Tell Your Story......

This weekend I went to see the independent film "Precious". During one pivotal scene in the movie the main character reveals to her teacher some dreadful news. This heartwrenching news was enough to make anyone collaspe and ball into a corner to burst into tears. However, her teacher obviously shaken and stirred by this unsettling information stood firm and told her to write. She stated "You always said you wanted to be heard, so write". Heather Raffo's nine part of desire affirmed the liberation, education and healing that takes place when one's experience can be transformed into art. No matter how painful, their is something magical that occurs when these moments can be presented in a way by vivid imagery, poetry and tangible monolouges.

As americans, we are bombarded with devasting stories on the news daily. It's so easy to become desensitized to events that are happening half way across the world. We often keep from feeling empathetic and having sympathy for foreigners hardship. One may say we subconsciously do this to block out the accountability or deal with the gruesome reality that some horrendous injustices take place in the world we live in.

Raffo's piece made me really ponder, "How would you react differently if you had family in that same area?" What is it like to go day by day and have no idea if your family is even alive? What is like to hear commentary and mass stereotypical generalization about the people who are dear to you? What does that daily burden do to your psyche?

Raffo pointed out vital information into the Iraqi woman's make up. She stated that "when an Iraqi woman trust you, it is because she has come to love you. The loved that was formed through Raffo's interaction with these women, provided the arena to let the world know of their struggle, hardships and perserverance. These stories also illuminate their will to continue on the journey of life despite the harsh setbacks and devastating circumstances.

No matter how intense or light the subject matter was in all of the plays we read this semester, one fact can not be disputed. Whether it was based on a true story or fiction, one point remains grounded. They all tell someone's story. Their is somebody in the world that has felt the deception of a mate like Medea. Their are offsprings of the Yuruba tribe that deal to this day with the effect of colonialism on their ancestors. Somewhere is a couple that has been seperated by extenuating circumstances as in Joe Turner searching to become a whole again.

I encourage everyone to write. Something has happened in each of our lives that even a complete stranger can learn from and be insprired by. Being vulnerable to share this part of you, may be the key to unlocking someone else's courage to heal, grow and move into where they are destined to be.

Tell your story.......

9 Parts of Desire

After my first initial reading of 9 Parts Of Desire I thought “immensely beautiful!” I am not one for Solo Performances, but this play intrigued me from page one, or actually from the authors note. I was so intrigued I went searching for this said painting of “savagery”. Along the way I found a few things you all might be interested in.
http://www.heatherraffo.com/9parts.html
Here is Ms. Raffo’s website with detailed information on her and the play. One of my first thoughts was how one piece of artwork could change the world and how miraculous this trip must have been for her. I found a review quote on her website that summed up my first thoughts.
“9 Parts of Desire is "AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ART CAN REMAKE THE WORLD! In this remarkable one-woman show, Heather Raffo's performance is deft and vivacious; her writing, like her playing, is marked with wit and by a scrupulous attention to the details of character." —The New Yorker.”
I really thought “oh god, a one woman show about a group of people I know nothing about” Her play was and is a very assessable play that will invoke thought for any first time reader.
On the Actors Theatre site where the play was being performed in 2008 by Ms. Raffo, they had some really interesting numbers to go along with the play.
Numbers :
The performance on Thursday, March 20, 2008 will mark the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War.
The cumulative cost of the war is estimated at approximately $474 billion spent as of December 2007.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the total cost of the war in Iraq to U.S. taxpayers will be around $1.9 trillion.
Here is the website for the 2008 performance mentioned above if you would like more information.
http://www.atphx.org/index.taf?mnid=performance&ecid=1174472034
They also have a glossary PDF form for all the patrons to make the play just as assessable as it was in the script. Below is the bush mosaic referred to in the play.

Theatre of the Absurd? Or Truth?

After reading and discussing Endgame in class, I found myself questioning the label "Absurd" that is associated with the works of Beckett, Ionesco, Pinter, and others... Since it was critic Marin Esslin that created the term "Absurd" to describe these works, I find it unnecessary to link it closely to our notions of the plays. What one sees as absurd, another finds to be completely accurate. This was the case for me with Endgame, for in it, I saw as much if not more truth than I've seen in any of the plays we've read this semester.

Absurd by definition means utterly or obviously senseless, illogical or untrue, or contrary to all reason or common sense. I do see the obvious senselessness in the way the play is staged: Nag and Nell being in trash cans, the minimal set dressing, etc... but in the subject matter and relationships between characters I see reason, truth, and human nature. It would be presumptious of me as a young man to presume to know how I might act upon approaching old age and death. "Lord, we know what we are, but not what we may be." (Ophelia in Hamlet: Act IV, Sc. 5) Absurd does not, for my part, come close to describing the entirety of this play. In Hamm's constant picking and ordering of Clov I observe an old man trying to maintain some level of humor and fun in his life, as well as a sense of control.

HAMM: Clov!
CLOV: Yes.
HAMM: I'll give you nothing more to eat.
CLOV: Then we'll die.
HAMM: I'll give you just enough to keep you from dying. You'll be hungry all the time.

Hamm's threat to starve Clov shows a man who has no control trying to exert control, and it also displays Hamm's sense of humor. Obviously he would not starve Clov becuase he likes having someone to take care of him (not to mention Clov isn't blind and could walk around and feed himself!). Hamm is used to being the master, and it is within his nature to act the way he does. Clov on the other hand maintains the order of things and satisfies his role of servant.


