the townspeople have a reaction to what they witnessed outside of what action should be taken? (Does it hit anyone personally?)
- Still a little confused about some of the circus terminology... specifically what is a roustabout? and I sort of get what a First of May is... but not completely?
Opinions
- The lynching monologue is a lot more powerful (for me) placed later in the play.
- The child monologues break the rhythm slightly... they are the only places that the adressee comes into question for me.
- As I stated above some of the circus terminology is still sort of unclear for me... I get it in context but I don't know if that is only because I've heard it in context a few times and am listening for it.
- I would like to see more interpersonal allegiances/relationships between some of the circus characters and/or townspeople...
- It was really exciting to hear the play with actors! There was much added energy and theatricality... The scale of this play suggests some really exciting/intense staging possibilities... excited to see what you do with it!
- The merging of characters makes the play tighter and it is easier to invest in the individual characters and stories.
-On the same note the characters have really developed and each character feels like a whole person with a whole life and a whole story and an individual take on the events of the play.
- I enjoyed the moments that riffed on the idea of monologue... having two characters delivering monologues that seemed to be readable as either overlapping monologues to the unseen listener (or audience) or monologues in conversation with eachother (not to be confused with dialogue...) That is a very convoluted way of saying that I really appreciate the layers within these moments.
- And of course, fantastic language and story telling. Per usual.
Questions
- What is the hierarchy of the circus people? (past the clowns being at the bottom)
- Are there individual families/romances/loyalties within the larger circus family?
- What is Red running away from?
- Do any of the townspeople have a reaction to what they witnessed outside of what action should be taken? (Does it hit anyone personally?)
- Still a little confused about some of the circus terminology... specifically what is a roustabout? and I sort of get what a First of May is... but not completely?
Opinions
- The lynching monologue is a lot more powerful (for me) placed later in the play.
- The child monologues break the rhythm slightly... they are the only places that the adressee comes into question for me.
- As I stated above some of the circus terminology is still sort of unclear for me... I get it in context but I don't know if that is only because I've heard it in context a few times and am listening for it.
- I would like to see more interpersonal allegiances/relationships between some of the circus characters and/or townspeople...
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Soo-Jin's Response to "Elephant's Graveyard"
Affirmation
Wonderful work, both of you.
Session One
The experience of witnessing the play with a room full of actors was cool. I forgot how BIG the play is in terms of cast size. So I appreciated visually seeing that. Casting can sometimes be a monster but kudos for you in bringing it together.
Being told you did cuts, I was looking out for what was gone and what was still kept. Any major changes. I guess the biggie was the earlier placement of the "lynching" monologue. (In Session Two, you placed it towards the end and I think that really really WORKED BETTER.)
I noticed you had shorter phrases or lines spoken in place of bigger passages in previous drafts. I suppose with rehearsing, that intercutting of speakers will run more smoothly and in the rhythym that you want it to run. Cutting the text like that for me gives me the pinball effect. I just made that up--where I feel like the atmostphere of the play is energetic/high energy, spontaneous, with a keep you on your toes anticipation--which I bet is the circus environment as spectator. Unfortunately I've never been to a circus. Seen it in movies mostly.
I really enjoyed the Hungry Townsperson--the role that Michael Mitchell (or La M) wrote. It might've been his spectacular reading but I just loved that character. He felt very 3-D to me. He didn't have the most lines in the play but I could totally get a sense and feel for him that makes me like the townspeople. Daniel mentioned earlier in the semester that plays can leave an indentation in our emotional landscape and the job of the playwright is to feel out what that indentation is. (If I have that idea spun incorrectly, please correct.) The Hungry Townsperson left a solid indentation in my emotional landscape. So good job! Let me get a little more specific on why this character resonated for me. He has a particular way of speaking. Seemed like short sentences. Simple sentences but profound nonetheless. He seemed like a philosopher who perhaps only graduated from junior high but has a sharp intuition. He's also very zen in his laidbackness. The way he delivers the lynching monologue. He says it matter-of-factly but I take him very serious. He's delightful.
Session Two
I didn't have the script in front of me for Session One but in the stage directions of the draft in Session One, did you have sound/sound effects? If so, I might not have paid much attention to them.
And that is perhaps why the payoff was great in Session Two because the class added them. I'm glad you and Erica were orchestrating. That helped a lot.
I enjoyed hearing that Red walked into Mary's tent.
I also love how the preacher is developing. He is showing vulnerability. I wonder who he's addressing when he does this. Because that is a huge thing to do for public figures. I think it's an interesting choice you make that the preacher is jealous of the circus but also doesn't condemn it more due to that. I wonder how he personally feels about the circus--like if it was his childhood pasttime or something he avoided always, etc.
