Saturday, November 7, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't think it's the conventions we loved to begin with; it was the story, at least in my opinion. I'm a huge fan of absurd and experimental theatre, but this play, to me, lacked certain elements that made it a compelling story. I will argue that the first act did provide something decent to chew on, but the second act had fewer parts that I could really grasp on to, perhaps because it is so free from this Aristotelian path we've been led down for so long, or is it just not as interesting?
You mentioned that it reflects our lives more appropriately, more episodic than climatic and that we see a truer version of these characters portrayed by the actor playing them. What about the argument that, we live real life enough, do we really need to experience real life as entertainment? You threw me into a reality TV show kind of frame, which does in fact not play by standard rules of Drama but follows more with the Epic style, people love those and hate them because…who wants to escape from reality to see…reality? Not saying I disagree…just throwing something out there.
I think it's interesting to consider the possibility that sometimes people see theatre because it imposes order on something that is so chaotic and confusing. Also, that we're used to being told linear stories and so constantly try to make sense of our lives in that way. If theatre opens up more questions than it answers, I think sometimes audiences or readers find it unsettling and maybe threatening.
Post a Comment