HAMM: What are you doing?
CLOV: Putting things in order. (He straightens up. Fervently.) I'm going to clear everything away! (He starts picking up again.)
HAMM: Order!
CLOV(Straightening up): I love order. It's my dream. A world where all would be silent and still and each thing in its last place, under the last dust. (He starts picking up again.)
HAMM: What in God's name do you think you're doing?
CLOV(Straightening up): I'm doing my best to create a little order.
HAMM: Drop it! (Clov drops the object he has picked up.)

Here we see again Hamm's desire to order and control while Clov is simply going about his duties. Clov is not acting without sense, but rather he is trying to make sense of the world and environment around him. The actions and desires of the characters within Endgame do not deserve to be labeled absurd... however absurd they may seem. They are real, believeable, and truthful characters, even though their situation is absurd. Maybe I'm too hard on Esslin; maybe he was just trying to describe the "situation" of the play. Regardless, I still stand firm on the notion that calling these works "Absurd" as a style completely boxes in the limitless capabilities of truthful human expression these works contain. I'd like to have a production of Endgame and have a sign at the door marked: "Theatre of Truth".

Waiting for the Beckett Estate to come to their senses...

Some of the people in our class did not like the idea that the Beckett Estate could come in and shut down a Beckett production if they felt like it was not honoring the wants of the playwright. I found an article highlighting the legal battle between the Beckett Estate and the Pontedera Theatre. Here is the link to the article… http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/04/arts.italy.

This particular theatre was doing Waiting for Godot and cast women in two of the roles. The director justified it by saying, “Silvia and Luisa look like men on stage and I chose them because they have played male roles before. We have used the text in its entirety and have in all other ways remained completely faithful to Beckett's work. We have followed his stage instructions down to the tiniest detail ... There is no element in the directing, acting, costumes or make-up that refers to a change in the characters (Article)”. According to the article, when the Beckett Estate found out about this they issued an injunction to shut down production.

The theatre ignored the requests of the Beckett Estate, that they discontinue production, and continued production. They fought it out in court and the court sided with the theatre. The lawyer for the theatre talked about the victory saying, “The sentence is valuable, not just from the technical point of view of the interpretation of the law. It reiterates that men and women have equal rights, given that it still seems necessary to point this out (article)."

The court overruled the Beckett Estate by looking at this situation as a civil rights issue. However, the article cites a 1992 case involving the same cross gender casting of Waiting for Godot, where the court sided with the Beckett Society. In this case the courts ruled that the theatre was in violation of Samuel Beckett’s moral rights.

I thought I had made my mind up about this issue. After hearing what both sides have to say I have been pushed to the center on this issue. A part of me says that the integrity of the playwright must always be honored no matter how specific. The other part of me agrees with the court. Yes, the parts were written as men, however the women playing the characters are playing them as men. It seems like the Beckett Estate takes things too far sometimes but the wishes of Samuel Beckett must always come first. However, I agree with the director of the Pontedera production. As long as the director stays true to the script, they should not be forced to discriminate against actors because of gender of ethnicity.

Thought this was something cool! Enjoy!

As I've been buried in writing about Theatre of Avant-Garde and the ideas of Meyerhold and Arrtaud, I began to think a lot about Death and the King's Horseman and my original interpretation of how I would stage the play. My original thought was to have a separation between tribal tradition and the english colonialists as different spots on the stage. I also mentioned originally wanting to use projection and simply create a big spectacle. Well, the thought of that and how I changed my mind to focus on a more Aristotelian point of view has not left me since that class. Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a video from the 'Fondly Do We Hope, Fondly Do We Pray" dance theatre piece by Bill T. Jones and the Arnie Zane Dance Company and it immediately made me think about Death and the King's Horsemen and all of it's avant-garde abilities within the production. If you don't see my point that's okay, it's still a really cool video!

Sacred Works As Art

A long time ago I was a member of a gospel choir in New Jersey. Two of my classmates wanted to join the choir but asked me if it would be okay since one girl was Muslim and the other was an atheist. So the question arose: Can you do art that is religious in nature if you don't practise that religion. I bring this up because of the Zen Buddhist components of the Noh plays. Could Americans without a history of Buddhism or Japanese culture perform these plays?
In the case of the gospel choir I voted that you did not have to practise Christianity to sing gospel music. Mainly I felt the music transcended religion and was an art form that could speak to people of many beliefs. That's also how I feel about Noh plays. I think Aoi No Uye may still move us even if we limited knowledge or experience of Buddhism or Japanese culture.
So then could it be that an American company would be able to produce this play? After all we read and saw how intense and long the training is for Noh theatre. Even so I think it would be possible to have an Americanized version of a Noh play that would not be a complete bastardization of the play. It would be American in that the intricate moves will definitely not be the same, but I think that the right director and actors still would be able to capture the essence of the play. The passions of the characters reflect human emotions and spirits that manifests in each of us.
I would have liked to include in this blog the exact path to staging this Noh play. I think that the discovery of the way to effectively perform a Noh play is the result of research and trial and error. Anyway I think the process of launching a Noh play could be a reward in and of itself.

Put me in my coffin

What interests me most is the idea of what the show is actually about. I think, due to the style of Endgame, and other Beckett pieces, that the representation of life is perfectly clear. Laughter may be the first response, but if looking at the text, it's lack of outside description for the world (i.e. bare interior, etc) really takes the focus away from outside things and allows focus to be on the dialogue and movement. By allowing ourselves to be part of a world of no distraction (I shudder to say nothingness), we are embracing the world of Clov and Hamm as one of our own, much the way we take on Gogo and Didi as extensions of ourselves.