Questions
Just some things to think about if you want and not necessarily have answered in the text unless you want to-
1. What does the circus mean to each person?
2. What led them to the circus? As spectator? As employee?
3. What was the reputation back then of circus workers? (Which class did they belong to?)
4. What is Red's backstory? I'm curious about him most 'cause he doesn't speak. Not that he needs to. Others don't say much about him biographically so I assume that he is very new to the circus.
5. What is the timeline of Red's history with the circus? I imagine it is short. Like he seems to just pop up right before the play begins.
6. Does the Ballet Girl have any children?
7. Do only a certain class of people attend the circus? Like would "proper society" avoid it? It is the entertainment of the masses?
8. Is there a "society" in Irwin?
9. Who has the most power/sway in town?
10. Who has most power/sway in circus?
11. Anyone really mourn Red's death?
12. If Mary could talk, what would she say? (esp. at the hanging..you know how the executioner lets the about to be executed have a few words)
Opinion
I almost craved some action in Mary's tent when Red walked in. Nothing huge necessarily. But the build up was great. Like he walked in without permission. Ballet girl thought he would do something lewd to her but he just stared at Mary. I wonder what the equivalent might be
The one character who I'd like to see have a bigger emotional arc is the Ringmaster. I understand his concerns with money and it is fitting but even if secretly we found out his reaction to Mary's situation--whether he's pro or anti-Mary, I would take the Ringmaster more seriously in that "Oh, good. He's human after all. He has an opinion on this town and on Mary." Because right now he reads to me as textbook--on the cut and dry side. Perhaps you wanted that effect, too. But I mention him because he has a huge role in the circus. He's like the mayor of the circus (just saying this not knowing the real hierarchy). It can go in either direction...like the audience could find him more heartless and cruel or actually super humane but conflicted as hell. I guess I'm hungry for his reaction and actions to be turned up a notch in either direction.
One big thing I noticed in the Second Session was that I wanted to have more voice as the Townspeople or whoever's in the audience who wishes Mary dead. The whispering has a powerful effect but I would like to hear what their justifications are. They don't have to all repeat the same thing necessarily. I just wanna hear how badly they want Mary to be punished. Is it a crime and justice thing? Is it animals are below human beings pride? I wanna hear even conflicts within the town. i.e., A hunter might talk about how his loved one got killed by a bear but he didn't kill the bear, etc. And maybe they have really simple reasons. Dumb reasons even. But that will be more payoff I think for later when Mary does get hung. I want to see I guess the actual idiocy of the situation.
Literary dressing to theatrical dressing sounds like a wonderful goal for "Elephant's Graveyard"...Love the performance within a performance aspect. Especially in the opening where everyone is introducing the circus. I loved the meltdown version of it (10 years forward version) you shared in Steven's class. I felt a lot of sympathy for the ringmaster which I don't really feel in your present draft. Like the Hungry Townsperson is the human version of the whole town almost but he is like the one no one seems to listen to... I feel like his circus equivalent is the Ringmaster. I wanna know how much power he has. Does he have final say?
The circus court of appeals is brought up by the clown. I am very curious about that. Was that a joke or it existed in old circus days?
To finish off the literary to theatrical dressing comment, I can see more of this in "E.G."
I didn't notice a huge difference in my perception of the town just 'cause more women were present in the mob. The opinions of killing Mary did not seem to change. Speaking of sex, I wonder if Mary being a girl elephant makes the hanging more grotesque or not. For me, as a spectator, it does. From the historical blurbs, does it say "Mary" or that the elephant was female?
Instead of paying attention to systems, I kept track of what the town said and what the circus said. And even knocking that down further, what each individual said. Each person's opinion to me was important. The clowns seemed the most passionate of the circus crowd. They had the most compassion for Mary. In the town, I'm not sure who was the most vindictive towards Mary.
Just something to think about, if Mary had stepped on a townsperson's head, that would be interesting just to see if the town would be more upset, probably. But no one knew Red. At least from town. As a spectator, I would feel sorrier for Red had he been a truly saint-like worker who ran into bad luck. Or in your early version of the play from last fall, I also liked how Red seemed to be in fault for pissing Mary off perhaps regularly (tapping of tusks). Perhaps he was an animal abuser type of mean kid. In an interesting way, I interpreted him as a kid who probably lied about his age to work for the circus.
I just equate circus people on stage as lots of movement on stage. Lots of potential to be a real visual treat.
Hope this was helpful. Looking forward to what you do next. Awesome job, guys.
Soo-Jin
Wonderful work, both of you.
Session One
The experience of witnessing the play with a room full of actors was cool. I forgot how BIG the play is in terms of cast size. So I appreciated visually seeing that. Casting can sometimes be a monster but kudos for you in bringing it together.
