Blithe Spirit

I enjoyed reading this play and I can not wait to see it. It was nice to read something that was so light and funny. I loved the characters. my least favorite was Ruth because she was so bland, however I still liked her a lot, but not as much as the others. Elvira's stories about the afterlife were so funny. It was so weird how Charles was so caviler about Ruth's death. I would have thought he would have never forgiven Elvira, but he was just like "oh you silly goose!"  I didn't like at the end how you found out they were all cheating on each other. I felt like it took away the motivation for the whole play.

Blithe Spirit

Blithe Spirit is such a great production by Noel Coward. I have a special place in my heart forth is play. Not only because I play Edith in Loyola's production of this show, also because I have a deep appreciation for Coward. This show has many hilarious as well as visceral scenes. The imagination and imagery that is coveted in this show is mind boggling. Even when reading this play I giggled because of all the highbrow british humor that falls into the hilarity of the situation going on.

Basically the plot line is that Charles and his second wife Ruth call upon Madame Arcati to perform a seance in their living room. Havoc insues and Elvira, Charles late first wife is called back and only Charles can see her, however they soon find out that it was the maid all along with the psychic powers. From the humor to the cucumber sandwiches, this play is a well rounded great production. Come see on Friday!

virginia woolf

        This is the second time I have read this play, and it is still as intense as the first time. The characters in this play are so messed up, and it is so hard to stop reading. It was really easy to hate Martha, but feel so incredibly sorry for her at the same time. The entire play was uncomfortable to read, but at the end there was almost some sort of cathartic feeling, like everything had been purged. There were no more lies at the end of the play, and George killed off their make believe son. I liked the note that this play ended on, even though I would have liked to known what happened between George and Martha later on.
      This was my favorite play we have read so far, the dark humour was cynical and refreshing all at the same time. The overpowering theme of lies and deception is common throughout everyday life, and is something everybody can relate to, in some kind of way.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? I think we all are.

Even from the opening lines of dialogue, I automatically assumed this play was absurdist. For some reason, it reminded me a lot of Waiting for Godot in that these characters - Martha and George - are kind of just presented to the audience in medias res, and we are expected to decipher their erratic and seemingly unhinged behavior. It also helped that the fighting these two did seemed beyond pointless, stretching into ludicrous and, quite frankly, insane.  For a while, I thought Martha might have just been making the events of the night up, as George seemed relatively sane, but also bereft of any knowledge of anything that had happened before that very moment. The state of these two characters, coupled with the breakneck speed of their shifting emotional states, led me to believe I wouldn't understand a word of this play. Thankfully, once Nick and Honey arrived, the play seemed to more or less evolve into a tense living room drama, albeit with Martha and George still battling and all the characters dodging Martha's onslaught of ever-changing emotions. In fact, it actually helped to have Nick and Honey there, as their uneasy trepidation mirrored mine and helped me to see someone else in the world of the play who was just as confused and uncomfortable as I was reading the play. Once Nick and Honey settled in a bit, George and Martha started seeming less insane and more just hell-bent on the other's destruction, which I guess helped me settle into the play a bit. By the end, I understood the cause for George and Martha's fighting, and a bit of what Albee meant to say with this play, but overall, I feel he could've shortened and streamlined his message. As it is, the play is confusing and often just simply off-putting, as Albee seems to have housed his message in a play that is barely accessible at best and unsettlingly hostile at worst.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

A very intriguing play indeed!  I thoroughly enjoyed reading this play, although I will admit that the beginning was a bit hard to understand due to their erratic and unhinged behavior.  But I was captivated at the underlying devotion that Martha and George had for each other.  Some might debate me on that point, however, if one person can support the deranged actions of another and vice versa, there is devotion there...especially them being together for such a long time.  Nick and Honey are at the beginning of their marriage and this same intense devotion I see from George and Martha is not as prevalent in their relationship, which is why Nick goes upstairs with Martha to have sex, even though he is too drunk to go through with it.  Even though both George and Martha seemed to want nothing more than to degrade and destroy each other, the moment that stood out to me was when George talks to Nick about their relationship after Martha explodes about George not rising in his department over the years.  Its one of the most vulnerable moments in the play and showed that the two truly do care about each other.  I would love to stage this play at Loyola, but I fear that these roles are challenging in a way that Loyola might not be able to match up with.  I cannot wait to watch the Liz Taylor version and see her in a role I would never expect her to play!

