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!
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
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.
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.
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?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
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?
Sunday, November 1, 2009
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?
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.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)