Being told you did cuts, I was looking out for what was gone and what was still kept. Any major changes. I guess the biggie was the earlier placement of the "lynching" monologue. (In Session Two, you placed it towards the end and I think that really really WORKED BETTER.)
I noticed you had shorter phrases or lines spoken in place of bigger passages in previous drafts. I suppose with rehearsing, that intercutting of speakers will run more smoothly and in the rhythym that you want it to run. Cutting the text like that for me gives me the pinball effect. I just made that up--where I feel like the atmostphere of the play is energetic/high energy, spontaneous, with a keep you on your toes anticipation--which I bet is the circus environment as spectator. Unfortunately I've never been to a circus. Seen it in movies mostly.
I really enjoyed the Hungry Townsperson--the role that Michael Mitchell (or La M) wrote. It might've been his spectacular reading but I just loved that character. He felt very 3-D to me. He didn't have the most lines in the play but I could totally get a sense and feel for him that makes me like the townspeople. Daniel mentioned earlier in the semester that plays can leave an indentation in our emotional landscape and the job of the playwright is to feel out what that indentation is. (If I have that idea spun incorrectly, please correct.) The Hungry Townsperson left a solid indentation in my emotional landscape. So good job! Let me get a little more specific on why this character resonated for me. He has a particular way of speaking. Seemed like short sentences. Simple sentences but profound nonetheless. He seemed like a philosopher who perhaps only graduated from junior high but has a sharp intuition. He's also very zen in his laidbackness. The way he delivers the lynching monologue. He says it matter-of-factly but I take him very serious. He's delightful.
Session Two
I didn't have the script in front of me for Session One but in the stage directions of the draft in Session One, did you have sound/sound effects? If so, I might not have paid much attention to them.
And that is perhaps why the payoff was great in Session Two because the class added them. I'm glad you and Erica were orchestrating. That helped a lot.
I enjoyed hearing that Red walked into Mary's tent.
I also love how the preacher is developing. He is showing vulnerability. I wonder who he's addressing when he does this. Because that is a huge thing to do for public figures. I think it's an interesting choice you make that the preacher is jealous of the circus but also doesn't condemn it more due to that. I wonder how he personally feels about the circus--like if it was his childhood pasttime or something he avoided always, etc.
Questions
Just some things to think about if you want and not necessarily have answered in the text unless you want to-
1. What does the circus mean to each person?
2. What led them to the circus? As spectator? As employee?
3. What was the reputation back then of circus workers? (Which class did they belong to?)
4. What is Red's backstory? I'm curious about him most 'cause he doesn't speak. Not that he needs to. Others don't say much about him biographically so I assume that he is very new to the circus.
5. What is the timeline of Red's history with the circus? I imagine it is short. Like he seems to just pop up right before the play begins.
6. Does the Ballet Girl have any children?
7. Do only a certain class of people attend the circus? Like would "proper society" avoid it? It is the entertainment of the masses?
8. Is there a "society" in Irwin?
9. Who has the most power/sway in town?
10. Who has most power/sway in circus?
11. Anyone really mourn Red's death?
12. If Mary could talk, what would she say? (esp. at the hanging..you know how the executioner lets the about to be executed have a few words)
Opinion
I almost craved some action in Mary's tent when Red walked in. Nothing huge necessarily. But the build up was great. Like he walked in without permission. Ballet girl thought he would do something lewd to her but he just stared at Mary. I wonder what the equivalent might be
The one character who I'd like to see have a bigger emotional arc is the Ringmaster. I understand his concerns with money and it is fitting but even if secretly we found out his reaction to Mary's situation--whether he's pro or anti-Mary, I would take the Ringmaster more seriously in that "Oh, good. He's human after all. He has an opinion on this town and on Mary." Because right now he reads to me as textbook--on the cut and dry side. Perhaps you wanted that effect, too. But I mention him because he has a huge role in the circus. He's like the mayor of the circus (just saying this not knowing the real hierarchy). It can go in either direction...like the audience could find him more heartless and cruel or actually super humane but conflicted as hell. I guess I'm hungry for his reaction and actions to be turned up a notch in either direction.
One big thing I noticed in the Second Session was that I wanted to have more voice as the Townspeople or whoever's in the audience who wishes Mary dead. The whispering has a powerful effect but I would like to hear what their justifications are. They don't have to all repeat the same thing necessarily. I just wanna hear how badly they want Mary to be punished. Is it a crime and justice thing? Is it animals are below human beings pride? I wanna hear even conflicts within the town. i.e., A hunter might talk about how his loved one got killed by a bear but he didn't kill the bear, etc. And maybe they have really simple reasons. Dumb reasons even. But that will be more payoff I think for later when Mary does get hung. I want to see I guess the actual idiocy of the situation.