The next thought that arises is...if this is life, what part of life is this? My first thought is that Hamm and Clov are dead, right along with Nagg and Nell. For example, in this bit of dialogue it suggests that death is a very prominent part of their existence, but I would ve naturally nture to say that it's is a prominent part of their past, rather than immediate future:
HAMM: Is Mother Pegg's light on?
CLOV: Light! How could anyone's light be on?
HAMM: Extinguished!
CLOV: Naturally it's extinguished. If it's not on it's extinguished.
HAMM: No, I mean Mother Pegg.
CLOV: But she's extinguished! (Pause.) What's the matter with you today?
HAMM: I'm taking my course. (Pause.) Is she buried?
CLOV: Buried! Who would have buried her?
HAMM: You.
CLOV: Me! Haven't I enough to do without burying people?
HAMM: But you'll bury me.
CLOV: No I won't bury you. (Pause.)

The light could represent the life-force of a person, rather than what may be seen as eyesight. Since eyesight is referred to as vision earlier in the play by Hamm or Clov. However, I do not think that the light is essentially a life-force but is also the legacy of a lifeforce. For example, if Hamm is a corpse, his is still in a represented stage before his burial, like Nell and Nagg. So where are they? They are in a non-existant place between death and after-death, if there is an after death; "HAMM: And the horizon? Nothing on the horizon? CLOV: What in God's name could be on the horizon?"(31). They are in a place of no hope for anything better, which further lends itself to the idea that they are in a place of death. i'd like to make a statement that by death, I mean not alive.

So what does that mean to the reader and the viewer? Why would Beckett make this choice? I think it is a commentary on how petty the living are, and how in death, there is no pleasing us. It's a sordid slap in the face that pushes one to look at the "beauty" of life. Life is a cycle, and a game, and I believe that Beckett uses Endgame to show what the mirror of that is. Life and death go hand in hand as a cycle, the way that Endgame is cyclical. When HAMM places the handkerchief back upon his head, I soon believe that Clov will soon return and the play will begin.

Nature has forgotten about them, remember?

HAMM: Then there's no reason for it to change.
CLOV: It may end. (Pause) All life long the same questions, the same answers. (5)

The Id, Ego and Superego in Endgame

When I read Endgame I felt like the characters did not represent human beings but rather the parts of the self. The characters comments on life and relationships to other characters are similar to the different parts of our own psyche.
Freud describes the Id as "It is the dark inaccessible parts of our personality... We all approach the Id with analogies: we call it chaos, a cauldron of seething expectations." In Endgame Nell and Nagg represent the Id. First off they are the most sentimental of all the characters. Nagg asks Nell " What is it my pet? (pause) Time for love?" They go own to talk about banal things such as the need to scratch, their eyes and hearing and teeth. Hamm tells Clov to "Bottle them up". Much as a superego would want to bottle up the Id because it is the least controllable and most unpredictable part of the psyche.
Freud says the ego " represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id which contains the passions. " In Endgame Clov is obviously the Ego. He is the most passionless character of the four. He is the slave and has his focus on his tasks with little sentimentality. Hamm asks Clov if he loves him and Clov says nothing because there is nothing to say since it is not germaine to the task at hand. Most of Clov's dialogue is centered around whatever task he is charged to do.
Often the superego is described as the part of our psyche that strives for perfection. It encompasses the psychic goals of the individual but criticises the individuals drive and fantasies. The best example of this is when Clov has moved Hamm's chair. Hamm demands that it must be returned to the exact center. " I feel a little far to the left.... Now I feel a little far to the right....I feel a little too far forward....Now I feel a littlle too far back..." Consistently Hamm tries to control the characters around him. This need for control is the superego trying to keep the Id and Ego in check.
Endgame ressonated with many people despite it's like of plot or story. One reason may be that the various parts of ourselves are represented through these characters. These characters relationship to time and space allow us to understand how our psyche tries to cope with the Zen Buddhist like nothingness in our world.

Man fuck Beckett: Freedom of Speech vs Freedom of Press

This has been a problem that has weighed on my mind the past several days. My feelings about the situation are well known. But that doesn't change the fact that he probably doesn't care. We all know about Samuel Beckett. An irishman who rejected his past to live in france. The son of a businessman, Nazi fighter, poet, writer, and asshole.

I don't care how many awards he's won. Beckett has signed his own legacy by himself. His freedom of Press will be the nail in the coffin of his legacy. Shakespeare and other classical authors endure because people can do with them whatever they wish. For example: As You Like It in the 1960's. But despite being dead Beckett will shut you down if the costumes are the wrong color. After a while no one's going to care about the movement he's started. His stories don't speak to mass audience of people, like Shakespeare. So he doesn't have that going for him. In fact the only thing he has going for him is a 'theatre of the absurd' movement that he accidentally started. The odds that the average theatre goer has seen at least one Shakespearean Work are great. But even less so are the odds that the same theatre goer has or will see a Beckett performance.

Am I alone in this assumption?
Can too many strictures on ones own work keep people from staging it/seeing it?
Do interpretations enhance the abilities of a play to reach people?

To the Protestors:

When Wole Soyinka wrote that we, as his audience, needed to perceive his play in a particular way (or more accurately, when he said we couldn’t view it is a specific way), I was upset. I don’t feel that an author, regardless of the medium, should be allowed to determine what his/her audience should think. A lot of people have had a difficult time with the notion that Samuel Beckett (and the shadowy entity known as his estate) would presume to control not only the integrity of the script, which most would agree is within their rights, but to also claim jurisdiction on the production elements. I, however, don’t have an issue with Beckett and his estate controlling these elements. For, though I see Soyinka trying to act as God, I only see Beckett trying to act like a true playwright.

