I seem to be falling in love with Timothy Findley. I had no interest in the subject matter of this play when I originally picked it up. I simply bought it on Findley's name and a glorious title. But it's a heartbreaking and glorious play in reality.
So atmospheric. The set perfectly adapting to the landscape he has chosen of the lake house. Perfectly melding into other locations so easily, without a second thought. And the music described and the beautiful integration of the Japanese themes, music and of course the game of "go". The inclusion of many of the characters on stage even when they are not in the action was very lovely. The idea of layers is very interesting. Layers visually and textually. Layers of subtext and layers developing over time.
The play started very slowly, drawing you in. It was not boring, but it did not play it's cards very early at all. It seduced you so to speak with secrets and a guessing game. Which worked. It worked very well. I was interested. And real characters. Lots of real characters, all with a lot to do. That's really important to me. Characters having a reason to be there. And characters growing. No one is on the sidelines.
And of course then he just pushes you in the gut with the homosexual reveal. So crafty, so surprising and not cheap whatsoever. This is something that could have been cheesy and clearly in view. Instead it was deftly handled and gripping. So many important relationships put into question. Between father and wife, father and daughter, between friends. Everything was being exposed. Such high stakes. There is so much to worry about, so much to care about.
And so many things suggested. I loved that. Certain things were very clearly played out for you. But other things were suggested, hinted at. Was the wife, Marian, really that ill? What did she know? What did she put up with? What was the decision Henry made in the end? I think I know, but still.
And on top of that it had great depth of emotion, from everyone involved. There were serious issues dealt with, touched on, not necessarily spoken out loud. Political issues, social issues... it did not have a stance, it just simply explored it's themes on loyalty and love and politics so fully. It was not incomplete.
It was subtle, but so telling. Which I think is terrifyingly intimidating to do.
ramble me this
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Pygamlion (Shaw, George Bernard)
My first Shaw. This seems to be a week of firsts. And great ones too. I've been missing so much not reading plays. These have really been invigorating my imagination the way nothing else really can.
The play is delightful. I never seem to react to comedies the way other people do. I guess it's harder to see a comedy on the page than it is on the stage. Plus I seem to find less things funny than other people, or perhaps it's because I read so fast and don't take the time to really delve into the nuances. I should try that out.
Well, it was funny in many ways. And ridiculous in many others. Ridiculous in a way that was outlandish. That's what comedy is. Something I believe people would never do. And people being mean to each other. We just laugh at other people being mean to each other. But when is it too much? Interesting line.
The play is structured rather oddly. With some top heavy acts (is 5 really needed?) and no scene breaks. But a lovely journey for Eliza and for Higgins. It's lovely to see so many great characters in the same play. And characters with flaws and problems and truthfulness altogether. Of course, unfortunately, I'm not very much interested in phonetics or the perfection of the English language or in being a lady or social standing. That's probably rather stupid of me, but that's not what interests me.
Eliza and Higgins relationship developed beautifully. It was so well crafted and plotted. Especially, the scene after the Embassy Ball and the whole final act. I really love watching two characters really fight it out at each other. To just finally let everything out. Eliza really comes into her own. Of course, she should have ended up with Higgins though. I love the idea of the ambiguous ending that others propose. And Shaw writes WAY too much about his plays and way too many stage directions. Back off man.
I guess the most interesting thing is that Shaw made a boring play about things that don't matter to so many people, and is so obviously moral into something enjoyable. Something I wanted to watch, that brought up major questions, and stood it's ground. I like that Higgins and Eliza are not really romantic characters at all, the way say Pickering or Freddy really are. Be silly. But don't let go of the point. I like that.
The play is delightful. I never seem to react to comedies the way other people do. I guess it's harder to see a comedy on the page than it is on the stage. Plus I seem to find less things funny than other people, or perhaps it's because I read so fast and don't take the time to really delve into the nuances. I should try that out.
Well, it was funny in many ways. And ridiculous in many others. Ridiculous in a way that was outlandish. That's what comedy is. Something I believe people would never do. And people being mean to each other. We just laugh at other people being mean to each other. But when is it too much? Interesting line.
The play is structured rather oddly. With some top heavy acts (is 5 really needed?) and no scene breaks. But a lovely journey for Eliza and for Higgins. It's lovely to see so many great characters in the same play. And characters with flaws and problems and truthfulness altogether. Of course, unfortunately, I'm not very much interested in phonetics or the perfection of the English language or in being a lady or social standing. That's probably rather stupid of me, but that's not what interests me.
Eliza and Higgins relationship developed beautifully. It was so well crafted and plotted. Especially, the scene after the Embassy Ball and the whole final act. I really love watching two characters really fight it out at each other. To just finally let everything out. Eliza really comes into her own. Of course, she should have ended up with Higgins though. I love the idea of the ambiguous ending that others propose. And Shaw writes WAY too much about his plays and way too many stage directions. Back off man.
I guess the most interesting thing is that Shaw made a boring play about things that don't matter to so many people, and is so obviously moral into something enjoyable. Something I wanted to watch, that brought up major questions, and stood it's ground. I like that Higgins and Eliza are not really romantic characters at all, the way say Pickering or Freddy really are. Be silly. But don't let go of the point. I like that.
Oleanna (Mamet, David)
My first Mamet. It took way too long for me to get into this. What a delightfully shocking play. I haven't read anything with this much brute force in so long. It really packs a punch, well many punches and is not afraid to hit you with them over and over again.
On top of that... it's about something. Very clearly and very simply it tells two different sides of the same argument. Both very clearly, both very well, and you believe in both. Neither one truly has the upper hand over the other, in the end. You are forced to choose yourself. The actions are clear, but what actually happened is not. This play is all talk. And not very interesting talk either, but it's gripping, and exciting, and moral, and relevant. It makes you think, makes you want to talk. Everything is not neatly wrapped up for you. Interesting and controversial and everything else as well.
Fresh dialogue too. Snappy and short, but lengthy and well defined when it needs to be. Conversational, yes, but also something underneath it. In so many plays I've read they talk the way people do... but not really. You don't really want them to talk the way people do. That'd be boring. They expose themselves, slowly, but surely. They shock us.
There's a lot of passion in this play. It bleeds through the page. So much anger, so much realization. There's a lot in it. And it's small, and it's just two people. But it's really big. Grip hold of something like that. Don't let it go. Really take it to the next level. Don't shy away from it. Be courageous for fuck's sakes.
Also, who do I agree with? Hmm..
On top of that... it's about something. Very clearly and very simply it tells two different sides of the same argument. Both very clearly, both very well, and you believe in both. Neither one truly has the upper hand over the other, in the end. You are forced to choose yourself. The actions are clear, but what actually happened is not. This play is all talk. And not very interesting talk either, but it's gripping, and exciting, and moral, and relevant. It makes you think, makes you want to talk. Everything is not neatly wrapped up for you. Interesting and controversial and everything else as well.
Fresh dialogue too. Snappy and short, but lengthy and well defined when it needs to be. Conversational, yes, but also something underneath it. In so many plays I've read they talk the way people do... but not really. You don't really want them to talk the way people do. That'd be boring. They expose themselves, slowly, but surely. They shock us.
There's a lot of passion in this play. It bleeds through the page. So much anger, so much realization. There's a lot in it. And it's small, and it's just two people. But it's really big. Grip hold of something like that. Don't let it go. Really take it to the next level. Don't shy away from it. Be courageous for fuck's sakes.
Also, who do I agree with? Hmm..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)