Literary dressing to theatrical dressing sounds like a wonderful goal for "Elephant's Graveyard"...Love the performance within a performance aspect. Especially in the opening where everyone is introducing the circus. I loved the meltdown version of it (10 years forward version) you shared in Steven's class. I felt a lot of sympathy for the ringmaster which I don't really feel in your present draft. Like the Hungry Townsperson is the human version of the whole town almost but he is like the one no one seems to listen to... I feel like his circus equivalent is the Ringmaster. I wanna know how much power he has. Does he have final say?
The circus court of appeals is brought up by the clown. I am very curious about that. Was that a joke or it existed in old circus days?
To finish off the literary to theatrical dressing comment, I can see more of this in "E.G."
I didn't notice a huge difference in my perception of the town just 'cause more women were present in the mob. The opinions of killing Mary did not seem to change. Speaking of sex, I wonder if Mary being a girl elephant makes the hanging more grotesque or not. For me, as a spectator, it does. From the historical blurbs, does it say "Mary" or that the elephant was female?
Instead of paying attention to systems, I kept track of what the town said and what the circus said. And even knocking that down further, what each individual said. Each person's opinion to me was important. The clowns seemed the most passionate of the circus crowd. They had the most compassion for Mary. In the town, I'm not sure who was the most vindictive towards Mary.
Just something to think about, if Mary had stepped on a townsperson's head, that would be interesting just to see if the town would be more upset, probably. But no one knew Red. At least from town. As a spectator, I would feel sorrier for Red had he been a truly saint-like worker who ran into bad luck. Or in your early version of the play from last fall, I also liked how Red seemed to be in fault for pissing Mary off perhaps regularly (tapping of tusks). Perhaps he was an animal abuser type of mean kid. In an interesting way, I interpreted him as a kid who probably lied about his age to work for the circus.
I just equate circus people on stage as lots of movement on stage. Lots of potential to be a real visual treat.
Hope this was helpful. Looking forward to what you do next. Awesome job, guys.
Soo-Jin
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Addendum to gender/sexuality
Eh. Maybe I'm off course with the gender/sexuality--the elephants are female/males (I'm remembering Ballet Girl's speech) BUT there is still the image of the female elephants in a row and the train cars in a row (which reeads gender to me) I think I either love how complicated gender is in this play or am bothered by it--and can't quite figure out which. I'd be interested to hear what other people think about this--I feel like I was too hasty to criticize, I just haven't quite worked it out. Blah.
Jenny's Response to "Elephant's Graveyard."
OBSERVATIONS
1. It's interesting to me that the cuts, with the goal of "letting the air in," actually serve as a kind of COMPRESSION, tightening, making things move faster. I think it's a sign of how well you both did the compression that even though I've heard the script a few times, I didn't feel like I MISSED things from the old version, so much as I felt like the train was moving faster.
2. The play really started to BREATHE for me when we were doing the soundscape on Thursday. I think I have been having a hard time really feeling the theatricality you've been envisioning (even as I've been reading stage directions that would indicate it)...but creating that soundscape allowed me to get it into my bones a bit, and I think gave me a crisper vision of the whole piece. YAY.
3. I really felt the presence of more women in the script. In terms of "I like it when there are roles for women," I have an opinion. In terms of "how it does or doesn't serve the piece," I don't know that I have an opinion at this time, but I definitely was aware of a shift in...god, I'm so touchy-feely today...in air pressure? In I don't know what. But the change is felt.
4. I really tracked colors, I really tracked mud, I was paying a lot of attention to "where is the source of danger" at any given moment.
QUESTIONS
1. To what degree IS this an allegory for race? Is Peanut Man our key to the thing?
2. What is the purpose of the clowns when they are silent and doing things in the play?
3. Is there any more to know about the Young Townsperson, through a word, a line, or an action?
4. How much danger is there to the non-elephant members of the circus that night in the tent? And not to the members of the circus but to the "Circus" itself? I found myself wondering what would have happened if the Ringmaster hadn't sacrificed Mary...and I guess I didn't have a full sense of what those stakes would look like, if it matters. The ultimate "Hey Rube" incident? A mass lynching? The death of circus as we know it?
OPINIONS
1. There were a few lines that I did miss in this cutting. In Ballet Girl's first monologue, I missed "then AND ONLY then." I missed some of the clown's argument for circus justice.
2. I missed a little of the Preacher's Soul argument. I didn't miss ALL of that, and I feel like some of the things that you added for the preacher filled that gap, but I think that the preacher might still need a little bit of fleshing out IF you want to have him be one of our major characters/tentpoles. Before this version, he felt a little more choral to me, but in this last he stepped forward as more of a major player.
3. I am separating the characters into "camps" in my head. I think I have four. One is the Circus, one is the Railroad, one is the Town, and one is the Church. Maybe this is an observation. Maybe my opinion is that this seems okay, seems to be working.