If a playwright wants that control (or doesn’t), then I believe that is within his or her rights. We tend to view playwrights who desire specific production elements to be, at best, meddling and, at worse, theater-ignorant. Why is it, though, that we see these playwrights as unknowledgeable of drama instead of understanding perhaps that these playwrights are extremely aware of the entire process of theater? What I mean is, too often we seem to assume that writers just fell into the medium of scripts. Yet a playwright chooses to write scripts, to write plays. Authors don’t simply construct sentences, pick characters, and decide plots. They also carefully choose their mediums/genres (poetry, novel, essay, short story, script), weighing the pros and cons of each carefully. The choice of genre, of medium, is just as conscious of a decision as is any other element of a writer’s work.

So, when a writer chooses to write a play, he or she is choosing a medium that usually includes a production in the same way that a writer who chooses to write a poem is choosing a medium that includes, amongst other things, a formal recognition of stanzas and lines. Thus, a poet’s work is always printed in the same structure. One doesn’t print two lines together or add a word from line two up to line one; we acknowledge, instead, that meaning can be found in the poet’s stanza and line choice. Why then, understanding that a playwright is aware of her medium, would we be upset when she demands specifics that fall within the realm of her medium; when she acknowledges that script and stage are parts of the same coin of a production?

Thus, if Samuel Beckett wants his plays to always be the same, then isn’t that his prerogative as playwright? Ignoring the issue that if someone doesn’t like his demands then they don’t have to produce his plays, there is another thought to consider. Christine suggested that Beckett would have been a better maker of film because no one wants to see the same play, the same way every time. Why not? We watch the same film over and over, knowing that nothing will be different in what we see. And yet, every time it is different. We, the audience, are different. We have different experiences with which to understand the film by; we see and hear new and different elements that we ignored previously. Why not be able to have that same experience with a play? To know that all production elements are the same as the last time we saw the piece but our experience is still different: that is what Beckett seemed to have desired. That is, I believe, what Beckett seemed to know when he stated that every element has a meaning, a purpose that can not be ignored in our attempt to understand.

Beckett chose to write Endgame as a play so that he could explore various themes using all of the components inherent to the medium of theater, not just some of them. Do we then have any right to protest?

It will all make sense in the end.......

This quote is the driving force that helps most people survive through life. When dealing with trials, tribulations and disappointments, their is always a need to understand what it all means. We say affirmations that give us hope into finding why we experience great sorrow, loss, tragedies and disappointments. Some argue that their is no point and that life is what it is. Some may say we waste precious hours of our lives waiting and hoping for circumstances to change when the the answer or solution is internal. The choice lives within us all to choose our attitude and outlook on what life throws are way.

My reflection stems from reading Endgame. I have a hard time believing a writer writes without purpose. Writing is a cathartic, cleansing experience for most and most writers want to leave the reader with some type of feeling. It was stated during our discussion that maybe Beckett wrote the piece in opposition to the theory that all pieces have to have a definitive meaning. The irony in this is that the piece still has a meaning. If that was his objective, the meaning still exist in his choice to be liberated by literary standards.

The most interesting concept for me to digest is how this world of theatre is so subjective. What makes a piece a profound? What criteria have we internalized throughout the years that helps us identify brilliance in this art form? Right or wrong I always search for a meaning. I always search for a dimension, realm that goes beyond the first read of a script. Innovative writers have the ability to tell several stories within a story. I look for these abstract thoughts in the characters actions, situations and dialogue. I revel in reading or seeing a script that causes some type of epiphany at the end. The question I pose......can it be considered acceptable work when the majority of your audience is lost in the end? Should there be one main connection that all viewers are able to identify?

We are trained to be critical and I agree with searching for what does work instead of picking apart all the things we analyze as being wrong. However ,what accountability do we have for playwrights to produce sound, quality writing? This question will never be answered, because in the arts subjectivity reigns supreme. In the meantime, you will always find me reflecting and searching to find the meaning of it all.

End-Theatre. Turn to Film, Beckett.

After talking about Samuel Beckett’s rules that are enforced through his estate, there were a lot of people that seemed upset. I’m also against the enforcing of the rules, and there are a few things that I wanted to point out that we didn’t talk about in class.

First of all, of Beckett were still alive, I would want to suggest something to him that would diminish confusion in the theatre world. I might get in trouble saying this, but he should have written screenplays for film instead of scripts for theatre. There are many reasons why I think that his works would have fit better in film. If he wanted to dictate his texts so that everything was perfect, he could have been a part of the filmmaking process, made sure the products were exactly how he wanted them to be, and the stress that he seemed to have about people messing up or tweaking would be gone. As we learned in class, each time a Beckett play is produced they were played the same. The film versions of his plays would have the same effect.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand the values of the theatre. However, I find that the biggest benefits of working in the theatre are collaboration and interpretation. It seems to me like Beckett was determined to not let others in the production process collaborate by adding their own ideas. Therefore, he should have used another media other than the theatre to bring his ideas to life.

A Noh Way of Seeing Things

Watching the stage production of “Aio Nu Ue”, a couple of warring thoughts crossed my mind. “Wow,” was one of them. “Are the people who made the captions (with their use of frenzied and other action verbs) watching the same show I am?,” was another. I’m embarrassed to admit that at one point I even contemplated reenacting the final eye-poking scenes of “Equus” in an effort to end the experience. After we were done watching the film, other people voiced these thoughts and others thoughts. I particularly appreciated Conrad’s comment that watching the film was just such a foreign experience for us as Americans, as Westerners, to fully grasp or comprehend.