Who's Afraid of VW?

This play is pretty scary. The entire time I was reading it all I could think of was how closely this play foils "God of Carnage." The two couple, beginning to play games with each other leading into a match between the four on who could hurt the other the most. This play would be so exciting to see on stage and crucial to see to really understand the blocking and just how far these couple go to make each other miserable.
The creepiness in this production is palpable and very high-drama. At the beginning this seems to be normal couples however as the play unfolds it seems to appear that each person in this show has their own weak points and are broken down in the end.
After reading this, I was left in awe The importance of the singing and the fear really bring this show to a point at the end the is not quite foreseen. 

Im totes afraid of VW -Blaine

I didnt get it. I did not understand the point. I didnt understand to purpose. I didnt not understand why it was so long. If you could not tell, this was not my favorite. It is starting to feel like a lot of these plays are running together. Many of them have been the living room style plays, and its becoming hard to keep track. Who,s Afraid of Virgina Wolf falls in the same category. It just a whole lot of talking, drinking, and yelling. Although, I did really enjoy the play wrights writing style.It was honestly the saving grace for the play. It seemed to flow for me while I was reading, which helped because of how unnecessarily long the play was.After reading it I knew that I would need to do some more research on the play to see why it was such a big deal, because I didnt get that either. The research did help me to get a better picture of the historical relevancy of the play. this play was one of those plays that I knew the title of but had no clue what it was about. I knew it was a big deal, but had no clue why it was. Now I know what its about, and now I know why it was a big deal. It is still not my favorite, and I found it far too long, but I can honestly say that I am glad that I finally know what this show is.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf

I really enjoyed this play. I think Albee did an excellent job shaping the characters and structuring the story. Within the first few pages of the play I could tell that some crazy stuff was going to happen, and I was hooked. I loved the relationship between George and Martha, as heartbreaking as it was. It was funny but also very sad too see the two of them trying to hard to hurt each other. They reminded me of birds just pecking at each other. I think the play was the perfect mix of funny and sad, it did a remarkable job walking that fine line. It was obvious that they deeply cared for one another but they were very hurt. I thought it was brilliant the way George and Martha manipulated each other as well as Nick and Honey. All the characters seemed a little bit crazy but I found that very relatable because honestly, who isn't a little bit crazy?  I can not wait to see a performance of this show. Its one living room drama I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for. I was also really excited that Uta Hagen had been in the original cast because I am a big fan. I wish I could have seen this show with the original cast, I also would have loved to see Elaine Stritch in it.

M. Butterfly

Coming into reading M. Butterfly, I was intrigued most by the character of Song Liling, particularly how he carried his role as a female onstage into real life.  Having studied Peking opera, I was already intrigued by the female - or dan - roles in its tradition, as they were traditionally played by men who studied and trained their entire lives to play "the perfect woman."  At the time of the Peking opera, the idea of the perfect woman was so pervasive in Chinese culture that women would have their feet bound from an early age in order to adopt the swaying gait that was seen as making a woman desirable.  On stage, the men playing the dan roles would have to walk on stilts to emulate this, as they didn't have to bind their feet, and moreover, it was nearly impossible to walk with bound feet anyway.  In addition to this rather extreme example, the men in these roles would have trained their whole lives, carefully studying the mannerisms that made up the ideal woman.  This suggested that the ideals of what a woman should be - and, in a broader sense, all gender roles - were a social construction, and one which had to be taught throughout life.  The implication, of course, is that only a man would know how to be the perfect woman, as the role of the ideal woman was one created by men for men.

David Henry Hwang obviously takes this idea to heart, as he frequently uses Song Liling to explore and break down the roles of gender and sexuality, as well as the power those lend to a person.  Obviously, audiences are usually drawn in by the sheer fact that Song Liling poses as a woman for most of the story, but I think it's interesting to examine why he does pose as a woman in the first place.  The power and access it lends him as a spy obviously contributes to it, but I think a large part of it also becomes the access he gains as Gallimard's female lover.  Once he assumes the role, it's as if he becomes trapped in it. And, as proven in the end, the consequences of breaking that role are destructive to both Gallimard's life and his own.