4. I like the race speech at the end, where it was on Thursday. I think belongs late, not early, but not dead last either.
5. I want to track how peanuts work, and how props work, next time we go through.
1. It's interesting to me that the cuts, with the goal of "letting the air in," actually serve as a kind of COMPRESSION, tightening, making things move faster. I think it's a sign of how well you both did the compression that even though I've heard the script a few times, I didn't feel like I MISSED things from the old version, so much as I felt like the train was moving faster.
2. The play really started to BREATHE for me when we were doing the soundscape on Thursday. I think I have been having a hard time really feeling the theatricality you've been envisioning (even as I've been reading stage directions that would indicate it)...but creating that soundscape allowed me to get it into my bones a bit, and I think gave me a crisper vision of the whole piece. YAY.
3. I really felt the presence of more women in the script. In terms of "I like it when there are roles for women," I have an opinion. In terms of "how it does or doesn't serve the piece," I don't know that I have an opinion at this time, but I definitely was aware of a shift in...god, I'm so touchy-feely today...in air pressure? In I don't know what. But the change is felt.
4. I really tracked colors, I really tracked mud, I was paying a lot of attention to "where is the source of danger" at any given moment.
QUESTIONS
1. To what degree IS this an allegory for race? Is Peanut Man our key to the thing?
2. What is the purpose of the clowns when they are silent and doing things in the play?
3. Is there any more to know about the Young Townsperson, through a word, a line, or an action?
4. How much danger is there to the non-elephant members of the circus that night in the tent? And not to the members of the circus but to the "Circus" itself? I found myself wondering what would have happened if the Ringmaster hadn't sacrificed Mary...and I guess I didn't have a full sense of what those stakes would look like, if it matters. The ultimate "Hey Rube" incident? A mass lynching? The death of circus as we know it?
OPINIONS
1. There were a few lines that I did miss in this cutting. In Ballet Girl's first monologue, I missed "then AND ONLY then." I missed some of the clown's argument for circus justice.
2. I missed a little of the Preacher's Soul argument. I didn't miss ALL of that, and I feel like some of the things that you added for the preacher filled that gap, but I think that the preacher might still need a little bit of fleshing out IF you want to have him be one of our major characters/tentpoles. Before this version, he felt a little more choral to me, but in this last he stepped forward as more of a major player.
3. I am separating the characters into "camps" in my head. I think I have four. One is the Circus, one is the Railroad, one is the Town, and one is the Church. Maybe this is an observation. Maybe my opinion is that this seems okay, seems to be working.
4. I like the race speech at the end, where it was on Thursday. I think belongs late, not early, but not dead last either.
5. I want to track how peanuts work, and how props work, next time we go through.
Carrie's Response to Elephant's Graveyard
AFFIRMATIONS
Great sessions--the new version is a testament to the hours I know you both spent cutting and talking. (never an easy task)
Trimmed down, this play has all the weight of a "10 ton ghost" (a particularly lovely line)--which, now that I think about it, could apply to either an elephant or a freight train.
I thought the use of systems in the first workshop was a good way to access the play--there are yes, many repetitions, overlaps, and switches of position that work to heighten the stakes of the play in a sort of symbolic trajectory (who's been reading too much Lacan?) that nicely compliments and complicates the basic story. To add an audio track to that (as we did in the second workshop) is another great way to deepen and complicate that experience for the audience on a sensory level.
I really like the openning moments of the play--the clowns wandering through the audience and putting up posters. In my mind, this sort of implicitly casts the audience as a town to which the circus is coming--a smart move.
I was struck in the revision by the very sexualized description of Mary by the circus performers, they each depend on her, desire her, and feel jealousy toward her in really interesting ways.
Much of what I was tracking had to do (and I will talk more about this down further in other sections) with the relationship between the three forces: the town, the circus, and the railroad. The strong presence of the 3 colors (black, white, grey and the repetition of dominoes) helped bring this out for me in the revision, even if the colors don't exactly correspond to the forces. (I think what I'm getting at is i liked it that there was another set of 3) Anytime there was an articulation of the codes, rules etc of each of the forces (the carney code, the circus court of appeals, time and the railroad, the engineer's final speech, the sheriff/preacher debate) my ears perked up.
To continue with color, the new scene of the circus arriving was very evocative color wise--it made me think of when Dorothy opens the door to her house in the Wizard of Oz and we've gone from black and white to technicolor. i also like that the Muddy Townsperson is excited about the mud getting onto the circus people--something about the two places mixing together was a strong image for me.
Questions:
-When was the last time the circus came through town? How often does it come through? Has everyone in the town seen the circus before or are some relying on the myths of the circus?
