I thought that this play was very charming, interesting and funny. However I was definitely confused through most of it! I felt that Sarah Ruhl's elements of realism conflicted with her elements of the surreal. I was never really sure when they were talking "in the language of the dead" or when they actually understood each other. I thought she did a very good job of taking the myth of Eurydice and turning it into a charming play. I found it a little difficult to follow because of the purely unrealistic conversations between the characters. I also thought the man character was very weird; however I think I am under the correct understanding that he was the one who killed her?
I thought this was an interesting take on the myth however. I really liked that Ruhl used many different forms of theatre through her writing. She mostly had the characters conversing in dialogue however occasionally she threw in a letter or a monologue or even a scene with no verbal presentation. This allowed for a more diverse play. I think that if characters converse in the same patterns through out the whole play it can make a play very boring. I really liked the use of the letters especially. They were able to establish feelings that the characters have toward each other without having to express them through a monologue to the audience or in a dialogue. I think this helped eliminate unneeded characters. Every character has a purpose, even the old grandmother. I liked that there were scenes with just the grandmother walking by even before the audience knows who she is. This is one of the disadvantages of reading the play, because the stage directions tell you who she is before the audience would generally find out when seeing this show in a theatre. This element of having characters that are unknown to the audience keeps the audience on their toes. I know that I would be curious to her purpose if I didn’t already know that she was the grandmother through the stage directions.
I think when a playwright models another story in his or her play, it is important to make it their own. I think Ruhl completed this task effectively. The myth always takes place from the man’s point of view. Not just in Orpheus’ case but also in Hercules, Odysseus and many other Greek stories and myths. I liked the relationship that Ruhl developed between Eurydice and her father. I also liked that the audience learns so much more about Eurydice because of this relationship. I do not think this would have been as effective if it were not that Eurydice did not remember her father. However, I was confused of how she suddenly got to know that her father was her father. I think that if one is going to take a story line and make it into their own you need to make sure that all your new relationships; characters and situations do not pull the audience out of the story.
I think that everyone has such a picture perfect image of what the lord of the underworld is like. I thought Ruhl’s interpretation was very out of the ordinary but an interesting take on this character because of the innocence that is usually affiliated with children.
Overall I thought it was an interesting take on the story of Eurydice. I liked that she wrote it mostly from the perspective of Eurydice herself, and I liked varying format of the play. I think one very important thing is keeping the relationships and actions of the characters work with the rest of the story, and to make sure you are not confusing your audience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The varied formats is a good observation and a good thing to try. Since we won't write any full-length long plays (and the ten-minute plays don't lend themselves to very many formats all at once), do feel free to just point to possible formats when you describe your full plays. For instance, for this assignment, you'll sketch out your whole plot -- you might also add thoughts like, "I'll communicate this plot point through a monologue disguised as a letter," or "I'm flirting with doing this scene as a pantomime." Or whatever. In any case, interesting thing to play with and you should.
ReplyDeleteIt's worth nailing down too when this play's confusion works for you and what it buys versus when it doesn't and simply costs the play too much. Clearly, it's not supposed to feel natural, real, straightforward, entirely sensical, entirely familiar, or especially clear. Your job as a writer is to figure out what that buys and whether maybe there are less costly ways to get it.
I'm glad you brought up the confusion of the play. I think when reading something like this, that is so surreal and abstract, it is sometimes hard to understand certain aspects when reading them on a page. However, we have to keep in mind that when performed, there are a lot of things that can be made much clearer. I know when I saw it, you could tell when people did not understand each other because their facial expressions or body language would change. When she finally began to remember her father, the actress was able to react in a certain way to a something that triggered her memory. It is a gradual process that we don't see all of so actors are definitely a big help in communicating that.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Ruhl did a good job varying the structure of the text of the play between monologue, dialogue, and silent scenes. I think this variety allows to audience to stay more interested, because I too think a play all done in one format can get tiresome. It's always important to mix things up :)
I agree- Ruhl could make clearer distinctions between the languages and point out when who is talking to whom in what language, etc. Perhaps, though, we are supposed to be confused at that point, mirroring Eurydice’s confusion at the time. Just a thought. Seeing it played out on stage might also help.
ReplyDeleteI also completely agree that re- creating a myth or well- known story is very risky business because it has to be done entirely differently than the original and WELL to distance it enough to make it work. Ruhl did do a good job with this. Do you think Eurydice’s relationship with her father detracts from the story?? I beg to differ. I think it just adds another dimension.
Varying structure is always a good idea to keep plays interesting and moving. Something to try out! :)
I also liked the multiple formats used in the play. They buy a new way to say old things, and a new perspective for ideas that the play has already brought up.
ReplyDeleteThe letters have so much power, partly because of the ambiguity of who will, can, and might read them. When a living person is writing to a dead person (or a dead person is writing to a living person as some of the cases were), one typically wouldn't assume that the "intended" reader would ever get to read the letter. However, in this book some of them do get to read their letters, but then the question is raised as to whether the writer expected them to or not, and whether the recipient understood the letter anyway, as their languages are discrepent.
Some of these questions would be cleared up by watching the staging (as you guys already mentioned!) but they would be often be open to interpretation by the director as well.