M. Butterfly

I really enjoyed reading this play and delving into the Chinese culture at this time.  I've never been very interested in Asian culture, but this semester has really opened me up to it, mostly due to my   World Religions course.  David Henry Hwang explores the roles of sexuality and gender as well as how one can wield these things to their advantage.  I was amazed to see that Song Liling posed as a woman for most of the story in order to spy, but then develops into something entirely enigmatic with the introduction of Gallimard and the tryst they have for over 20 years.  I have always been very interested and compelled to research more about female impersonation, especially because freshman year I was employed to a drag queen in the quarter for months.  I am fully aware of the process of physical transformation and very familiar with applying makeup and styling wigs and costuming, however, this is entirely a different area of this when it comes to Song Liling.  I am very excited to see Joshua Smith, one of our Alumni perform this role at the Shadowbox theatre at the end of November!  I cannot wait to see what challenges he faced in his transformation into a female role, and how he has grown as an actor from the experience.  

M. Butterfly

Before reading this play I had never read or seen the opera on which it was based. Renee mentions at the beginning of the play that it would be neccesary to understand the opera and I think he wasps rely right although I could appreciate the story on its own. The storyline is very risqué and sexual it seems. Renee begins seeing Song, who convinces Renee that he is a woman for 20 years..which seems a little wild to me. In Chinese theatre it is custom for males to play females onstage. I suppose Song must have been a pretty good actress to have fooled Renee for so long. We find out that Rene has been telling government and diplomatic secrets to Song over the years which becomes his downfall. Once he realizes everything that has happened, he commits suicide in the form of seppuku which I suppose seems fitting to end this Asian inspired play.

M. Butt-her-fly

In M. Butterfly David Henry Hwang takes the Japanese Opera "Madame Butterfly" and puts a whole new twist on it. In the Opera, it is about a Japanese Woman who falls in love with a French Seaman. In the End the White man ends up messing over the Japanese woman and breaks her heart. In M. Butterfly Hwang reverses the roles a bit. The leading man in this play is the French Rene Gallimard who falls for a beautiful Chinese Opera star who just so happens to be a man. In the story it is told from retrospect from Rene's view while in Jail.
He goes back to look at the relationship between him and his "perfect woman" (who is a man, yall). He goes Back through his history and recalls all the times he and his love were able to be together. This play really not only delves into the topic of love, romance and identity but also the importance of heritage and politics.

Six Awkward Characters In Search of an Awkward Author

     When I started to read this, I was super confused. There are Actors, Characters, Managers, and so many other characters to keep up with; I couldn't handle it. The relationships all seemed to blend into each other and at times I lost interest in the story. When I realized everything that happened with Father, I started to regain the interest that I had when I read the title. Unfortunately, I lost it, and I never got it back. On top of my dislike to read, I couldn't focus on the story; not to mention the little stories within.
     This play did make me think though, what if we (people) were born characters in a play? The play of life. Truthfully, I did not dwell on this subject, because I realized how ridiculous this was; to me at least. But I do understand a point Pirandello was trying to make, some people are born to play characters, others are just actors trying to be themselves. Overall, I think this sounds like a very difficult production to put on, and I was quite discombobulated throughout.

Six characters

     This play was intriguing, boring, and confusing all at the same time for me. Half the time I felt like I was missing something, and the other half I felt like I understood it on a deep level. Six Characters in Search of an Author has incredible potential to make people take a step back and think, which is what it did for me. The Father was pretty pervy to me, and though I wanted to keep reading and figure out exactly what had happened, I also wanted to put the play down on several occasions because things were so unclear and I seriously doubted that the play was moving anywhere.
     Over all, this was not my favorite play to read. I think it would be more interesting and entertaining to see it performed on stage. It was difficult to keep up with all the different parts in my head, because they did not have real names. It would be easier if I could see real people acting out this play. This play goes beyond just words, it carries a meaning that stays with you when you're done with it. It almost felt like something I would discuss in my philosophy class. I enjoyed the play for what it was, but I probably would not read it again, or have read it on my own will to begin with.