-I'm interested in the time the play is set--there is mention of fighting for the Kaiser, is this the first world war or the second (maybe this is more clearly stated somewhere, if so my bad) Bringing up the Kaiser makes me think about a lot of issues surrounding US involvement in WW2 in terms of shame, complicity, and small town nationalism--does this matter?
-I'm still trying to tease out the relationships between the town/railroad/circus--i think the hardest for me is the railroad and the circus--is there a struggle here between industry and what? Is industrialization an important theme--I know the circus relies on the railroad, is it threatened by it as well? Also in regards to time, the railroad marks time, but the circus is outside of time? Maybe I'm moving too much into analysis here, but I guess I'm wondering if there is a larger historical context for the end result (elephant killed by railroad). Its also mentioned early on, yes? that Jumbo was killed by a train.
Opinions/More pointed questions:
_Ok, so all the elephants are female, but the majority of the other actors are male, and all of those with strong voices/opinions/power are male--What this does in my mind is to gender the circus as female (the elephants standing in as the circus). Is this intentional? (the power structure, not my reading of it which you can take or leave) I'm a little bothered by this, or I guess concerned about the gender politics.
-The preacher/clown/hungry townsperson aren't distinct enough from one another for me--they each seem to be hitting at a part of the same "morality"--or maybe there seems to be some kind of overlap between them
-The digging is the clearest sense of action I have, I wonder what some of the other stage actions will be.
-If the new scene is a "trial" for Mary, I feel like there could be more viewpoints
-I asked a question about time above, but I wanted to say that I'm really interested in what this play is saying about time (history/memory, annual events, boredom and sameness as a sort of timelessness)
The line about the train cars being locked (and that the circus is basically stuck here until there is some sort of resolution) works better with the action being confined to one town--that movement basically stops until this is resolved.
I was again really struck by how integral desire is in this play and the interesting ways desire is portrayed--I have a very strong sense of what the town needs the circus to be and what the circus needs the town to be. I think when I brought up the elephant in the kitchen it really had very little to do with the actual elephant and more the need to not articulate these desires or keep them secret--you do a beautiful job of building up and exposing desire in this play.
I can't wait to see this play continue to develop and be read in New Works and I'm super excited to see it in production next season. My response to these sessions have been very much along the lines of analyzing and "reading"--which I think really speaks to the multiple layers and interesting connections you have on the table. Great work Erica and George!
Great sessions--the new version is a testament to the hours I know you both spent cutting and talking. (never an easy task)
Trimmed down, this play has all the weight of a "10 ton ghost" (a particularly lovely line)--which, now that I think about it, could apply to either an elephant or a freight train.
I thought the use of systems in the first workshop was a good way to access the play--there are yes, many repetitions, overlaps, and switches of position that work to heighten the stakes of the play in a sort of symbolic trajectory (who's been reading too much Lacan?) that nicely compliments and complicates the basic story. To add an audio track to that (as we did in the second workshop) is another great way to deepen and complicate that experience for the audience on a sensory level.
I really like the openning moments of the play--the clowns wandering through the audience and putting up posters. In my mind, this sort of implicitly casts the audience as a town to which the circus is coming--a smart move.
I was struck in the revision by the very sexualized description of Mary by the circus performers, they each depend on her, desire her, and feel jealousy toward her in really interesting ways.
Much of what I was tracking had to do (and I will talk more about this down further in other sections) with the relationship between the three forces: the town, the circus, and the railroad. The strong presence of the 3 colors (black, white, grey and the repetition of dominoes) helped bring this out for me in the revision, even if the colors don't exactly correspond to the forces. (I think what I'm getting at is i liked it that there was another set of 3) Anytime there was an articulation of the codes, rules etc of each of the forces (the carney code, the circus court of appeals, time and the railroad, the engineer's final speech, the sheriff/preacher debate) my ears perked up.
To continue with color, the new scene of the circus arriving was very evocative color wise--it made me think of when Dorothy opens the door to her house in the Wizard of Oz and we've gone from black and white to technicolor. i also like that the Muddy Townsperson is excited about the mud getting onto the circus people--something about the two places mixing together was a strong image for me.
Questions:
-When was the last time the circus came through town? How often does it come through? Has everyone in the town seen the circus before or are some relying on the myths of the circus?
-I'm interested in the time the play is set--there is mention of fighting for the Kaiser, is this the first world war or the second (maybe this is more clearly stated somewhere, if so my bad) Bringing up the Kaiser makes me think about a lot of issues surrounding US involvement in WW2 in terms of shame, complicity, and small town nationalism--does this matter?