That thought stuck with me because of its truth. How do we grapple with material foreign to us on a number of different levels? The script is translated for us into a more familiar language but what about the complexities of the movements, a means of communication that is just as foreign as the language? How do we learn to overcome this barrier of foreignness in order to study and analyze works like that of the Noh style?

The easy and lazy answer would be that we don’t overcome this barrier and that we either don’t bother to challenge ourselves at all or we simply read and watch it, struggle for a few minutes, and then move on. This, of course, is a real disservice both to non-Western cultures, who have much to offer, and to ourselves, who can only benefit from an expanded worldview. So how then can we work to make something like Noh theater more familiar?
Three ideas present themselves with varying degrees of complexity. The first is that we can just keep forcing ourselves to encounter Noh and hope that repetition will negate foreignness. I’m not sure that this is a very good idea or even one that will work. The second idea is to expand upon what Christine wrote about in her letter, to bring some familiar elements into an otherwise foreign land. I liked the idea of her Scream mask and other Western-friendly elements that provided some accessibility to “Aoi Nu Ue.” This removes some of the foreignness but it also establishes the West as the only means of interpretation, in a way suggesting that the West is the only lens that through which the East can be observed. This isn’t what Christine meant by her letter but it is a problem that arises if this is the only means of approaching Eastern theater.

This leads me to my last idea of approaching Noh (or any Eastern) theater. Instead of using the Western lens to study the East, I wonder what would happen if one studied the West through an Eastern lens. Obviously, people unfamiliar with the West would take such an approach but I wonder about the ramifications of a Westerner purposefully looking at their own literature but through an Eastern gaze. For example, Akira Kurosawa’s “Throne of Blood” is an excellent retelling of “MacBeth” but with distinct Noh influences. Watching that film enriched my experience of Shakespeare in a way that was unanticipated but greatly appreciated. I wonder what would happen if we approached other great American classics from the same way? I don’t mean simply seeing similarities between West and East work, like the blogs on “Meadea” and “Aio Nu Ue,” although I think their comments were extremely insightful and helpful to my understanding. Instead, I mean taking, for example, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone” and infusing it with the specific and intense gestures of Noh. Loomis would step in a slow and methodical rhythm, using specific stylized gestures to indicate his mood instead of acting in a more natural method. “Pygmalion” might feature masks for certain characters to indicate their stock nature.

It might not work. It might be disastrous, but I think it’s worth the try. Instead of seeing how Aristotle applies to “Aoi Nu Ue,” maybe we should see how Zeami’s treatises apply to “Cloud 9.”

Titles are not fun to create...

Though I do see similarities between the two, I feel like most of the similarities are quite common. Revenge for example is a common concept. Though the female protaganist is less common, than revenge, it is still by no means a rare story trait. Also, the main motivating emotion for Medea is indeed hatred, but it is merely a shadowing projection of much deeper emotion for Princess Rokujo. Rokujo's dominate desires are all based around Jealousy. This is the only true emotion the character has towards Princess Aoi. Though both past "lovers" for the women, are very selfish men, what love driven tragedy about a female doesn't involve a villanous man from a past or current relationship (with the exclusion of Million Dollar Baby.) There is the similarity of a witch, but the definition of the being, is completely different in the two, one is quick witted and rides off in a chariot, and one brings a demon mask wearing, mallet wielding ghost to the scene.
As far as portrayal similarites, though there is a chorus in both, the use of the chorus is much different in the two, as we can see after watching Aoi No Uye in class, it is much more so an actual chorus, than a chorus within the play. Other than that due to the apposing cultures the set up from a Noh plays slow precise movements, and much more plot driven play that moves at a common rate.
In conlusion, though the two have some similarities, I feel they are quite subtle when I really think about them

Medea and Aio No Uye: Asian Theatre influenced by Greek Tragedy? Or slight plagiarism?

Confused by the title? Let me explain:
Medea is a Greek Tragedy about a sorceress who reaks vengeance upon her husband who recently abandoned her, destroying everything he loves. Aio No Uye is a no play about the Saint of Yokawa and the members of the Imperial court preventing Princess Rokujo from murdering the ill Princess Aoi. At first glance these plays may seem like their similarities are merely coincidental. But if we examine each play more closely we find themes and characters that are much too familiar to be the product of coincidence. Aio No Uye is presented as an Eastern doppleganger to the Western Medea.

Like Medea, Rokujo's hatred and desire for revenge are motivated by her ex lover, Genji's betrayal of her and her affections. To put it simply-Rokujo is Medea; Genji is Jason. Even the Princess Glauca shows up in Aoi No Uye in the form of Princess Aoi, herself. Also, just as there is the presence of a Chorus in Euripedes' play, a Chorus exists in Seami's play as well. Even the actions and motivations of the alleged demon women are clones of each other.

The title character of Euripedes' tragedy attempts to exact vengeance on her ex-lover, motivated by his infidelity. She uses her witch craft to exact her revenge and part of that retribution materializes in the murder of her ex-lover's wife; She succeeds through witchcraft and divine intervention. Princess Rokujo is also motivated by the infidelity of her ex-lover. After part of her vengeance is fullfilled upon murdering one of her husband's lovers, she plans to murder his wife, Princess Aoi, as well. Yet, in the no play the Medea-type character of Rokujo is foiled by witchcraft and divine intervention.

As you can see, the major characters, motivations, and themes of the two plays are virtually identical. The only elements that seem to differ between them are the setting, the people, and the conclusion. So what does this mean exactly?