Six Characters

Luigi Pirandello’s play Six Characters in Search of an Author is definitely not like anything we have read so far.  Once I began the play, I realized I had actually already read it in my high school theatre class.  We were studying the concept of a play being within a play.  As the play begins with what seems to be a play rehearsal, its storyline brings in this complicated idea.  This is a perplexing concept, but there is still the definite understanding of what reality presumably is.  However, as the play develops, the line between reality and illusion becomes increasingly cloudier.  This eventually leads to that line becoming completely nonexistent when a character “shoots himself”--that is, the rest of the remaining characters being unable to agree upon whether it is all part of the show, or if he has actually indeed killed himself.  With the “characters” of the play not even sure what is real and what is being acted, this leaves little hope for the audience’s understanding of what the ending is supposed to insinuate.  

It is inarguably a different and creative concept.  I can definitely see it being something you either love or hate.  While I can appreciate its originality, I ultimately must say I did not care for it.  I find the last line to be the thing that really makes me decide on my dislike toward it.  Said by the play’s Manager: “Pretence? Reality? To hell with it all! Never in my life has such a thing happened to me. I've lost a whole day over these people, a whole day!”  The point is how pointless it ultimately is whether something is real or fake, exists or doesn’t.   I find it leaves me with almost a sickening feeling.  So no, I didn’t really find I enjoyed it.        

Six Characters in Search of an Author

     Personally, I absolutely love this play.  I feel like the message Pirandello meant to sent out in this precursor to Absurdism, is that the actor must become the character...he must live through the story.  So often times actors cannot fully depict what an author is trying to convey in a play.  This is partly to do with the characters living beyond the actual reality of life and time, but also has to do with the soul of a character.  I admit, the first time I read Six Characters two years ago, I struggled immensely with the plot and the idea of characters existing apart from the actors who were meant to play them.  We are taught constantly in theatre that illusion is key.  An actor, set designer, costumer, lighting designer are all intrinsic parts of luring the audience into the plot, creating the illusion of reality.  What Pirandello is saying here is that the characters ARE a reality in themselves.  In order for an actor to give a representation of a character, they must fully embody this reality by BECOMING the character.  Unfortunately, while the character's reality is real, the actor's is not...this is one of the great challenges of performing.  Pirandello also emphasizes the idea that man is nothing because his reality is directed by time and is ultimately fleeting.  However, a character is immortalized forever in his or her reality...it is fixed permanently in existence for many more people to experience and read, however it never changes.
     Pirandello also explores the function of the Author of a play.  Throughout the action on stage the author is constantly present though unseen.  The characters are in search of him to find an ending for themselves, but also to find some purpose to their story.  This is why the Step-Daughter argues that the actors could never perform their story correctly because only they have lived it, but also she is looking for some validation from her author that comes in the form of being glorified onstage.  Overall, Six Characters is a marvelous piece of work that not only makes one think about people and their place in this world, but how theatre is a function for representation.  Without theatre (in any form) the stories of our most beloved characters could not be glorified or shared with the world to their fullest capacity.  An actor must not only portray a character, but find a part of their soul that intertwines with their story.  Only then can a character be fully appreciated and played to an audience.

Sei Personaggi in Cerca D'autore

Six Characters in search of an author seems to be quite an absurdist production. After reading this play it seems almost impossible to make sense out of all of it. However it is clear that this story is a portrayal of relationships. Relationships between actors, characters, the director, family members, as well as playwrights are all very muddled and mixed yet clearly reflect and importance thought the production. This play is not easy to follow.  Maybe the portrayal on stage would come across as a more clear vision than just reading the script.  The relationship between the father and the stepdaughter as well as the relationship between the father and the mother brought more confusion to me than the relationships between the other characters. The most confusing character that doesn’t seem to quite fit in the picture is Pace or the prostitute. Along with her funny accent, is it just supposed to be comic relief? Is it even funny? Who knows?

Another thing that may help this play gain some sense of reality is the performance of this show in the original language. I may be less confusing if the play was true to its original context seeing that translation of the work does seem to get a little repetitive and shallow. Although this work should have been very exciting and unique in its day and most likely brought a new feel to the theatre, it seems to somewhat have lost its luster and compatibility with society of today. Not in full but definitely in select parts. The humor of Italians!