-I'm still trying to tease out the relationships between the town/railroad/circus--i think the hardest for me is the railroad and the circus--is there a struggle here between industry and what? Is industrialization an important theme--I know the circus relies on the railroad, is it threatened by it as well? Also in regards to time, the railroad marks time, but the circus is outside of time? Maybe I'm moving too much into analysis here, but I guess I'm wondering if there is a larger historical context for the end result (elephant killed by railroad). Its also mentioned early on, yes? that Jumbo was killed by a train.
Opinions/More pointed questions:
_Ok, so all the elephants are female, but the majority of the other actors are male, and all of those with strong voices/opinions/power are male--What this does in my mind is to gender the circus as female (the elephants standing in as the circus). Is this intentional? (the power structure, not my reading of it which you can take or leave) I'm a little bothered by this, or I guess concerned about the gender politics.
-The preacher/clown/hungry townsperson aren't distinct enough from one another for me--they each seem to be hitting at a part of the same "morality"--or maybe there seems to be some kind of overlap between them
-The digging is the clearest sense of action I have, I wonder what some of the other stage actions will be.
-If the new scene is a "trial" for Mary, I feel like there could be more viewpoints
-I asked a question about time above, but I wanted to say that I'm really interested in what this play is saying about time (history/memory, annual events, boredom and sameness as a sort of timelessness)
The line about the train cars being locked (and that the circus is basically stuck here until there is some sort of resolution) works better with the action being confined to one town--that movement basically stops until this is resolved.
I was again really struck by how integral desire is in this play and the interesting ways desire is portrayed--I have a very strong sense of what the town needs the circus to be and what the circus needs the town to be. I think when I brought up the elephant in the kitchen it really had very little to do with the actual elephant and more the need to not articulate these desires or keep them secret--you do a beautiful job of building up and exposing desire in this play.
I can't wait to see this play continue to develop and be read in New Works and I'm super excited to see it in production next season. My response to these sessions have been very much along the lines of analyzing and "reading"--which I think really speaks to the multiple layers and interesting connections you have on the table. Great work Erica and George!
Friday, March 2, 2007
Michael's Blog about George's "Elephant's Graveyard"
AFFIRMATIONS:
Great work!
It feels tighter and has more movement to it--meaning it seems to carry me through the event more than present it to me. Not that the latter is necessarily wrong in a show based upon the spectacle of the circus, but I like the movement. It seems to feel like it's more aligned with a persistent inevitability of the train than the splashy, spectacle of the circus while keeping plenty of the latter in there. Does that make sense?
Along that "train" of thought, I like the increased use of the train whistle and the drums. And the murmurs/chants of the townspeople. I think these will add to the tension and the theatricality of the play. Good work!
"nothing grey can stand up to that much black and white"
...not sure why this line stood out this time as opposed to in the past, but it did. Really like it. But I could be here all day noting lines that stand out. And I've given you that feedback before.
I liked the exercise yesterday: tinkering with it in class. Listening, adjusting, etc. That was interesting to watch and I'm sure it provided you with some specific things that can help you tweak this play at this point in the process.
QUESTIONS:
Why does the preacher object to hanging the elephant? (In the old draft he used to think it had a soul that was possessed and a townsperson gave this speech about "the people minus one"... I think it makes sense to combine them, but I don't know why the preacher objects.)
What is the preacher's opinion about lynching black men?
Is the part about trying to sneak out of town necessary? Is it trying to build tension?
In Ballet Girl's speech about trunks pointing down, she says they teach "you" that first thing. Is she talking about teaching the performers/trainers or the elephants? (or both?) Mary was the one who dropped her tusk. It seems to be talking about the elephants, but if it is, then the "you" feels a little odd. (ok, so I've jumped ahead and added some of my opinions to the questions section... hang me!) On the other hand... the "you" almost-eerily gives Mary a human quality.
What was the motivation for changing the man who stands on his head for a strongman? (pragmatic as far as casting? other plot reasons? not sure I have an opinion on that, but I used to like the visual of the man on his head--linking it to some of the absurdities and spectacle, etc. It seems some of his lines were given power by being delivered "upside down" or out of step with others, etc.)
OPINIONS:
(see above, and: )
I like it all being in one town.
I like the combining of speeches into fewer characters, but I'm not sure all of them seem in the voice of that character. (This may be because I'm used to hearing them from other characters.) Most specifically: I miss the Preacher sounding like a southern preacher. He seems a little neutered--not like a small-town man of God of yore. I would think he'd have more blustery, puffed-up language because he has to use that each week to try to stir up people. I realize he sort of feels second place to the circus and this addition is powerful. I like that speech about the steps of the church. I just think his language would be more heightened (or is that a stereotype?) and as I said above, not sure why he objects to hanging elephant in this draft.
I love the cast coming back as clowns at the end! Adds even more power to an already powerful moment.