Here is one theory: This could be an example of Japanese theatre practitioners taking their cues from the Romans and stealing from Greek culture. Just as the Romans "Romanized" Greek theatre, so did the Japanese "Japanesize" Greek Theatre. After first reading this play I thought it might have been the other way around as Eastern Asian culture possesses a much older existence than that of Ancient Greece. However, after examing the notes on Aoi No Uye I found that this play was completed during the era of "anno domini" as opposed to the older bc/"before Christ" era, where the civilization of Ancient Greece exists in history.

Or another theory: Perhaps, this semi-plagiarism can be attributed to the later revisions of Zenchiku Ujinobu who lived from 1414-1499. This during the period we know as the Renaissance where the people who considered this time modern aimed to redesign their art, architecture, theatre, clothing, and countless other aspects of their culture inspired by the Ancient Classical culture that existed thousands of years before. Perhaps Ujinobu's revision of Seami's play was inspired by the spreading Renaissance influence.

Still one thing is certain in my mind: Aio No Uye is Medea re-imagined.

Wake up imagination!

Just a few thoughts....

First off: Women in Noh plays just cannot a break can they? It seems to me that the driving force behind two Noh plays that I've now read in my time are due to the uncontrollable jealously of a woman scorned. It seems to me that the Japanese at this time are concerned with the somewhat fragile transformation from evil to good of these women's spirits, but what about Gengji? He's the one who needs to be dealt with, and in fact, his absence in the play is just strange and were it not for that intro into the play I would have no idea what was going on. What does this mean about the culture's attitude toward the stability of the women in their culture, easily swayed by personal demons and in need (in some cases) of exorcism?

Now that that is said, I want to transition to form. Noh plays and I have a love/hate relationship with one another; I LOVE reading them because it takes about 20 minutes of my day. Subject matter is easy to follow, for the most part (most often due to footnotes) and plot is usually explained and easy to pick up on. However, having said that, I have a few issues with them as well....

Translation: As far as I'm concerned, anytime one reads any type of Asian theatre, and mainly my experience with Japanese and Indian theatre, the translation is key. Did anyone else get reminded of a catholic exorcism near the end? I highlighted a few words/phrases that seemed rather western to me, which caused me some distraction from Buddhism. A few places I found were when the witch is referred to a sorceress (145); the man they get to exorcise is a saint who "sprinkles with the holy water" (150); later the saint announces " I shake the red wooden beads of my rosary and say the first spell" (151). WHen someone puts forth the words "sorceress" and "spell" it attributes itself to a sort of black magic phenomenon and christian ideology gets mixed in where it probably shouldn't (unless I am wrong, then someone correct me, please).

Movement/Song: There is so much movement in a Noh play and unless i can see it, it is lost on me. I know textually where such movements are located, but there is nothing to tell us about how they are. There is no information given about the structure of the stage and the characters entrances. There is much significance to the fact that the messenger calls to the Saint offstage and then he makes his entrance(150). This entrance, I'm sure was extremely detailed, which all is slot by simply reading the play. And the singing? I think I noticed what must have been sung and what must have been...spoken? Was there just spoken words or was it more or less like Opera, aria versus recitative . If you look on page 149, you'll notice that the formatting of the text changes from sung song to spoken(song) in Rokujo lines "So that standing at the bright mirror/ I tremble and am ashamed./(Formatting change, no indentation) I am come to my broken coach." Other than that there is little textual evidence to support the actual delivery of these lines, aside from a few (singing) stage directions thrown in, but even those do not reference all of the places where text format changes.

For this play only taking a brief moment to read, I feel I'm right in assuming that this play would have last almost 2 to 3 hours when performed, it's just a shame that that is lost in the text and not thoroughly supported in stage directions. Is it safe to assume that the book this text came from assumes one has extensive prior knowledge of Noh? Also, is it safe to assume that it's a protected art, so that others who don't not know Noh extremely well can't try to stage their own version that wouldn't reflect Noh tradition? Just a few thoughts I wanted to spill before going to class. Thanks!

Clive 9

As much as I try to move on from Cloud 9, I am constantly reminded of it in my everyday life, which I guess is a good thing and perhaps a compliment to the author. After doing that music project, I am almost haunted by these characters and what Churchill's intention was by manipulating them to an audience's standards the way she did. I know I've said in class that it's about feeling and not so much based on story and I'm still having struggles believing that feeling outweighs the actual plot. I think most will agree that in this case, plot is not the most essential part of the show. It has epic qualities that allow it to be sort of below the surface of the show, and I think most will agree that the plot is much more noticeable and easier to follow in the first act than in the second act...why is that?

I was thinking about Brecht and how his ideas relate to this play. In a section from my Theatre HIstory textbook (Theatre Histories: An Introduction) that discusses Brecht (and specifically Mother Courage) and signs he would use. Bruce McConachie is not talking about the literal signs that Brecht would use, but rather three signs or ideas that were evident throughout pieces. The signs are (in no particular order) Specific History, Universal History, and Theatrical Present. It seems to me that by setting the first act in Victorian/colonial Africa she is giving the audience a "specific history" which is easy to cling to. Everyone can sort of place what Victorian/colonial Africa may have looked like and peculiarities of the characters can be attributed to the fact that it was set in the last 1800's, that's just normal. For instance, Clive's constant constant display of male chauvinism is clearly attributed to the era in which Clive is present. For example, in class discussion this never really got brought up in detail, which I thought was interesting because it was sort of let go and just ridden off as his character, but he says things like "dark, female lust,"(34) "if I shot you every British man and women would applaud me," (34) "There is something dark about women, that threatens what is best in us," (40) and "Effeminacy is contagious" (40); he is obviously attributing women to a lesser being and by calling them dark, relates them to the tribal "savages" that surround him. In a way, everyone is living to a Clive standard in the household, Joshua takes on the persona of a white person because Clive wants it, Clive is the prominent role in shaping Edward into being a male (not male as in sex, not man as in gender), and he puts people in their place (Harry, followed by Ellen, then through guilt, Betty). His representation of colonialism on his own family, trying to shape them into things they are not (male, female, man, woman, black, white, straight, gay) gives the audience something to cling to, historically.

