Prestatement: my brain kinda hates me right now, so if i confuse you, or anything like that, i'm sorry. It doens't want to help me convey my thoughts right now...
I think a propsal such as what has been suggested would really promote the imagination. Maybe it's just me, but i feel the need for detail. If i'm reading any type of story, i like to visualize what's being talked about. For instance, if someone said a birdcage, i would invision all of the bird cages i've seen before, and try to pick the best one that would fit within the play. I appreciate the story being heard, but i love the story being seen as it unfulrs.
If you were to do a production of Trifles in a manner such as this, you would gain an importance of dialouge, but you would loose the visual intellegence of a play. It would be the equivilance of me telling you the story by myself. Yes, you would focous on the words coming out of my mouth, and the movements i'm making, but your visual idea of the objects may differ far from the actual ojects, unless you know of the setting, have seen it before, and remember the details. The spectators aren't provided with the script (as it's been said man times over in class) therefore, they've no idea the ideal setting that is being provided, they only know the world of which they themselves have created for the play. So in less words, yes the director would accheive conveying the idea of the importance of the words and emotions over that of the visual details. but then again, that is the idea. right?
To answer the last question: Yes, i can imagine the production in such a way. How ever i feel it loose the details that are needed. Yes the character talk in depth of the detail but i feel as though visual aid is needed in some areas as to correctivly convey the idea/situation of what's going on. For instance, what if people have no idea what a quilt is, what knotting of a quilt looks like (i know i have no idea what the heck that means) or even what preserves are(maybe they're yanks, or french).
Again, my brain and i aren't in agreable terms right now, and that's all it's willing to help me say. Until again my friends! :D
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Overtones *WARNING*: I sometimes spell worst than a 3rd grader.
Sorry, i know this is. . . well, really late. But hey! It's here! And that's what matters! Right?
BTW, sorry for some of the randomness, i'm on my 4th cup of coffee today......
Anyway, I fount this play to be very interesting. I kept forgetting that this play was written in, i think, 1913. The fact that they used different people to portray their primitive sides, or inner voices, was very creative (although probably common during these times). I'm used to there being prerecorded audio, but that's due to more advance technology. As i was reading the play i was able to visualize the preformance in my head, and if you ask me, the preformers did a nice job.
The fact that only the culturalized selves was able to actually touch things made alot of sense. I think if i were to be watching the play as a spectator and everyone was just grabbing things, i would be so damn confused. I also understand the reasoning of Harriet and Margrett not being able to see their primitive selves. Well talk to ourselves, sometimes we even loose arguments with ourselves, but we never really physically see our "primitave"selves. So if Harriet or Margrett were to ever see/touch their primitive selves it would be weird, unusal, and just not true.
It was clear as the play went along that the cultured selves didn't listen to everything their primitive selves were thinking. How crazy would it be if they did? There would be a cat fight in the middle of a stage, not uncommon for us, but for that time period i think it would have been. Although, if i read right, i do believe that harry and maggie either physically touched one another, or talked agressivly. I think this was one of the "rules" bent/broken in the play. Other than that i think they stuck to the rules:
On a personal note, i kinda like reading/watching plays/scripts/movies/books based in this time period. It's kind of like todays world, just a seemingly more regal, ettiquite based time. Today, for instance, if you don't like someone (and you in the ghetto) you make it know, and they make it know they don't like you. I've only seen people play nice in more public, common situations. Like family dinners, weddings, or even in class (most of the time). Well, Hope you enjoyed reading my blog/opinion/analysis. Until next time! :D
BTW, sorry for some of the randomness, i'm on my 4th cup of coffee today......
Anyway, I fount this play to be very interesting. I kept forgetting that this play was written in, i think, 1913. The fact that they used different people to portray their primitive sides, or inner voices, was very creative (although probably common during these times). I'm used to there being prerecorded audio, but that's due to more advance technology. As i was reading the play i was able to visualize the preformance in my head, and if you ask me, the preformers did a nice job.
The fact that only the culturalized selves was able to actually touch things made alot of sense. I think if i were to be watching the play as a spectator and everyone was just grabbing things, i would be so damn confused. I also understand the reasoning of Harriet and Margrett not being able to see their primitive selves. Well talk to ourselves, sometimes we even loose arguments with ourselves, but we never really physically see our "primitave"selves. So if Harriet or Margrett were to ever see/touch their primitive selves it would be weird, unusal, and just not true.
It was clear as the play went along that the cultured selves didn't listen to everything their primitive selves were thinking. How crazy would it be if they did? There would be a cat fight in the middle of a stage, not uncommon for us, but for that time period i think it would have been. Although, if i read right, i do believe that harry and maggie either physically touched one another, or talked agressivly. I think this was one of the "rules" bent/broken in the play. Other than that i think they stuck to the rules:
- cultured selves never see/touch primitive selves
- cultured selves keep composure, never showing their true behavior
- primitive selves behave as they please
On a personal note, i kinda like reading/watching plays/scripts/movies/books based in this time period. It's kind of like todays world, just a seemingly more regal, ettiquite based time. Today, for instance, if you don't like someone (and you in the ghetto) you make it know, and they make it know they don't like you. I've only seen people play nice in more public, common situations. Like family dinners, weddings, or even in class (most of the time). Well, Hope you enjoyed reading my blog/opinion/analysis. Until next time! :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)