I like the analogy to lynching African-Americans being late in the play--where it was placed in yesterday's reading. And I like this re-write of Hungry's speech better than what we heard on Tuesday. As we discussed, I'm not fond of actually linking "colored men" to animals, and in this draft you've toned that down. I'm not trying to be PC here. I think many southerners at that time wouldn't have flinched a bit at making that link and in fact some defenses of slavery had been linked to such. BUT theatrically, it is more powerful for me to make that link myself in my head without it being actually said.
Also it seems like you used the word "black man" once in the reference. I'm not sure a white southerner would've used that at the time--maybe so... but I think he would be more likely to used "colored" Or the "n-word" (My great aunt who was born in 1902, used to say "darkie" until she died in 1997. Ouch. I hate admitting that, but it just is.) I'm not an expert on this by any means, but "Black" seems post 1960s.
~~
That's all I've got for now. I've loved watching this play develop. It "hooked" me the first time I read it as your lab assistant last semester--even when it was front-heavy with monologues. It is so exciting to experience these lighter, nimbler, more powerful version. Nothing really being lost, but much gained. Congratulations to you both!
Great work!
It feels tighter and has more movement to it--meaning it seems to carry me through the event more than present it to me. Not that the latter is necessarily wrong in a show based upon the spectacle of the circus, but I like the movement. It seems to feel like it's more aligned with a persistent inevitability of the train than the splashy, spectacle of the circus while keeping plenty of the latter in there. Does that make sense?
Along that "train" of thought, I like the increased use of the train whistle and the drums. And the murmurs/chants of the townspeople. I think these will add to the tension and the theatricality of the play. Good work!
"nothing grey can stand up to that much black and white"
...not sure why this line stood out this time as opposed to in the past, but it did. Really like it. But I could be here all day noting lines that stand out. And I've given you that feedback before.
I liked the exercise yesterday: tinkering with it in class. Listening, adjusting, etc. That was interesting to watch and I'm sure it provided you with some specific things that can help you tweak this play at this point in the process.
QUESTIONS:
Why does the preacher object to hanging the elephant? (In the old draft he used to think it had a soul that was possessed and a townsperson gave this speech about "the people minus one"... I think it makes sense to combine them, but I don't know why the preacher objects.)
What is the preacher's opinion about lynching black men?
Is the part about trying to sneak out of town necessary? Is it trying to build tension?
In Ballet Girl's speech about trunks pointing down, she says they teach "you" that first thing. Is she talking about teaching the performers/trainers or the elephants? (or both?) Mary was the one who dropped her tusk. It seems to be talking about the elephants, but if it is, then the "you" feels a little odd. (ok, so I've jumped ahead and added some of my opinions to the questions section... hang me!) On the other hand... the "you" almost-eerily gives Mary a human quality.
What was the motivation for changing the man who stands on his head for a strongman? (pragmatic as far as casting? other plot reasons? not sure I have an opinion on that, but I used to like the visual of the man on his head--linking it to some of the absurdities and spectacle, etc. It seems some of his lines were given power by being delivered "upside down" or out of step with others, etc.)
OPINIONS:
(see above, and: )
I like it all being in one town.
I like the combining of speeches into fewer characters, but I'm not sure all of them seem in the voice of that character. (This may be because I'm used to hearing them from other characters.) Most specifically: I miss the Preacher sounding like a southern preacher. He seems a little neutered--not like a small-town man of God of yore. I would think he'd have more blustery, puffed-up language because he has to use that each week to try to stir up people. I realize he sort of feels second place to the circus and this addition is powerful. I like that speech about the steps of the church. I just think his language would be more heightened (or is that a stereotype?) and as I said above, not sure why he objects to hanging elephant in this draft.
I love the cast coming back as clowns at the end! Adds even more power to an already powerful moment.
I like the analogy to lynching African-Americans being late in the play--where it was placed in yesterday's reading. And I like this re-write of Hungry's speech better than what we heard on Tuesday. As we discussed, I'm not fond of actually linking "colored men" to animals, and in this draft you've toned that down. I'm not trying to be PC here. I think many southerners at that time wouldn't have flinched a bit at making that link and in fact some defenses of slavery had been linked to such. BUT theatrically, it is more powerful for me to make that link myself in my head without it being actually said.
Also it seems like you used the word "black man" once in the reference. I'm not sure a white southerner would've used that at the time--maybe so... but I think he would be more likely to used "colored" Or the "n-word" (My great aunt who was born in 1902, used to say "darkie" until she died in 1997. Ouch. I hate admitting that, but it just is.) I'm not an expert on this by any means, but "Black" seems post 1960s.
~~
That's all I've got for now. I've loved watching this play develop. It "hooked" me the first time I read it as your lab assistant last semester--even when it was front-heavy with monologues. It is so exciting to experience these lighter, nimbler, more powerful version. Nothing really being lost, but much gained. Congratulations to you both!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)