When Churchill places the action of the second act in a contemporary setting (1979) she gives a universal history to the audience, something they can all definitely relate (or should be able to). It seems to that with the absence of Clive, we lose structure in the play. It seems that inconsistencies become more focused on a personal matter and a relationship feeling, rather than a plot moving piece, which is more Epic, but pales when compared to act one. I think our plot takes the same role that the actor playing Clive takes; it becomes a child with silly, vulgar rhymes and stories. Clive's absence of a strong male figure, over bearing in his masculinity, displays a breakdown of structure, and perhaps that's a point she's trying to make. Notice the sexual change as well, in the first act there's a lot of male/male sex happening when compared to female/female or male/female and in act two, male/male is the lesser of female/female. Lesbian ideals are more present in the second act than those "dark" feelings from the first act (If only Cathy would grow up to be a lesbian, poetic justice?). Anyway, back to my point, if I can find it, I think that if we apply these signs of Specific and Universal history to Cloud 9, we'll find that when given a specific history (1879 Colonial Africa) the audience can focus more clearly and understand the characters and that in turn has more universal appeal, but when it is switched and present times becomes the universal history the appeal becomes specific and we lose touch of what's going on, at least that's how it was for me.

Brecht's third sign is Theatrical Present and there's no doubt that throughout this entire play you are away of the fact that's it's a play. Not only do the words lend itself to that, but the way it is cast, the mind is constantly thrown through a loop by what is happening on stage. I think, in a way, her cross -gender/age/race casting is representative of Brecht's literal signs. "Here, I'm making a point! The little boy feels like a Girl!"

The more I think on this play, the more epic, in my mind, it becomes.

Think of what's on the inside (a very short comment on Cloud 9)

Upon reading Cloud 9 I fell into the same reactions and old arguments that I heard the first time I read it. But our analysis brought something to my attention that was not seen nor brought up in class. At the risk of sounding redundant I must point out how inconsistent our lives are. We are thrown off by Cloud 9 because it doesn’t play to conventions of ‘normal’ theatre. Half the time it doesn’t make sense. The plot line is non-linear and nonsensical. But so are our lives. Our lives are more episodic than climatic. More often than not we find ourselves attempting to be something we are not and to live up to unwanted expectations, more than we care to admit. I think that like most people we are getting hung up on what we see on the outside. Here Churchill is casting a white man as a black man, a woman as a man, little girl as a little boy, and a doll as a little girl. By doing this she has accomplished what none us can do in our daily lives: we see these characters as they truly are on the outside. How many of us get to hide in plain sight on a daily basis? In a way this world makes more sense because we see everyone as they truly are. We see them state what is on their mind unaltered and unedited. So my next question is why don't we absolutly love this play more than the conventional bullshit that we have been fed our entire lives?

Consistently Inconsistent

In class we began discussing why Joshua seems to be inconsistent in his character. The question posed is: “Why can’t Joshua be played by a black man?” He claims in the beginning of the play, “My skin is black but oh my soul is white./ I hate my tribe. My master is my light./I only live for him. As you can see, / What white men want is what I want to be.” But later in the play Joshua can easily be interpreted as a slave who does not think his master is his light. At the end of Act I, he holds a gun up to Clive, and the audience can assume (or not) that Joshua kills his master. He not only doesn’t appear in Act II, but he is completely forgotten. Plain and simple, this is not consistent. So why does the playwright insist Joshua be cast as a white man? This opens a floodgate of questions for me. After much thinking, I have come up with a subtle and weak solution: Cloud 9 is consistent with it’s inconsistency. Our lovely matriarch in Act I, Betty, must also suffer the playwright’s intentions in casting, as she is played by a man. She claims in the beginning of the play, “I live for Clive. The whole aim of my life/Is to be what he looks for in a wife./I am a man’s creation as you see,/And what men want is what I want to be.” For me, this stimulates from an age-old argument that says only a man could play the perfect woman, because a man knows exactly what makes the perfect woman from his perspective. Betty strives to be the perfect woman as seen through a man’s eyes. I directly relate this to Joshua; that he wants to be the perfect ‘slave’ as seen through a white man’s eyes. This is something consistent in the play. And it turns out Betty does not honor her beginning statement either, she develops a crush on Harry and speaks on more than one occasion about running away with him. This is not a woman “who lives for Clive.” So it is that Churchill is consistent with both characters in their inconsistency. In the play’s senselessness everything makes more sense with this solution. As we discussed, Churchill breaks Aristotelian format, purposely drawing lines in the plot that never meet or even disappear. Churchill does as Betty says at the end of Act II, “But if there isn’t a right way to do things you have to invent one.” But I am left with one more question that the Consistent in Inconsistency Rule does not answer. By still staying consistent throughout the play (even if it’s with inconsistencies) isn’t she still following Aristotelian formats?

cloud 5

I didn’t quite reach Cloud 9 while reading this play. I am not sure I even got off the ground. When one needs a flow chart to follow who is playing whom, and doing what with whom, to who which is not really whom you think they are; is a bit much. Plays are meant to be seen and not read and this play should be the poster child of that saying. This is a ploy usually when writing a farce and I do not see this as anything but a group of people getting together and saying “lets write a crazy play” Some things work, but many don’t.

There are a couple good moments in this play, like the moment Joshua is about to shoot Clive and Edward is the only one to see it coming. Too bad this doesn’t happen earlier so we could be put out of our miseries. I am more connected in Act one than in Act two. There is more a cohesion in Act one than Act Two. Do we really need Act two in this play? My vote is no.

This is not the only play that takes characters from one act and transports them to another time in the second. Other plays like The Most Fabulous Story Ever told and the Broadway musical Romance, Romance do this and do it much better.

Cross gender casting is always fun and can add a bit of excitement to a show. However in Cloud 9 I find it distracting, but like I said earlier it may be because I am not seeing it. With the scene between Harry and Edward there would be a really creepy vibe between the two had they actually cast Edward as a guy. (Pg 23-25)

I have a question maybe someone can help me answer. Why is it that of sum 40 plays and 50 years of writing I have never heard of ONE single play this person has written? Who does that speak less of? Me for not knowing them or of them not being widely produced?

Spirtiuality and Religion's Function in Joe Turner's Come and Gone

Spirituality is the guiding light in this play. And Bynum Walker appears to be a light bearers. The old man is the most aware of his destiny and uses knowledge of the spirit world and his skills as a conjure man to "bind people" and help them "find their song." The lost soul of Herald Loomis, once held by the tyrannical hand, now wanders lost walking the skeleton's he claims to have seen walking on the water. Loomis wants to find his wife to obtain closure and start his life over again. What makes this difficult is his decision on how to find that inner peace: Should he obtain it through Christianity he embraced in his past, or through the spirituality advocated by Bynum? Mattie Campbell yearns for consistency in her life and for a good, strong, loyal man to make her feel complete. It isn't until Herald Loomis comes into the picture that she starts to feel genuinely hopeful about her ambitions. With these characters and their given circumstances, Wilson successfully conveys the significance of spirituality with regard to the human psyche and soul.

However, he fails to portray the religion of Christianity accurately and depends on the stereotypes associated with Christianity to get his point across. As a Christian, Martha Pentecost is someone who irks me. True, this woman dedicates herself to the service of the Lord and continues to preach the Word in various parts of the country. But to abandon her husband, her spouse; to basically forget the loyalty and honor bindings of marriage that the Bible holds dear...well, I just see it as blatant hypocrisy. Not to mention abandoning her child, probably the most valuable, precious human being in her life. Who is to say that she couldn't stay with her family and still provide optimum service unto the Father? Her motivations may seem selfless at first. But once we examine her actions and the actual teachings of the bible, we see that she was weak and gave into her own selfishness, missionary of the Word or not.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE this play. I think it is one of Wilson's best and I find tremendous value in the story, the characters, and their words. And yet, I find myself dissatisfied with the way Christianity seems to be portrayed in this book. Wilson has the character of Martha Pentecost/Loomis stand as representative for the Christian religion. I find this interpretation to be somewhat flawed, because the story shows her to be a religious hypocrite running off to join the cult of the Holy Ghost and leave the ones she loves behind. This is not at all accurate, because NOT ALL Christians have the same narrow-minded views of Martha and her peers. Many are selfless and stay behind to work for and take care of those before themselves. I agree with Wilson that spirituality is a wonderful thing to have in your life. But I'm afraid he misses the mark when it comes to portraying the values and aims of Christianity accurately. With this narrow-minded view of Christianity, Wilson succeeds only in Martha Pentecost being a stereotype and an invalid representation of the Christian faith.

A Belated But Still Pertinent Post: Keeping the Balance

So which is good and which is evil: The British Occupants or the members of the Yoruba tribe? Perhaps it depends on how you were raised or more importantly, what you were raised to believe is right and wrong. With this play, I, like the prodigal son, Olunde, find myself caught inside a seemingly inescapable Catch-22. This is because pros AND cons exist on either side of the conflict.

When the British began to colonize Africa, some had very decent honorable intentions, acting as educators and Christian Missionaries to the African tribesmen/women. But I also believe that the British government's occupation of African tribal territories by way of force, violence, and enslavement is beyond reproach. On the other side of things, The Yoruba tribe appear to be a very spiritual, peaceful people who respect the African and its native inhabitants. However, I am a Christian and believe suicide, although, a very real result of depression and hopelessness, is wrong and not a feasible option for leaving this world.

Olunde is representative of these conflicting ideals. As both a functioning member of British society and the son of a Yoruba Elesin ("horseman"). As a result, he is torn between his ambition to heal the sick as a doctor and his responsibilities as the heir to the tribe's Elesin. He seems to be alright with the fact that his father is fulfilling his honorable duty as the Yoruba king's Horseman: by killling himself, Elesin Oba hopes to rejoin his king in the afterlife. We see this at the costume ball, when he urges Jane Pilkings to talk to her husband , in the hope that the British officer will make the decision not to prevent Elesin Oba from fulfilling his ritual. Yet, we also see his reluctance to take his father's place as Elesin.

When Elesin Oba is arrested by Pilkings and his police, Olunde is forced to make his choice. At first, with his public rejection and disowning of his father, we are led to believe that Olunde has rejected his African heritage and will return to England. But later when the women from the market place bring his body to the prison wrapped in a burial shroud, his choice of home and responsibility becomes quite clear. The question now is did this smooth over the conflict between the Yoruba and the British government? Or did this just exacerbate the problem further?